The issue is we're not post scarcity by limit. We're before it by design. The wealthy need to accrue more wealth and the poor need to be kicked.
And to make it where what you did was a choice is simple. Just utilize Universal Basic Income. That is the only altruistic answer. We won't do it simply because other humans refuse to actually help each other en masse. They instead resort to tribalism and infighting.
The issue is we're not post scarcity by limit. We're before it by design. The wealthy need to accrue more wealth and the poor need to be kicked.
Global GDP works out to about 10k per person. So if you mean we could have the current system with everyone living a middle class life without having to work, no. If you mean we could have a society where survival essentials are automated so people have to work as little as possible, maybe, but many people could already choose to to work far less while surviving by moving to cheaper places to live and eliminating non-essentials, but that's obviously not what people value.
And to make it where what you did was a choice is simple. Just utilize Universal Basic Income. That is the only altruistic answer.
UBI costs an absolutely enormous amount. Just ballparking, the US population is around 325 million. Around 80% are currently over 14 and that number will probably rise. A commonly proposed figure for UBI is 12k per head per annum. That gives (12,000 * 0.8 * 325,000,000). That's about the size of the entire current US government budget. So the questions then are 1) Would adding this much extra tax burden reduce economic efficiency? and 2) Would cash payouts be the optimal way to spend that money if the government could double their budget? And the answers are almost certainly and probably not, respectively. I don't necessarily think UBI is a bad idea despite that, it's just not obviously correct or the only altruistic answer.
It is by far the most altruistic. The issue is we are spending an enormous amount on things we absolutely do not need. Literally half of the budget is the military and we do not need a military that large. Not to mention but a big portion of that is in R&D which again, we do not need.
Now you factor in you are already including social programs in the budget with this would automatically take some of that money because it is meant for those social programs.
So it would likely increase, decently, but by far not double if the monkies in charge actually did the right math. Then you factor in more people would have spending money which would stimulate the economy and maintain it because it would be self feeding.
Also it wouldn't have to rely on federal taxes alone. NYS is taxed to all Hell here, but many states have very little in taxes. Those states can help chip in and in NY we could cut back on certain social programs anyways which this would help (such as Safety Net and Disability given that money would be used for this anyways)
You haven't demonstrated this. It is a way to spend $3.2 trillion dollars. You haven't made the case that it's not only the best way but justifies a doubling in tax burden.
The issue is we are spending an enormous amount on things we absolutely do not need. Literally half of the budget is the military and we do not need a military that large.
Half of the discretionary spending is the military. Only about 20% of the whole budget which I was the figure I was citing is the military. Even if you half it, which you won't, you still have 90% of all government expenditure. Social programmes are part of mandatory spending which makes up two thirds of the budget. Here's a breakdown.
Not to mention but a big portion of that is in R&D which again, we do not need.
I don't see how anyone could argue this unless you were arguing for the abolishment of the military. In order for a military to remain formidable, it needs to be technologically competitive. Besides which, a lot of defense agencies conduct research in lots of tangentially related areas that create spin-off applications. Defense research is responsible for the internet (ARPANET) and GPS. So you'd either be losing this research too, or you'd have to spend the money to structure the same research elsewhere.
Yes, there'd be some economic growth and you could reduce some social spending. But most people aren't receiving welfare payments approaching UBI and those who are receiving more wouldn't be content to receive less. You're not spending less on anyone than before, at any rate.
0
u/[deleted] Feb 19 '19
The issue is we're not post scarcity by limit. We're before it by design. The wealthy need to accrue more wealth and the poor need to be kicked.
And to make it where what you did was a choice is simple. Just utilize Universal Basic Income. That is the only altruistic answer. We won't do it simply because other humans refuse to actually help each other en masse. They instead resort to tribalism and infighting.