|
My main issue with a minimum income is that you would still probably end up with a bunch of people starving to death or homeless. Even if people technically have enough money, they might do dumb things (due to being financially illiterate or some other reason). While those things would, indeed, be dumb, I think it would still be bad if people starved to death because they spent too much of their mincome payment. This is especially true if the mincome is as tiny as the OP proposes. Under a proper welfare system, on the other hand, services are supplied directly, rather than indirectly through just giving people cash and letting them choose how to spend it. This would prevent such a problem and still stimulate the economy (since every dollar a person earns that isn't spent on shelter/food can be spent elsewhere).
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
It is possible for globalisation to improve conditions while also being fundamentally immoral*. Here's a simple and extreme, but accurate, analogy: There are ten people; one with $100,000,000 and others who are close to starving. The person with $100,000,000 then gives $1,000 to each of the other nine people. In this situation, the other nine people are undoubtedly better off due to the actions of the rich person. But the situation is still a grossly immoral one. And it's even worse if you make the analogy more accurate by adding a condition where the rich person benefits from (and is dependent upon) the work of the others. *I actually don't have any problem specifically with globalisation; I don't think it has any problems that aren't inherent to capitalism in general
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 19:54
|
|
.png)