Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It (inflation) is besides the point really isn't it?

Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those.

> Why should the tax payer pay for someone sitting on their behind?

There are a host of reasons, here's a few off my head:

- We accept there will always be people we will pay to sit on their behind (disabled, elderly, mentally ill, students going to university, veterans, retired government employees, etc.). It's important to recognize we already pay a huge number of people (about 5 million, or 20% of Australians according to one of my links above) to "sit on their behind"

- It gets them off the street and therefore not out committing crimes.

- Because you're happy doing what you're doing (going to work, I presume) and those people are happy doing what they're doing (nothing). So everyone is happy right now. If you force them to go to work you'll be unhappy because you'll spend all your time forcing them, and dealing with other massive societal problems like crime, and they'll be unhappy because you're making them go to work when they don't want to. So you would reduce happiness by forcing them to go to work. Also likely they'll do a terrible job at whatever work you force them to do, which is not good for society.

If you want to rebut that last point by saying "but I'm not happy (going to work)" then there is an extremely simple answer - Quit. Get the free money and do nothing all the time. Of course I already know you won't do that because it won't make you happy, and you don't want to live on $1k a month (it's good enough, but not great). Plenty of people actually do try it for a while (I did)... and then they come back to paid work again because overall for 95% of people (as proved by evidence) life is better.

Everyone is already doing what makes them happy, so leave it alone.

Remember, US tax payers are spending literally trillions of dollars on wars and bailing out banks (again)... would you rather the Australian government spend those tax dollars that way, or spend it on improving the lives of Australians who are in Australia?

America is not spending trillions on their military, and even then it's still barely affordable. To give every American 12k per year would cost about 10 times the military budget (7 trillion versus 780 billion).

And that's before we even discuss shenanigans like debt jubilees and free healthcare.

Even dramatic cuts to the us military barely make a dent to these kinds of spending proposals.

The military budget isn't the entirety of military spending. It doesn't include the VA budget, the DOE budget (maintaining those nukes), the actual cost of wars themselves, etc.

Adding up all the parts, it's pretty close to a trillion a year - about 933 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-ch...

The money paid as UBI doesn't disappear from the economy. People on low incomes spend everything they have and that money supports local shops, bars, restaurants, factories, etc.

> Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those.

You completely missed the point. I am against the principle of me (a tax payer) paying for someone else not working unless they can't work (unable to work). The inflation argument is completely irrelevant.

> If you want to rebut that last point by saying "but I'm not happy (going to work)" then there is an extremely simple answer - Quit.

It is besides the point. The principle is that I earn my way and I stand up on my own two feet. It not about liking work or not liking it. It is entirely besides the point.

> Get the free money and do nothing all the time. Of course I already know you won't do that because it won't make you happy, and you don't want to live on $1k a month (it's good enough, but not great). Plenty of people actually do try it for a while (I did)... and then they come back to paid work again because overall for 95% of people (as proved by evidence) life is better.

This is why it is irritating arguing with people like yourself. It isn't about the facts. It is about the principle. When I am working I don't want to be paying my tax for someone sitting on their behind.

> Remember, US tax payers are spending literally trillions of dollars on wars and bailing out banks (again)... would you rather the Australian government spend those tax dollars that way, or spend it on improving the lives of Australians who are in Australia?

Just because banks got bailed out in the past (which was wrong) doesn't mean it is okay to do something else that isn't ethical.

> It isn't about the facts. It is about the principle.

What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyone work.

Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.

I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said, maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.

As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)

> When I am working I don't want to be paying my tax for someone sitting on their behind.

As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?

The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

Do you honestly think it's the 5% of people who choose to be slackers to the tune of $1000 a month who are causing a problem? or are you just outraged they are actual people who get to sit and do nothing while you go to work, but you can't feel that same outrage at a faceless corporation?

> What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyone work.

They said back in the 80s and 90s The computer revolution would stop end all the office work. Now there are probably more people in offices than ever. I think automation will just create different jobs. Neither you or I will know what those are likely to be.

> Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't ethical to rely on the good people in the population to work and pay for people that can't be bothered.

> I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said,

No I find it to be completely unethical.

> maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.

I am not living a better life. Things are largely the same for me. Those unwilling to work are living at the taxpayer's expense.

Also I don't care about happiness. There are other things that are more important than happiness. I don't care about my own happiness. Happiness is for children. This is a deeper philosophical question that I will admit I don't have the tooling for. However you keep on saying happiness like I care about it.

Also if you making arguments about Happiness isn't the best way to go on it. There are accounts of slaves being happier being slaves than being free.

> As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)

I've told you the "facts" are irrelevant to me (and many others). Even if it was 0.01% of the UK I still think it would be wrong. I don't want to pay for people sitting on their behind. So you are forcing me to pay almost half my income for something I deeply disagree with, because not working isn't an option for me and never will be. It has nothing to do with enjoying work or not enjoying it.

> As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?

I am fine for paying for those things. Because that is what/who the state should be providing for. I am not okay for people sitting on their backside.

I don't care that theoretically there would be less crime. I couldn't care less. Also not having free money doesn't allow you to break the law.

> The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I haven't been conditioned by anyone to think this. It is incredible insulting to be told by you that I have a problem with something because I been somehow brainwashed. Please keep on having this attitude though because it won't do you any good.

> Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I agree they shouldn't have been bailed out.

> What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts.

What uk_programmer's original argument was that even if it worked, even if we could afford it, it would be wrong to make uk_programmer work for $5000/mo. and then take $1000/mo. of their money and give it to someone else.

Having a factual discussion about the implementation may be interesting, and may be worth discussing, but the argument has already been laid out on moral grounds. If you're going to continue answering the "How?" question and ignoring the "Why?" question, you're going to keep finding that you're talking across purposes from the GP.

(BTW, I think your "factual" case is severely flawed as well, but that's a story for another time.)

you are a cog in a economic system, you just ( as many here have ) fit into a spot in the machine that generates wealth at good levels. Your personal principles don't really make any difference. It's a system. There are a number economic principles at play. Worrying about individuals sitting around is not even a factor worthy of consideration, it's a simplistic layman reaction to quite a complex system. Even IF it was a problem, it's a problem to be addressed in other ways. Economically speaking, there are far bigger contesting problems to be dealt with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com