this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
1253 points (93.3% liked)
Political Memes
5501 readers
1854 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
First of all, everyone does not get an X% increase in their purchasing power. That could only happen if everyone had the same income. And unless the government is just printing money to pay for the program, they're paying for it with higher taxes, so the net affect on wealthier people with be a decrease in their net income.
Second, even if a government was crazy enough to pay for it by printing money, the affects on buying power are pretty much the same as with taxes: rich people's money loses a lot more value than poor people's does simply because they have more of it.
Third, are you seriously suggesting that taking money from group A (or devaluing their money) and giving it to group B won't make the group B more wealthy and group A less wealthy?
Finally, competition in markets is a thing. A business can't just increase its prices without the risk of driving away customers. And even if a business somehow knows your financial situation well enough to know you just got an $X increase in your income, they still have no idea how much of that money you're willing to spend on that business's higher prices.
"First of all, everyone does not get an X% increase in their purchasing power". Yes they do, that is the definition of a UBI. Currently, everyone has different levels of income. if you give everyone an equal amount of additional income, you have by definition increased everyone's purchasing power by X%.
"rich peoples money loses a lot more value than poor people's does simply because they have more of it". I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
"Are you seriously suggesting that taking money from group A and giving it to group B won’t make the group B more wealthy and group A less wealthy?" No? I haven't suggested that at all? You've jumped a lot of hoops to get from what I've said to this conclusion. Firstly, who said UBI must be funded through taxation? Secondly, presuming the model you have described (not UBI, but wealth distribution via taxation), it's important to define what your measure of 'wealth' in this scenario. Of course if you take money from group A, and give it to group B, group A has less and group B has more. But that's only half the equation. If the cost of everything jumps because the market corrects itself relative to purchasing power of consumers, the 'value' of that so-called 'wealth' at the end of the day may not have changed. The question at hand is whether UBI will reduce cost of living pressures, and the relative cost of goods and services is a part of that equation which you need to factor in when evaluating outcome.
"A business can't just increase its prices without the risk of driving away customers". Correct. See my previous comment on all the ways this isn't true in practice when considering market dominant forces like monopolies and similar. Economics is complicated. UBI is not the solution you think it is. You may be confusing it with Wealth Distribution, which is what taxation seeks to address (among other things)
This is gonna be a really tedious conversation if I have to explain arithmetic to you.
If Johnny has $100 and Suzie has $10, and I give them both $5, Johnny's wealth has gone up by 5% and Suzie's has gone to by 50%. If, furthermore, I pay for it by collecting $9 in tax from Johnny and $1 from Suzie, Johnny has lost $4 overall while Suzie has gained $4, and their combined wealth hasn't changed a bit.