Universal Basic income: the dividend model.
Government, in theory, should be a centralized power model that is controlled by the 99%, or “common folk”.
Instead, it is a centralized power model that is controlled by CORPORATE POWER.
Of course, this is because we as the people of the world have allowed our governments to be infiltrated openly. We have allowed for the advent of corporate lobbying, which is a recipe for global destruction.
I have observed people on this platform in their discussions about UBI.
One of the most unanimous arguments AGAINST basic universal income is the fact that governments take money out of our pockets via taxation to begin with....so we would just be getting back the same money that the government stole from us.
I agree with this argument 100%.
Of course, the UBI model that relies on public taxation is only relevant in the case of government controlled by corporate power.
If somehow the body of government (any government, or all government) ended up in the hands of the people, I.E., if it worked FOR the people, then this would allow for laws and legislations in favor OF the people.
I’m pretty sure that the majority of public opinion does not agree with lobbying, and in my opinion anybody who agrees with the current model of public taxation is misinformed.
If the government worked for the people, laws would be passed that obligate every corporation and bank not only to pay taxes: But to pay out dividends to the rest of society.
This obligation would have to be backed by FORCE
If corporations and any other profiteering conglomerate were FORCED to pay out a dividend to the rest of society, this would allow for a universal basic income.
Corporations are greedy hoarders of wealth and power.
They will do whatever it takes to profit: including harming everyday people and the very planet they live on.
As a result, corporations have to be FORCED to pay out dividends.
Well, they either have to be forced, or see some sort of profit in it.
If not forced, corporations would have to be convinced that public dividends are in their best interest.
If you have any ideas about how to enforce this, or how to make this look appealing to multi-national corporations: then please, comment below.
I have my own ideas but I would rather hear yours.
Thanks for reading.
As always, your attention is appreciated.
Note: this post is also part of the 30 day writing challenge initiated by @dragosroua
Feel free to follow @colouredcontent
We orchestrate abstract perspective and inspire new lines of thought!
Looks like crypto is completely annihilating the UBI ideas.
Does anybody have any ideas then?
How can wealth be redistributed?
Universal basic income is another word for communism whereby the most productive people in society are robbed to support the least productive. Fortunately, the blockchain, for now, has given people a way out of forced tax enslavement. Why should anyone pay taxes if they can't even support themselves. The best way to have universal basic income is to begin by eliminating the income tax. Whether it is emlinated or not really doesn't matter as it is increasingly easier to go global and diversify wealth.
Is a word invented.
Life providing for life has been the way since before this planet has been in existance
Omne Vivum ex vivo
Everyone has the right to thrive
Maybe surviving is not paying taxes.
yes.
All I am saying though is that billionaires and trillionares should give back to the rest of society.....but maybe all this talk is irrelevant because the monetary system needs to be scrapped as well.
I agree with you totally. The problem is that once someone has enough currency they are able to easily evade "the system". It is always the middle class who ends up supporting the poor and illegals. The best way to have universal basic income is to start by letting people keep what they earn. Redistribution is based on the assumption that a government can control wealth which is impossible in a global nearly borderless society. It is a noble idea but I can't see how it could be put into practice without enslaving the people it is meant to save. This is why the communist experiments of the past failed such as USSR and US public school system.
For sure.
However, It doesn't hurt to entertain such ideas!
Why shouldn't life provide for life?
I don't agree that people with so much wealth should be allowed to hoard it in such a fucked up world where the very life of the earth is ripped from the ground and replaced with concrete and police.
Its fucking sickening and anybody who doesn't agree is a sociopath
END OF STORY
The problem with taxing corporations in general is that 1) it puts an upward pressure on the price of whatever product or service they produce and 2) it tends to encourage companies to move to locations where they will not have to pay taxes (or have to pay less taxes). At the end of the day, there are people behind those corporations and they are the ones that ultimately get whatever wealth a corporation produces. There's no need to tax a corporation separately from the people that derive income from the corporation.
