It always comes down to the same set of arguments. The rich doesn't pay the price because money is nothing to them. The poorest have additional grants, so life is not that bad for them, even if they don't work. And who pays the most expensive fee for this? Middle class. The actually working class. The class that nobody thinks about, and the class that always funds everything.

In your world, the worst place to be is to be the middle class, because they don't deserve any grants, but still they earn just barely enough to sustain themselves.

Also, the difference between freeloaders in companies and freeloaders in your model of financing the poor is that we generally want to get rid of company freeloaders and we identify them as an unwanted behavior, and you want to encourage social freeloaders and defend their existence.

▲

piva00 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The poorest have additional grants, so life is not that bad for them, even if they don't work.

Have you ever been poor? From this statement alone I'd guess not because saying life "is not bad" when it's a constant stress about how to make ends meet, not only next month but many times the next week or even next day, is far, very far from "not bad".

> In your world, the worst place to be is to be the middle class, because they don't deserve any grants, but still they earn just barely enough to sustain themselves.

If they earn just barely enough to sustain themselves they're poor, not middle class. Middle class can afford their housing, food, leisure, etc.

In my world the rich would be paying much more, they depend on the whole societal machinery to be able to even accomplish being rich, not paying their due share for that is unjust and undeserved. That requires people thinking more collectively though, and the current system doesn't incentivise people to behave that way, you get ahead by being an individualistic asshole instead of someone who is trying to make society better through your businesses, products, and skills.

	▲	self_awareness 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> From this statement alone I'd guess not because saying life "is not bad" when it's a constant stress about how to make ends meet Will we both race who is more poor now? I know some poor people who paid $0 for the homes they live in. And I had to sign a loan contract for 20 years. I know some poor people who read books all day and have their small youtube channels for fun. Yet I'm the one who loses the majority of the day to sit in the office. The poor people I know are very different from your imaginated vision of poverty. > In my world the rich would be paying much more And how would you make them to pay more? When they control the legislations. How would you make Donald Trump to pay 75% taxes of his wealth? If he'll want then he'll become the president. Also people like you always seem to want to have the power of defining who is poor and who is not. This is poor. This is not poor. I don't want to be judged like this. Not by people who think they have seen it all, but it appears that all they've seen was just YouTube.

▲

ambicapter 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

??? If they earn barely enough to sustain themselves, they're not middle class by any sane individual's definition. They're poor.

▲

self_awareness 4 days ago | parent [-]

Well, you can use the "poverty line" definition to separate people who will get grants (below the line), and people who will pay for the grants (above the line).

So being just barely above the line means that you pay, not that you get. This is the worst place to be in.

Also, a lot of sane US citizens seem to use the "poor" word to describe someone who is not able to get the newest model of iphone. That's why it's generally hard to talk about the issue.

▲

piva00 4 days ago | parent [-]

> So being just barely above the line means that you pay, not that you get. This is the worst place to be in.

Why do you think that's how it would work? That's the most simplistic way of thinking about it, instead try to apply the same model of progressive taxation in reverse, you get less benefits the more you earn up to a threshold. Or just implement some form of UBI, there are many models for it as well.

▲

self_awareness 4 days ago | parent [-]

Or we do communism, the right way this time.

Last time I've seen communism being implemented the right way was the CHOP/CHAZ in Seattle. It ended up with some actual warlord taking a gun and killing some people. In the middle of the city.

Also, who do you think would pay for the UBI. It's not like UBI is some solution that was even implemented anywhere.

▲

piva00 4 days ago | parent [-]

Don't jump directly into the red scare through a slippery slope fallacy, it's just intellectually dishonest while being the most boring thought-terminating cliché on this type of discussion.

Wanting to live in a better and more just system, even if we can most realistically just work towards an improved version of capitalism, is probably something most of us can agree upon.

I don't think anyone sane is against people having their needs fulfilled so I don't think anyone sane would look at any system we live under and think "yeah, this is it, we found the perfect system".

So instead of deflecting into communism as a gotcha, why don't we behave as adults, and agree that discussing how to find ways to improve our systems of production, distribution of wealth, how we view the less fortunate, how society can be better overall for all of us, is quite fucking important?

Going directly into the pigeon hole of ideology is just lazy and unimaginative. Humanity did unthinkable achievements already, we can always try to do better, don't be lazy and unimaginative...

▲

self_awareness 4 days ago | parent [-]

We probably can agree on lots of things, about inefficiencies in current system and the like, but some elementary things between us are too far apart.

The ideas you identify as solutions, for me are the problems.

You can promote artificial redistribution all you want, but I will want to stop it however I can. If a global redistribution system would be implemented, then all your wealth would go to Africa and Russia, and you will be left with nothing. I'm sure this is not what you want, which in my POV makes you a hipocryte. If you don't agree that your wealth should go to Africa or Russia then we're in the area of choosing who is worthy of getting money and who isn't. And this is not at all different from a rich guy deciding where to put money to. So wealth redistribution from my POV just means that a poor guy wants to be in charge of the money now. But after he'll be in charge, it only means that he'll be the new rich guy. Nothing changes at all.

Pro-redistribution people are always talking about cash flowing from someone else to them. It's always the same story. And this is against what I stand for with all my determination, because I don't like thievery. Especially legal thievery.

	▲	piva00 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You go to absolute loaded language to talk about concepts that should be discussed in a more leveled language. You consider thievery just wealth redistribution but don't consider thievery the products of the exploitation of labour, for example. Why is it thievery to redistribute wealth from elites who are exploiting societal developments (education, skills training, etc.) so they pay their share back into the society which enabled them to become rich in the first place? Why is it ok that they can exploit a whole society's work for their own personal gain while gaming the system to not pay back to the thing that gave all foundations so they could play their game? You talk about redistribution in a black-and-white way, no nuance, you go to the extremes such as: > You can promote artificial redistribution all you want, but I will want to stop it however I can. If a global redistribution system would be implemented, then all your wealth would go to Africa and Russia, and you will be left with nothing. Which is a strawman, I did not touch on this point whatsoever, I did not talk about "global redistribution", you are the one bringing this up, in an utopic sense, yes, we could talk about it but I'm trying to discuss in realistic terms what could be improvements in enclosed societies (aka: national states) to improve the system. That's where we fundamentally disagree, you cannot talk in nuanced terms, it's either "communism!" or "you will be poor and give your money to all the poor in the world" instead of a level-headed discussion on the flaws of our current systems, how we could search for solutions to it. And even worse, you talk about "artifical redistribution" as if the current form is the "natural" one, what is natural about a few people who found ways to exploit the system for personal gain instead of the natural way of living collectively since we all depend on each other for societies to function since time immemorial? Your view is very conservative, it's unimaginative, it just states that what it currently is is what's natural and supposed to be. Challenge a bit more your thoughts, you are just repeating the same trope over and over...