[RivieraKid]

I think that 90% of people (100% on HN) understand this.

> How high would tax rates have to be, to collect enough money for basic income?

They would need to be significantly higher, but significantly more money would get back to the taxpayers too, so the aggregate demand would remain about the same, so businesses would be ok.

BI, if set up properly, can redistribute wealth in a very similar way as it's happening today (in Europe). The only difference would be side effects like lower fear of unemployment, which could make the labor market much more liberal.

[anoncowherd]

> I think that 90% of people (100% on HN) understand this.

Really? Well, then you should understand that the feedback loop I described alone is enough to make BI unsustainable, and thus not worth pursuing. But it doesn't seem you do. There's another feedback loop too: the more people are just sitting at home, the more will want to join them, and so on.

From another comment of yours: >> Do you think that wealth redistribution is wrong?

Do you think it's wrong for a mafia to extort money from you? -Yes? Well then, do you think it's wrong for the government to do the exact same thing?

You see, you'd pay "protection money" under threat of violence, but you also pay taxes under threat of violence. Spare yourself the mental gymnastics here. Forcefully dragging you to jail or just plain shooting you if you resist does actually count as violence.

Where do you think the "wealth" to be "redistributed" comes from? -Why from extortion, of course. Would a mafia's extortion be perfectly fine as long as they used your money "efficiently"? Heck, their spending of your money increases aggregate demand, so all is well!

>> There are many arguments suggesting that zero wealth redistribution is not the optimum. >> I'm convinced that wealth redistribution leads to higher aggregate utility. Whether it leads to higher nominal growth, I don't know.

You throw around these terms as if they meant something here in the real world, let alone after acquiring the wealth to be distributed through blatantly immoral means. What makes zero redistribution of stolen loot "not optimal"? I'd say it's actually precisely the optimum.

"Higher aggregate utility", "aggregate demand"? -Well there's Keynes again. False voodoo economics meant to justify/rationalize State spending and taking on ever more massive debt loads until, of course, eventually the nation's extortion income is wholly consumed in paying interest and the house of cards falls down.

Does an economy imploding help the poor? Does currency debasement and inflation (ie. loss of purchasing power) help the poor? Why no, no they don't. Quite the contrary, but those two are what governments are causing with massive printing and borrowing and using money they don't actually have.

[RivieraKid]

> Really? Well, then you should understand that the feedback loop I described alone is enough to make BI unsustainable, and thus not worth pursuing.

This was probably unclear, but I meant that people understand that goverment gets its money from the taxpayers.

> There's another feedback loop too: the more people are just sitting at home, the more will want to join them, and so on.

Perhaps, but I personally believe that this feedback loop is negligable.

> Do you think it's wrong for a mafia to extort money from you? -Yes? Well then, do you think it's wrong for the government to do the exact same thing?

It's definitely not the exact same thing, one of the differences is that it's what the society democratically decided. You can always move to a different country or convince people that they should vote for abandoning taxes.

> "Higher aggregate utility", "aggregate demand"? -Well there's Keynes again.

Higher aggregate utility is a term I created by myself (and I'm apparently not alone), it has nothing to do with Keynes.

> What makes zero redistribution of stolen loot "not optimal"? I'd say it's actually precisely the optimum.

1. Decreasing marginal utility of money. 2. Low income jobs are usually harder, less respected and less enjoyable. 3. Progressive taxes decrease inequality. This has many positive effects on society.

[anoncowherd]

> This was probably unclear, but I meant that people understand that goverment gets its money from the taxpayers.

The guy's point was that money has to come from somewhere, in this case, from taxpayers. The next step, then, is to think about the consequences of confiscating a massive amount of money more than before.

> Perhaps, but I personally believe that this feedback loop is negligable.

Your personal beliefs don't affect the way people behave: they pursue their personal gain. Business owners (ie. tax donkeys) will just fuck off if taxes get too onerous, and people will just stop working if it's just not worth it. Both feedback loops are very real, and will make any BI implementation unsustainable, and again, thus not worth pursuing.

> It's definitely not the exact same thing, one of the differences is that it's what the society democratically decided

You can't base any arguments on The People collectively deciding anything when the fact that taxation is extortion (or robbery) has never even crossed the mind of 99% of all people anywhere. Besides, only you can make decisions for yourself - no one else has the right to do that, because no one else is you. You own your own body, and your actions, and so does everyone else. We're all just individuals - not The Borg.

> Higher aggregate utility is a term I created by myself (and I'm apparently not alone)

Well, what do you think it means?

> 1. Decreasing marginal utility of money.

Does it actually decrease though? Clearly, if you want to eat an apple, the marginal utility of the next one is lower than the first's.

But if you first get 100 dollars, and then get 100 more, are the second 100 dollars less useful to you than the first? Well no, they're just as useful. Even past the point where the amount of money you have is not really meaningful wrt your everyday life anymore, each additional million dollars will increase your "security utility" just as much as the previous one.

So it's highly doubtful that money has decreasing marginal utility, and it's unclear where it might kick in. Maybe you'd like to explain what you mean, and why it's meaningful considering what we've just covered?

> 2. Low income jobs are usually harder, less respected and less enjoyable.

So what? Gain experience, and new skills, and get a better job?

> 3. Progressive taxes decrease inequality. This has many positive effects on society.

You're engaging in Socialist thinking. There's no class warfare (without the State, at least), and it's perfectly fine for anyone to get rich through pleasing their customers or just working hard etc.

You have your property, and others have theirs. That's it. You have no right to take anyone's stuff by force, and vice versa. This is important. Even police officers are just humans like you and me, and have the exact same rights as us.