Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

> You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless.

I am envisioning a world where ultra-generous industrialists give away their wealth to help the world. You cannot say it cannot happen; it has/already is happening.

Indulge me for a moment, but isn't Bill Gates (along with Warren Buffet) giving away almost all their entire net worth in a very results-driven way to help raise the quality of life for the very worse off? And did Elon Musk (no fan boy comment here, just truth) not give away (really, offer to license at a very small cost) the patents necessary for existing vehicle manufacturers to make better electric cars?

Not everyone is greedy. Not everyone is an ultra-rich capitalist.

View on HN

Bill Gates' fortune (that he hasn't gave off yet, BTW) is around $80 billion. OK, imagine that he actually put all of it to charity, all 80 billion. Say, to finance the basic income in the US. Let's assume $1000 per month will be enough for the US (the Swiss are rich poor bastards). So, for how long it will last?

The answer is ONE WEEK.

Throwing Buffet, Musk, Zuckerberg and all other rich ultra-generous industrialists in the equation will probably extend the runway to several months, perhaps a year. But that would be it.

The bulk of purchasing power in capitalist countries is still produced by working middle class.

The top 0.1% has a lot more wealth than you're giving credit for.

The US has about 300 million people (well, more, but math is easier if you round it). At $1000 per month, that's a total cost of $300 billion / month, or $3.6 trillion dollars a year.

The US government spent $3.5 trillion in FY2014, according to Wikipedia.

It is $6 trillion. Will last for less than two years.

That's assuming there isn't a loss of value in being forced to liquidate $6T in holdings, which there certainly would be. For every seller there has to be a buyer and most eligible buyers would be having their assets seized by the government.

Right, which is significantly more than the parent indicated.

I'm not claiming that simply taking all the billionaires' wealth is any kind of solution, but that doesn't justify obscuring the facts.

The parent indicated "perhaps a year". In fact, "slightly less than two years". Not a big difference.

Twice as much is not a big difference?

No. Because these $6T are not liquid money. Once you cash these assets out, you'll get $3T if you're very, very lucky.

It's obviously not $6 trillion in cash...

[citation needed]

This can't be repeated enough.

When politicians start talking about taxing the rich more, they are really talking about the upper-middle class in the US. Otherwise there just isn't enough money higher up the income ladder to make it work.

I remember the NDP in Canada being asked who the rich were (back in a 1990's election). The said a family of 4 making more than $60,000 per year.

I have to give them credit for being honest.

What if its not "taxing the rich more" and instead, is "preventing them from capturing all of the productivity gains the economy is realizing"?

Because then we get into this real uncomfortable argument, don't we? About what ownership is? Because when you're taxed, people will say that's theft of what they've "earned". But the wealthy don't earn like everyone else. They earn as rentiers, of either land, capital, or intellectual property.

I'm suggesting the entire ownership model is going to need to be turned on its head. Otherwise, those who own what the rest of the world needs will continue to siphon wealth out of the economy, to the detriment of everyone else.

Most of that $1000 will be injected back into the economy (people will spend it), the money does not evaporate. It is more sustainable than you think.

Got numbers to back that up?

The only missing number here is the US population (320 million). Basic income per month of $1000 gives $320 billion per month, or 4 Bill Gates fortunes.

Also interesting because the ~$80bn Gates fortune isn't exactly like tomorrow he could have $80bn cash, with the intent of spending it, like basic income would provide. I don't think there are many billionaires with even $100m cash. So, the effects of 1000 people having $1000 vs 1 person having $1,000,000 are very different, and for this reason I find comparisons of the illiquid wealth of an individual to basic income propositions incongruent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com