I believe governments should be controlled by the 99% (or really by the 51%) but governments power should be strictly limited and individual rights protected. I don't think government should have the power to redistribute wealth in this matter. It implies all kinds of other powers that are dangerous for a government to have. I don't believe it is moral for government to steal money that was morally earned to redistribute to others (and government should prevent corporations from earning money immorally in the first place, i.e. through fraud, etc.)
Lobbying is a trickier subject. Certainly lobbyists should not be able to use money or other coercion to get politicians to vote a certain way. On the other hand, citizens, rich or poor, should be able to lobby their congressman (which essentially amounts to presenting evidence as to why they should support or oppose certain measures). How you keep "favors" out of government is the hard part.
So what about taxing by income?
All taxation is ultimately theft but given that I think civilization would likely descend into chaos without government (at least as things stand today), I find a consumption tax preferable to an income tax. But certainly if you already have an income tax then a corporate tax doesn't really make sense. It's double taxation. The ultimate question is how much of the product of one's labor should the government be able to take? I think this should be strictly limited as a percent of one's income and then government expenses should be prioritized. Government can't keep coming up with new ways to spend money and then taking an ever larger share of the pie to pay for it.
hmm.....
Still, I don't think any rockefellar or rothschild would help any starving children have a future.
They just wouldn't; not by donation
It is "theft", perhaps, but based on robin hood principles.
Only if you trust government to be as fair minded as robin hood (which I don't). I'm not sure how much Rockefellers or Rotschilds give to charity (and the central banking system is a whole other issue that has to be addressed) but people like Bill Gates give massive amounts to charity.
TBH though, I don't believe charity helps people.
Building systems of living where people can thirve: That helps people.
Where their foundation is met so that they can now build their life; that helps people.
Charity keeps people in a perpetual cycle of reliance.
As far as trusting the government to be as considerate as robin hood: No I don't trust them.
I trust humanity. The citizens of the earth.
I trust that if things get bad enough: we will take back whats ours.
Obviously that algorithm should be based on balance
I am suggesting corporate tax as a replacement to income tax - or at least I am suggesting that people with the BIGGEST income should pay the most taxes or all taxes.
I am suggesting that a "dividend" be paid out to the rest of society.
This doesn't have to take the shape of UBI but I think they should be paying more than the ones trying to survive.
The fact that the guys on the bottom pay the most taxes is sheer nonsense.
But the guys on the bottom don't pay the most taxes. That's complete fallacy. 50% of people pay no income taxes at all and the top 1% pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 90%. The U.S. already has the highest corporate tax rate of the developed world (granted, there are many loopholes that mostly help the largest corporations). But jobs are already going overseas at an alarming rate. How would you prevent corporations from seeking a more favorable tax environment in another country? How about a consumption tax (even a VAT) that replaces all income and corporate taxes?
Can you prove this?
Im pretty sure the middle class pays the highest tax rate in proportion to their income
What if there were no taxes....and corporations were obliged only to give out a dividend to governments if they made a certain amount of money?
I think this is balanced and justified.
No, the middle class pay a lower proportion of their income (a lower percent).
What's the fundamental difference between a "dividend" and a "tax" that's redistributed to the people? Seems like the same thing for all practical purposes.
And again, what stops these corporation from seeking out more favorable tax environments in other countries?
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent
Well certainly a grounds of survival such as food water shelter land are needed.
This is why we have money in the first place - or better said - what weave replaced with money
They are needed but that doesn't mean they should be provided via force. I think if a society isn't willing to help out others in need then we have bigger problems. But people have been conditioned to believe that government is going to solve every problem for so long now that it is a hard mindset to change.
very true.
But what is the solution then?
I think the solution is fundamentally simple.
People need to survive and in my opinion they need a place to live / land to cultivate.
Thats it.
If that is had, money is not needed.
That one I'd like to see, corporations are set up for profits, anyone or anything gets in the way of their profits and they'll be sure to kick it out of the way, and being they actually own governments I doubt there is anything that can be done to force them to pay for this.
Of course.
But we can own our governments.
What we don't realize is that we are SUPPOSED TO own our governments.
Here is a project, seems to rely on user adoption for it intrinsic value.. Seems like it would work as long as people favor UBI in society, they will be willing to hold and exchange in this currency. This is almost a year old now. I wonder how they are doing.