Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I think you're missing the point here, which is that a new system is meant to change the way things and the current system, and that if some of the same problems that exist today (inflation, tax avoidance) will exist tomorrow, that's ok, because they are not the problems being addressed.
If jobs need to be done, they should be paid enough to be done. If UBI makes it so that they need to be paid more to be done, then they will be paid more to be done. And if UBI does that, it suggests they were not properly valued in the first place, and were instead just taking advantage of a broken system. You essentially require all jobs that exist solely on the back of taking advantage of the need to survive, and you force them to be paid closer to the value of the work. Is being a janitor any less important or valuable than being an accountant? And if so, does the discrepancy between pay accurately reflect the discrepancy between value? Maybe not. Just because a job does not require an education, does not mean it holds significantly less value than one that does (this goes back to the education argument earlier). It feels vaguely like the perception that white collar work is more important or valuable than blue collar work, which I don't think is valid.
And unless you can show with some degree of evidence that the increase in tax avoidance and inflation will outweigh the benefits of UBI, it's not a compelling argument. Just saying some problems that currently exist will also exist later, is not swaying anyone.
|
Lol. Why am I the one who has to show my argument won't work, when you're proposing a totally theoretical system that flies in the face of all easily observable economic trends? It's a basic principle of economics that when you increase taxes, people have less motivation to work. It's been shown time and time again. People are literally bringing home less pay from their added work.
You're proposing a system that provides more funds to people doing undesirable work. You're, however, dodging the issue of who provides those funds, which is middle class income earners - who are taxed more- and the businesses themselves - the majority of which are small privately held businesses that already have a low survival rate.