this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
282 points (90.1% liked)

memes

17690 readers
1647 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't know how relevant this is now, but here's a link to another post where I expressed my thoughts on what kind of pitfalls you might most likely face -- https://lemmy.world/post/36867409

By the way, what is this phenomenon on Lemmy? Let's say people are reluctant to read and comment on old posts published just a couple of days or a week ago, but with new ones, it's a completely different story. What kind of psychology is this? Or it seemed to me?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

balance sheet neutral and no new taxes will be raised then your going to need to make cuts to fund it. It’ll cost $4 trillion, let’s say part of that is existing deductions so bring it down to $3.5 trillion.

UBI of any amount always costs 0 at most. Any cuts to any programs means negative costs. This doesn't mean that no one's tax rates go up, but collectively, the discretionary government collects less from us, where UBI counts as a negative collection amount. UBI does permit getting rid of basic exemption without being regressive. That some investment income gets tax breaks now, like the basic exemption, can be calcuated as no tax break, but a cash cheque exactly equal to the tax break just for those who receive it. The optics of giving cash cheques just for the investor class would seem like bad optics compared to cheque amounts spread out to entire population/citizenry.

The guideline for program cuts is whether everyone, 90th percentile, or 80th percentile of program benefactors are better off with UBI instead, or with program adjustments, or program has ultra narrow oligarch benefits at great social/pluralist costs.

How is it more difficult to cut UBI as opposed to other programs?

SS is close to UBI for seniors. Not only did 8 years of GOP threats to SS solvency not happen, latest tax bill gave a "tax free" boost to SS benefits. The prequel to our current political reality is the movie American History X. The core complaints are that lazy negroes get a larger share of social benefits. And Rodney King incident is also a a key historical marker. Everything was still right with America when the Rodney King verdict occurred. Our political timeline exists as a reaction to the George Floyd murder verdict. UBI is unassailable because there is no reason to hate it, and no one getting "undeserved" extra benefit. Demonic fanatical hatred supporting fascism comes from some plausible manipulation vector.

If that’s the case then we need to take away there actual power which lies in there control of capital / the means of production. After UBI the billionaires will still have there money which they can use to fuck up the planet and our democracy.

Rich people employing you to make useful stuff that makes you both richer than not having that opportunity, while again, making useful stuff that people want, is not the problem with free and fair markets. Rich people corrupting markets through political sponsorship/control is the problem. Democracy has never resulted in freedom. UBI is more important freedom. Instead of trolling concern over UBI getting cut, you should be worried that genuinely needed/useful road maintenance still gets budgeted. UBI prevent corruption through an obvious individual cash sacrifice for any corrupt proposal, but even useful programs face an uphill battle when you are taking cash away from everyone to accomplish it.

Marx, by advocating for labour supremacism, is not much different than con artists (Ayn Rand, OG) simping for Oligarchism. There is not a more deserving supremacist class to the wrong question of which class should that be.