$100 million for a House

[Grisu]

I've struggled to follow the economic debate of the last couple of pages but here is a comment I can understand and agree with. Switzerland had an initiative on this a year or two ago. It didn't pass but it started a broad debate. Apparently Finland is discussing a similiar proposal at the moment.

There's a lot of details to be worked out, and the level of payment needs to be balanced carefully (CH was talking about CHF2,500 / month per legal resident; Finland hasn't put a number on it officially but most are talking in the €500 - 600 / month), but IMHO this solves so many problems it's worth trying to sort it out.

That's not quite accurate. The signature collection was 2 years ago. The initiative itself hasn't been voted on yet. It's set to be voted on sometime in 2016. It's not very likely though that it'll get even close to passing.

 

[aelf]

To be honest, I think actually giving out goods would work better and would be less open to abuse, which would obviously also have political benefits (nullifying complaints that poor people use the money to buy alcohol and flat screen TVs). Food centres offering decent meals and a balanced diet, free healthcare, free education.

Of course, the question is then who pays for all that? We are back to the question of taxes and, likely, progressive taxes, which work as some form of wealth limiter anyway.

 

[warmonger]

To be honest, I think actually giving out goods would work better and would be less open to abuse, which would obviously also have political benefits (nullifying complaints that poor people use the money to buy alcohol and flat screen TVs). Food centres offering decent meals and a balanced diet, free healthcare, free education.

Of course, the question is then who pays for all that? We are back to the question of taxes and, likely, progressive taxes, which work as some form of wealth limiter anyway.

Payment with goods defeats one of the main purposes of the scheme which is to remove the stigma of welfare. It is also a bit too nanny-ish for my tastes. The whole point is that everybody gets a basic income - you can earn more if you wish but it is not mandatory. Progressive taxation kicks in over the basic allowance. If someone wants to mainline their monthly allowance, or spend it on frivilous goods, why should you care?

 

[Hygro]

In the simplest terms I can think of, here's what I understand and internalized your message as; the cause behind why humanity moves towards more convenient moralities.

That's a really good takeaway. I'd like to add that there's more ways to arrive at the gist of the whole thing than economics, and all social science is going to be behind the curve. Watching the evolution of modern music has been one of the most informative avenues.

As a Marxist, of course there is such a thing as excessive accumulation of wealth, and it's not judged by the utilitarian yardstick either.

A utilitarian would say that the accumulation of wealth is good as long as more good is created than harm. A Rawlsian would say that the accumulation of wealth is good as long as the most disadvantaged section of the society benefits. Either one of these positions is liable to judge accumulation of wealth 'excessive' if it violates their respective maxims.

But a Marxist would hold that accumulation of wealth, if not capped, would inevitably lead to monopolistic capitalism. And I mean that in a sense similar to what Farm Boy said - you will lock some people out of the good life.

There's another way, of course, which is to give everyone a basic income so that a good life is possible for everyone, at least at a certain reasonable standard that most people can agree on. But modern capitalism has proven very resistant to such a solution, and I think there is a structural reason for that.

Universal basic income is fast on the horizon. I wish a guaranteed job was quicker on the horizon. Imagine you had a labor force running around making awesome parks and detailing infrastructure with that awesome 30s style art and inlay? That stuff is timeless and makes life better.

I think the "other way" is more realistically going to happen and is the better route to begin with. "Savings" is an inefficient route to investment and if people are hoarding money, then yeah, part of the problem is that no one is doing the social thing of providing a good or service to earn that. But people's utility curves do not make them linear consumers so it doesn't happen reasonably: i.e. the amount someone has to give themself up to get a dollar from a rich person is greater than from a poor person. But the amount of personal utility provided by that work is probably going the other direction. This is highly inefficient! This increases scarcity!

However, it's cool to have some people in the forefront showing which wants are worthwhile and which aren't, so we know what to build toward as a society. So there's benefit there. And when people work really hard to service picky rich folks, they develop skills that can translate well to informing mass production. This decreases scarcity and increases value per labor-time.

The tradeoffs are complex.

Basically what aelf said.
Also there was a miscommunication that was my fault: I should have used the pronoun "that" and not "it". You seemed to dismiss that excessive wealth accumulation exists.

