Comment by thaumaturgy
10 years ago
I can't tell if this is an argument you are making, or just an argument you're saying exists, but there are several problems with it.
First, "hardworking peoples' income tax" already goes to people who, in their view, don't deserve it. Not just in the form of welfare and social programs that already exist, but also in the form of massive business in the defense industry or in the environmental industry, depending on where your political views lie.
Second, I'm far, far less concerned with who gets my tax money -- or even, to some extent, how much I have to pay for taxes -- than I am with my own financial future. If someone wants to propose a program which would make my taxes go up but also substantially increase my supply of potential customers ... that sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
> First, "hardworking peoples' income tax" already goes to people who, in their view, don't deserve it. Not just in the form of welfare and social programs that already exist, but also in the form of massive business in the defense industry or in the environmental industry, depending on where your political views lie.
Telling people that things are already bad is not going to convince them to support policies that will make things even worse.
> Second, I'm far, far less concerned with who gets my tax money -- or even, to some extent, how much I have to pay for taxes -- than I am with my own financial future. If someone wants to propose a program which would make my taxes go up but also substantially increase my supply of potential customers ... that sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Good for you. If the majority of voters thought that way, we would already have a much better welfare system than we actually do. So, they must not think that way, and there is no reason to believe they will make an exception for basic income.
It's starting to sound more like this is your argument, rather than one you're charitably reminding us all of.
> Telling people that things are already bad is not going to convince them to support policies that will make things even worse.
Well, that's one way to describe that point, I suppose. About the wrongest way, but one way.
Another way is: "this is a proposal which is not very different from what we already do, but might have a much better outcome."
Unfortunately, that's not a debate we can probably have, since we're having trouble agreeing on the meaning of English words.
> If the majority of voters thought that way, we would already have a much better welfare system than we actually do. So, they must not think that way, and there is no reason to believe they will make an exception for basic income.
Ah, the "ignorance is permanent" position. Sorry, I've got too many years of experience in arguments on the internet to want to spend any time on that.
If it isn't already clear to you that people's minds can be changed for better (or for worse) when presented with either evidence or convincing arguments, then I'm not sure which reality you're living in but it's not the same one I am.