this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2021
13 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44656 readers
910 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The UBI is a huge unnecessary expense in developed countries and an impossibility in developing countries. It is a terrible idea, especially if the aim is to have quality public services. In addition, it can discourage active job search and/or the inability to hire someone. On top of that, the market would simply adapt to this measure by raising prices.
To get out of poverty, stop drowning people in taxes, allow a wide contractual freedom and above all, eliminate the privileges of some oligopolies by completely withdrawing patents (like closed source software) and eliminating millionaire subsidies. In this way, the playing field is balanced by introducing more competition and allowing wages to rise where they need to rise.
How do you see this working to stop poverty? E.g. lowering taxes generally has reduced funding for public services needed by the poor. Contractual freedom works generally better for those who are in a better position to negotiate, i.e. those who are not poor.
If you have a bill to pay today, kids to feed today, to eat yourself today and are without cash, contractual freedom would drive you to slavery in a minute, wouldn't it?
I agree with this as a measure, however I can't see how it would level the playing field, given that the rich have been subsidised for decades. To level the playing field, you would need a strong inheritance tax for the top 1%, as well as mechanisms to reverse the re-distrubution to the top that we had going for 40 years.
There is a plethora of jobs that are going disappear in the future. It wont be about salary but what kind of job.
And if you don't have a job, how can tax abolition help you?