The pronoun wouldn't change my answer, so I'm not sure if you mean something different than I'm taking it. I'm not dismissing it, I'm rejecting the idea that it's a proven starting premise. I don't take it as a given that people should stop rewarding people for doing things for others.

I don't know why you brought up utility, or what you mean by economic logic.

Because that's what we were discussing when you dove in with your "yea, and?"

To be honest, I think actually giving out goods would work better and would be less open to abuse, which would obviously also have political benefits (nullifying complaints that poor people use the money to buy alcohol and flat screen TVs). Food centres offering decent meals and a balanced diet, free healthcare, free education.

Of course, the question is then who pays for all that? We are back to the question of taxes and, likely, progressive taxes, which work as some form of wealth limiter anyway.

In addition to stigma, studies already demonstrate that allowing people to make their own choices with the money value of the payout leads to better outcomes than leaving it to a central planning committee.

 

[Borachio]

If someone wants to mainline their monthly allowance, or spend it on frivilous goods, why should you care?

Let me make a stab at an answer to your question: because human misery isn't something to just ignore, even if it's self-imposed misery.

Look, some people can live comfortably on a certain sum of money, while others can get in hopeless muddle on the same amount. It's not enough to just give people money, I think, they also need to be taught (if it isn't obvious to them - and often enough it isn't) how to manage that money in an effective way.

 

[Cheetah]

Just pay it out daily then, and make it impossible to sell, rent, lease or otherwise transfer or use as collateral.

Then even people who won't save will still have money every day, and if they then still choose to throw it away on booze, then that is completely their own right to do so.

 

[Lohrenswald]

However, it's cool to have some people in the forefront showing which wants are worthwhile and which aren't, so we know what to build toward as a society. So there's benefit there. And when people work really hard to service picky rich folks, they develop skills that can translate well to informing mass production. This decreases scarcity and increases value per labor-time.

The tradeoffs are complex.

I really don't see what makes you think that currently it's being made clear which wants are worthwhile or not. There's so much garbadge being produced.
And that serving "picky rich folks" is good for you is a despicable notion.

The pronoun wouldn't change my answer, so I'm not sure if you mean something different than I'm taking it. I'm not dismissing it, I'm rejecting the idea that it's a proven starting premise. I don't take it as a given that people should stop rewarding people for doing things for others.

The people who run fast food corporations are making people less healthy. They are rewarded.
The workers in fast food resturants who make all this wealth for these owners are paid very little. They are as good as punished.

It's rediculous to propose that the high-ups have "rightfully earned" the extemely large portion of the wealth that they currnetly have.

Because that's what we were discussing when you dove in with your "yea, and?"

I don't quite see it, but I'll accept this.

 

[Hygro]

Do u even read bro

 

[Borachio]

I can read OK. It's understanding what I read that I often find hard.

Also, I absolutely never read what I write. That way madness lies.

 

[Hygro]

I can read OK. It's understanding what I read that I often find hard.

Also, I absolutely never read what I write. That way madness lies.

I find reading what I write to be very uncomfortable, but one of the quickest ways to make my posts worth reading by others.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Providing a minimum income =/= capping wealth for the very rich.

From last January: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/world/wealth-inequality/

(CNN)Turns out, the rich really are getting richer. And they'll soon own more than the rest of us put together.

So says a new report, which estimates that the richest 1% will have as much wealth as the other 99% combined by next year.

"The richest 1% have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014," Oxfam says in a report Monday.

At that rate, the wealthiest will own more than 50% by next year, according to the report.

"Do we really want to live in a world where the 1% own more than the rest of us combined?" asked Winnie Byanyima, executive director of the international aid agency.

'Global inequality ... simply staggering'
Byanyima will co-chair the annual World Economic Forum in Davos this week.

She plans to use the platform at Davos to call for urgent action on the rising inequality.

The 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people, the report says.

"The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering; and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast," she said.

"It is time our leaders took on the powerful vested interests that stand in the way of a fairer and more prosperous world."

Call for action
While 1% of the population owns 48% of the world's wealth, a majority of the remainder follows the same trend.

"Of the remaining 52% of global wealth, 46% is owned by the rest of the richest fifth of the world's population," the report says.

