General Discussion

11946 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.

🪆 About Lemmy World

🧭 Finding Communities

Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse and Feddit Lemmy Community Browser!

💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:

[email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
[email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
[email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
[email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!

Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.

0. See: Rules for Users.

No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
No Ads/Spamming.
No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

992

Does this plan make sense? v2 (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

378 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don’t give “too much money to the poor”? What even is the worst case for that when you have production levels where a) there should be no poor people to even give them money and b) even giving “too much money” to everyone right now wound only marginally effect the economy.

How do you mean? Maybe that read wrong - again, not a native speaker - but I meant that instead of just giving everyone more and more free-floating cash, once you've tackled societal poverty to an acceptable enough degree, it seems far more important to transfer extra cash stripped from billionaires etc into projects that enhance the quality of life for everyone, like public free healthcare, free public transport, free internet access, etc etc.

Sure, everyone wants and frankly needs a certain amount of money they can freely spend on luxury items even beyond a basic need, but once a certain level of that is achieved, I feel there's so many society-benefitting projects that should get money first. That is to say, we should not try to repeat the same mistake that ultimate led to the shit we're in now, the whole "more money is more better" error. Enough money + not much need for money to begin with feels much more stable to me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh, yes, I understand that as the same thing - giving money to people (negative taxes) and building them infrastructure (that they don't need to pay for as there isn't a profit invective).

And absolutely the second thing, building infrastructure for the people, is way better and more efficient. I don't need as much money/basic income to live in a world with good public transport, healthcare, housing, etc.

I'm not even a big advocate for money as a concept going forward actually.

Sorry if I misunderstood you (not a native speaker either), we are thinking the same thing, the function of basic income now (overcoming living costs greatly influenced by profit margins) is not the same as what it's function would be if companies had less power over people.