|
|
|
|
|
|
by ctl
4667 days ago
|
|
|
This is an incoherent argument. The people who successfully make money have a larger portion of it taken away by the government and given to people who don't make money. They recoup their losses by raising prices and re-extracting it from the people it has been given to That doesn't happen in the real world -- raising taxes doesn't cause runaway inflation. (How could you possibly think that it does?) BI has to be increased to keep pace with rising prices caused by funding BI [...] The endgame of the second option is Marxist communism Even if raising taxes did cause runaway inflation, this would still be wrong. Say that each year you set aside 20% of the GDP for basic income. Then your basic income plan already automatically increases with inflation. So the percentage of GDP used for basic income would be stable. We would never get communism. The endgame isn't the Soviet Union, it's Denmark. |
|
|
I agree that it doesn't cause runaway inflation (which we can see empirically), but it does cause economic contraction, which has many of the same effects as inflation. There's a good reason that one of a government's first relief measures in a recession is to ease taxes.
> Say that each year you set aside 20% of the GDP for basic income. Then your basic income plan already automatically increases with inflation.
It's important that we not conflate "inflation" with "consumer price index" here. The GDP is not fixed to the CPI - they have an inverse relationship. This means that if the GDP contracts significantly (reducing BI), the CPI could well expand outside of the bounds of what BI provides, necessitating the need for a greater BI contribution. Setting aside 20% of the GDP works until it doesn't.