Hacker News Reader

Comment by abfan1127 | Hacker News Reader

the difference is the Alaska pulled natural resources out of the ground. Basic Income is just wealth transfer.

If we can't expect people to be employed such that they can support themselves, then we'll need to look into alternatives like this.

When you say "wealth transfer", from whom to whom? In this case you could argue the transfer is from the federal government to individual constituents, I don't think you can follow the dollars further then that. IMHO, it'd be refreshing to see a "wealth transfer" the benefited that bulk of the population, rather than an elite few (i.e. banking bailout during the housing crisis).

Hipster way to say "stealing" ;)

No, it's a way of saying "taxes".

If you think taxes are stealing, you don't have a problem with hipsters. You have a problem with governance of civilized society over the last hundred years (much longer for most of the world, since the signing of the 16th amendment in 1913 in the US).

Absolutely not. There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors. It s not stealing if it wasn't yours in the first place. It's ours.

> There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors.

You're confused. Depending on a factor does not mean that this factor owns what you produced. Example: To make ice-cream, you depend on cows. Cows do not own your profits.

Bad example, because we don't acknowledge the concept of animals owning things in the first place. The above argument is a moral one; arguing that closing the wealth gap is stealing (often) ignores that most "self-made" people depend on the labor of others and the recources we all use in society.

It sort of does, though.

That's where the concept of taxes comes from. You use the services that the government provides in order to create value. As such, the government claims part of the value that you created.

Ideally, then, the government reinvests into other services that future generations will also be able to use to create value.

We can have a disagreement over how much the government should be able to claim from individuals, but I have seen very few people advocate for no taxation.

Gun pointed at face, "no sir, this is not a robbery! Clearly you must realize that it was not you who made that iPhone! What a laughable concept! Truly sir you must realize that it was never yours to begin with, and as such it belongs to me and these cheery fellows with whom I am redistributing your wealth. Robbery, pish posh!"

Your problem is with a concept called "taxes".

You can be dismissive about it all you want, but you're the one who has a fundamental disagreement with how civilized society has been run for the last hundred years (or longer if you look outside the United States).

Your satire fails to hit the mark of making someone look ridiculous, because they are describing a long-established status quo. Society isn't going to think someone describing the status quo is ridiculous or crazy for defending the status quo.

Good.

Does it make a better work for a lot of people? Does it give a lot of people freedom? Does it give a lot of people more access to their basic human rights?

Then bring on wealth transfer.

Watching out for the rich and their tax rates is possibly the very last item on my list of priorities for "how to structure the world".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com