Next comes the conversation between Maximo Ramallo and me. Here’s how he started:
Hello, lets get to the facts.
When experimenting with new policies one has to see what has been done, and currently in south america there has been implementations near the UBI concept and the results were ever positive, as eye openers
Of course tax evasion is a problem, but we can not deny this is a problem with or without the UBI or related. Plus much of the source from new tax evasion have their consequences, for lets say if there is an implementation of a basic income on a particular group in society, lets say that targets individuals with disabilities, a tax evasion that clearly takes jump from this new tax, is an act of discrimination, and thus, can be, and I remark, it can be penalized.
Now, one must see the benefits of this and prior experiences shows that boosts the economy at levels unforeseen. It is not just a social justice issue anymore.
To that i’ve replied:
Thanks for your contribution, Maximo. I’ve focused on my idea of a private property limit in this thread, and not a universal basic income. Both ideas are quite different, even though they could be combined quite well. Your points would fit quite well in the Basic Income board here on the forum.
I do agree with you that tax evasion is always a problem and that a UBI would in fact generate some overall economic benefits. Your idea about coupling tax evasion to discrimination is an idea that sounds intriguing While it’s true that tax evasion can be punished anyway already, the moral outrage against tax evasion can be amplified by pointing out that minorities will suffer from the consequences of not paying for a UBI or some other social security system.
Nevertheless, I am curious what you think about my PPL idea from the initial post, Maximo.
I saw an opportunity to speak about tax evasion on the reason the PPL has this, mixed with influence dynamics. I’ve explained tax evasion, and now about influence dynamics is what one could say the power of the wealth of someone gives to that person. By either owning their wealth under several laws (not just one), or by paying other people to enforce this belief (police, private police, etc.). It can not like us, but still is how the current system operates.
Those were on the implementation part people disagrees more, and now here is what I think. I think one has to calculate over what percentage of the wealth is actually usable, what percentage is actually self originated, and what is the equilibrium to sustain the whole system (“human kind”). Any PPL must adequate variables to achieve results that are economical, ethical as well mathematically correct.One part (of many) from the puzzle to solve this is that idea you and I have in common, and youcalled “quantified prestige”.
That is my opinion.
Quote from: Maximo Ramallo
I think one has to calculate over what percentage of the wealth is actually usable, what percentage is actually self originated, and what is the equilibrium to sustain the whole system (“human kind”).
Those are interesting thoughts. But they require to elaborate on what it actually means for wealth to be “usable”. Usable by whom for what? A general economic problem is if money is hoarded and not used for consumption or investments. Temporary saving for larger consumption or investment is fine, but keeping money away from the actual economy for too long is rather harmful.
How do you measure whether wealth is “self originated”? Is that everything that is not inherited? What about wages? I guess those can be called “self originated”. What about company profits? Seems a bit less clear. Who is responsible for creating company profits? Everyone who works at that company? Or even the investors? And what about interest on money? Not self originated?
The equilibrium to sustain the whole system seems to be a really important thought. It doesn’t make much sense to let people starve or be so poor, sick and uneducated that they cannot contribute to the economy in a meaningful way (apart from the fact that it’s ethically unacceptable). A conceptually easy way to get to that equilibrium is to introduce a universal basic income. And adjust its height to get to an optimal equilibrium. But how do you compute that equilibrium in the first place? Sounds like a tough job for economists.
I will speak generally but the raw work is deeper of course, each part needs to be detailed separately.
Usability is the mean over an individual can take its wealth and convert it into actionable, personal goods, or further means.
Speaking aside, one must think on the insurance of goodwill of usage does not relies on the person itself, but on the structure where its wealth its preserved. this impersonal approach derives on having the person of interest separate physically from the wealth, or such a person must save a designated location, or by a designated system. What I mean is that even if this individual has its wealth in a bank, such a wealth is still under watch.
Now, keeping on how we calculate the usability of the wealth holder, we can not split its usability without other individuals. Think on a well, if a town shares a well, does the water is overall owned by the first who take it, even if others are left thirst? We simply can not split this calculation.
Self origination is supposed to be more complex, thus we must think in subdivision of origins. On one side we have the individual’s physical means to achieve such a wealth, and this is today subject of current study for many investigators on tax evasion and money laundry. On the other hand we have the historical records of work from organizations, which must be taken into account because one can have unfair wages lifting the head of the corporation’s own gain. Then again the entirety of one corporation could be taken as an individual, also we could take into account investors, and inherited wealth, but this overlaps another subject over enterprises and more concepts, and this reply is already long, too sparse.
The “equilibrium of humanity” is in part what I’ve said before, but even so I do not know to have solved completely because it gives different outcome depending on the existence of wealth. One could say that nowadays there is no scarcity, and this makes things easier to save the surplus as benefits and bonus for entrepreneurs and first standers. Of course, after giving what one could call UBI (which is not the concept
that better approaches the model I sustain).
Thinking a bit on economists by the way, one must have an approach which not relies solely on an unhealthy view of “competition” for not falling onto the “social darwinism” mistaken view. Then we can say its easier to see what function an economist must handle.
NOTE: I would not focus solely on my views on this, and that is why my first goal is becoming a reality the software needed for automatic check for these theories, which I stated on another post.
Ok, interesting answer. It shows that things get quite complicated when one wants to actually break down and define all relevant terms.
Let’s me try to ask a different question: If we already have a global UBI (hypothetic future scenario), would a PPL still make sense? In that situation, income would have a lower limit and property would have an upper limit. If the PPL could be enforced globally, by some kind of bureaucratic institution or network that is able to measure wealth correctly, in some sense, would that be a good thing?
What is the limit of power? If we state that the limit of power, is the power over another individual, then we can not deny there is a limit. This particular “post-scarcity” question I plan to extend on a sci-fi novel for its fruitful implications, and I would just love to show this on a story.
Think on a parallel situation, even if its a bit far. A current situation would be geopolitics than, took even in a partial way, is not just competing on limited resources, but actually trying to level the situation of the adversary from having so much power the situation leads to over-rule. This is another equilibrium and you could see its general, finding it in many cases from board games to physical sates.
And lets do not think this means an innate nature of competition, but indeed this shows us there are actors in play who “could try” to compete, by domination. One can call them as pleased, this kind of individuals have the goals of dominate not just raw resources, but actual people. And the resources are just means to dominate people.
Speaking of which, its like our current times are dominated by such individuals, if one has the data at hand than the resources today are enough to sustain the whole population, even if not equally distributed. And I do know of some reports fro the UN this shows some truth, but that is another story.