The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
The “Net Worth” figure is deceptive, because it’s the exchange value and not the use value. Sitting on tens of millions of vacant real estate units, many of which are underwater on their purchase price, shows up as far less on an individual balance sheet than the material benefit of not being homeless accrues to a homeowner.
The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
If that was true then taking all their capital and distributing it would be more than $31k/person/year for each individual receiving their share of the 8.4 Trillion.
So it doesn’t change anything. You get $30k and yes that $30k is worth more because it can generate maybe $3k in investment income for you a year. It’s still only $30k.
I honestly don’t know what you are arguing about. If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100. If they give you that $100 you now have that $100 which is also technically worth more than $100. It’s the same $100 + unspecified future value either way.
If you argue the $8.4 trillion in net worth of Billionaires is worth more than the $8.4 T, then if that $8.4 was taken from them it is also worth more.
If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100.
If someone buys a house for $500k it’s worth $500k. But it’s also a place to live, which makes it invaluable to a person without a home.
If the value declines to $400k then the net value is -$100k. But, again, the house has value as a place to live that humans need. Being underwater on your home isn’t the same as being homeless. And owning a million homes that lose value is very different than being broke.
Use value and exchange value are different things. And saying you have $8.4T on paper means something very different than saying you control properties, equities, and IP that other people need, but can’t have, because you’re hoping to flip it for a profit.
Minimum wage in many US cities is $15/hr which is $30k/year.
Even at federal minimum wage of $7.50, that means not just taxing Billionaires at 100% but taking everything will give you 2 years of UBI before there is no money.
So why did you inflate it to nearly 3x that amount while arguing about how it can’t work because it’s too expensive? $1000/month is still a lot of money for people.
Because baseline food and shelter is much more expensive in many cities where 80% of the population lives. That’s why minimum wage is $30k in major cities.
But again, this isn’t a wage… people can still make extra money on top of UBI. The goal isn’t to make nobody ever work again. Why pretend you can’t do it because it doesn’t translate to fully automatic luxury gay space communism?
How do you get UBI without issuing checks from the Treasury. There isn’t enough tax money that can be taken from Billionaires to sustain UBI.
Not just tax a percentage, but take every penny of every Billionaire in the US. Net worth of all US billionaires is 8.4 Trillion.
270 million US adults.
= 31k per person. Once.
That’s 31k one time. Then there is no money for next year.
The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
The “Net Worth” figure is deceptive, because it’s the exchange value and not the use value. Sitting on tens of millions of vacant real estate units, many of which are underwater on their purchase price, shows up as far less on an individual balance sheet than the material benefit of not being homeless accrues to a homeowner.
If that was true then taking all their capital and distributing it would be more than $31k/person/year for each individual receiving their share of the 8.4 Trillion.
Yup.
So it doesn’t change anything. You get $30k and yes that $30k is worth more because it can generate maybe $3k in investment income for you a year. It’s still only $30k.
It does, in fact, change things
I honestly don’t know what you are arguing about. If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100. If they give you that $100 you now have that $100 which is also technically worth more than $100. It’s the same $100 + unspecified future value either way.
If you argue the $8.4 trillion in net worth of Billionaires is worth more than the $8.4 T, then if that $8.4 was taken from them it is also worth more.
If someone buys a house for $500k it’s worth $500k. But it’s also a place to live, which makes it invaluable to a person without a home.
If the value declines to $400k then the net value is -$100k. But, again, the house has value as a place to live that humans need. Being underwater on your home isn’t the same as being homeless. And owning a million homes that lose value is very different than being broke.
Use value and exchange value are different things. And saying you have $8.4T on paper means something very different than saying you control properties, equities, and IP that other people need, but can’t have, because you’re hoping to flip it for a profit.
Nobody said it had to be over $2500/month?
Minimum wage in many US cities is $15/hr which is $30k/year.
Even at federal minimum wage of $7.50, that means not just taxing Billionaires at 100% but taking everything will give you 2 years of UBI before there is no money.
So? UBI isn’t a wage for work. It could be $300/month and that would still be a huge boon to struggling people.
The UBI baseline is supposed to be $12000 per year. The premise is it covers food and shelter.
So why did you inflate it to nearly 3x that amount while arguing about how it can’t work because it’s too expensive? $1000/month is still a lot of money for people.
Because baseline food and shelter is much more expensive in many cities where 80% of the population lives. That’s why minimum wage is $30k in major cities.
But again, this isn’t a wage… people can still make extra money on top of UBI. The goal isn’t to make nobody ever work again. Why pretend you can’t do it because it doesn’t translate to fully automatic luxury gay space communism?