The remainder of the population only possesses 5.5% of global wealth.

Their wealth last year? An average $3,851 per adult, the report says.

'Global elite'
Meanwhile, the "global elite" members had an average wealth of $2.7 million each last year, it says.

The report comes a day before President Barack Obama is expected to unveil proposals that close tax breaks on the wealthy.

The top 20% of the world's rich own 95% of the wealth. The top 1% own half. Having a minimum income in some western countries is merely throwing a bone at the problem.

I wonder how much "excessive" wealth would be generated for more general use by the world's people if household wealth were capped at $100 million in assets? Could it be used as a rixsing tide to better "raise all boats" than it current application?

 

[Lohrenswald]

Do u even read bro

Sure

If it's the thread you're referring to

 

[Yeekim]

I wonder how much "excessive" wealth would be generated for more general use by the world's people if household wealth were capped at $100 million in assets? Could it be used as a rixsing tide to better "raise all boats" than it current application?

Given that you yourself just quoted the "global elite" having average wealth of less than 3 million, "household cap" at 100 million would change very little.
Of course, such a cap, where ever you'd set it, would be impossible to effectively implement in practice.
Also, to get a fair and balanced picture, we'll also need to see how total wealth has changed.
Having a smaller share of an overall larger pie may be better than having a large share of a small one.

 

[jackelgull]

There's a difference between having a smaller share of a large pie and living paycheck to paycheck, barely scraping on by.

 

[warpus]

The solution is not to cap what a person is able to hoard, but rather make it easier for people to get ahead by setting up a good enough social safety net, etc.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's not how nets work. Nets catch and drag along, they don't get anything ahead. In fact, they can sort of make it even harder to get ahead, people get caught in the nets. Like with say section housing and concentration of the povertous. For bonus fun points you can look at effects when places like Chicago realize this and jettison parts of their poorer projects into surrounding borderline(also not rich, they won't take them) areas.

 

[Lohrenswald]

The solution is not to cap what a person is able to hoard, but rather make it easier for people to get ahead by setting up a good enough social safety net, etc.

Why not? It seems very sensible.

 

[aelf]

Providing a minimum income =/= capping wealth for the very rich

The top 20% of the world's rich own 95% of the wealth. The top 1% own half. Having a minimum income in some western countries is merely throwing a bone at the problem.

I wonder how much "excessive" wealth would be generated for more general use by the world's people if household wealth were capped at $100 million in assets? Could it be used as a rixsing tide to better "raise all boats" than it current application?

A minimum income, if sufficient, would vastly improve the living conditions of the poor, even if it's just throwing a proverbial bone to them. That's how unequal and unjust the world is.

But even if paying for this is by no means the same as a wealth cap, see how hard the rich will fight it. There may be some like our resident fatcat here who don't mind, but there are also hordes of the wealthy and their supporters who will resist with every rhetoric and law aimed at the 'scroungers' that they can muster. I don't know why people are optimistic about a basic income in this thread; I'm not, at least about a basic income that would actually suffice.

 

[warpus]

Why not? It seems very sensible.

It wouldn't work. If you're rich enough to be near your limit, you would find workarounds, offshore or not.

Also say that the limit is $50 million and you have investments of $49.999 million in your accounts. What happens on your accrued interest in your savings accounts and elsewhere once they push you over the limit? Just one problem with the idea.

That's not how nets work. Nets catch and drag along, they don't get anything ahead. In fact, they can sort of make it even harder to get ahead, people get caught in the nets.

I'm sorry, but that reads like silly propaganda. If that were true we could completely disband social safety nets and it would hurt nobody. And yet here we are...

Strong social safety nets are important and strong foundations of a society that makes it possible for people get ahead. That's why most western countries have strong social safety nets - Those who have subpar safety nets suffer in the social mobility department.

 

[Lohrenswald]

It wouldn't work. If you're rich enough to be near your limit, you would find workarounds, offshore or not.

Not neccesarily
I don't see why you think that's a given

Also say that the limit is $50 million and you have investments of $49.999 million in your accounts. What happens on your accrued interest in your savings accounts and elsewhere once they push you over the limit? Just one problem with the idea.

The state takes it
call it a tax bracket taxed at 100 %, if you will