Can someone back large inheritances and NOT back guaranteed minimum income without hypocrisy?

[yurbud]

It would seem all the arguments against giving everyone a minimum income, that it would lead to idleness, sloth, and a couple of other synonyms for laziness, would also apply to those who inherit great wealth.

George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, the Koch brothers, and many others had a pile of money waiting for them before the umbilical cord was even cut. I don't particularly care for any of them, but would righties say they are lazy layabouts because they never had to worry about paying the rent or where their next meal would come from?

Of course there are people who came from money that we on the right admire like Gore Vidal, JFK, and FDR.

Why would the rest of us having a modest floor of income be bad if some are going to argue that being showered with money didn't hurt those lucky few?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. No, but

I can back GMI and not back large inheritances without hypocrisy.

[Trillo]

2. It wouldn't be bad to have a guaranteed income, seems like it would reduce poverty,

hunger, homelessness, etc. Of course your title question smacks of hypocrisy.

[The Magistrate]

3. No, Sir, The Thing Cannot Be Done

[yurbud]

21. Great graphic

[theboss]

4. I think this guaranteed income argument is going down the wrong path

What is needed is guaranteed services.

If there was widely available, free or low cost medical care, mental health services, education, and transportation services, a number of the issues that come from "poverty" would dissipate.

I'm willing to pay higher taxes so that my ne'er do well cousins don't die of cancer at 41 and so their kids can learn to read. I'm not going to be happy if they make $40,000 a year (or whatever) just by waking up in the morning.

[dilby]

5. The system is designed to keep the rich at the top and make sure we never get there.

Take a Billion dollars then half it which is the governments cut, divide it by 3 for the people who are inheriting it and they are still millionaires and likely Billionaires again before they die and pass it to their children. Now take a million dollars, cut it in half for the government, divide it by 3 for those who are inheriting it and they will be lucky to pay of the debt they have acquired and maybe treat themselves to a vacation.

[closeupready]

6. It's not about principles, or theories, or even party; it's what George Carlin said,

to paraphrase, 'It's an exclusive club, and you're not in it.' If their members have to pretend trickle-down is rock solid fiscally responsible economics, so be it (even if they know it's not); hell, if it required that they pretend pink unicorns poop out rainbows after a shower, they'd probably do THAT.

[yurbud]

13. yep. a lot of the stuff on the right isn't ideology, it's excuses

and argument after the fact.

Like when you ask a crook why he mugged someone and he says, "It was his fault for walking around looking like he has money."

[Make7]

7. Yes. ( n/t )

[upaloopa]

8. I do not understand the idea of a guaranteed

minimum income. May be you can explain it to me. My guess you want to tax someone and pay someone else a GMI.
The person you tax has to have earned income or investment income to be taxed.
The person who receives a GMI neither earns income nor are they taxed right?

[yurbud]

12. imagine if everyone were a trust fund baby who got a very modest annual income

If you think about all the benefits we give individuals and corporations, many undeserved, it sounds less far out.

Also, as many have said about unemployment benefits and food stamps, nearly 100% of the money would be recycled back into the economy, stabilizing things a bit.

In a way, we already do this with the earned income credit.

If you have a job, but it pays below a living wage, the earned income credit brings you up a bit by putting money in your pocket.

If we had something like this and true universal healthcare, people would be more free to help a friend with a new small business, maybe spend time on some new invention or creative pursuit or the like, and it would make it harder for employers to treat entry level employees like shit since the employee wouldn't need the job just to survive.

Oddly enough, Milton Friedman backed this idea.

And again, the arguments against it, if true, would be even more true of those who inherit great wealth.

[upaloopa]

18. One thing is never mentioned

Who earns the income that is taxed to pay for this?
You would increase demand because more people could spend and if you don't increase supply you will have inflation that would undermine the income.

I don't think this is well thought out

[yurbud]

19. supply of physical goods is not a problem lately since it takes fewer and fewer people to make

More and more stuff

[badtoworse]

9. Of course they can. They're totally unrelated to each other.

[n2doc]

10. Sure they can

If one is totally self-intereted, the idea being that you should be able to choose what to do with your money, no matter what. So on the one hand, pay as little as one can get away with for work you want done. On the other, be able to give your "hard earned" wealth to whomever you want, as much as you want.

Not saying it isn't evil, but it isn't hypocrisy.

[yurbud]

14. the irony of inherited wealth is after about probably 3 (at most) generations

the chances that those who benefit from the inheritance know or care about the ancestor who actually accumulated the wealth is near zero.

Sometimes it kicks in a lot sooner.

[Orsino]

11. No. n/t

[yurbud]

15. I'm primarily thinking of arguments based on effects rather than the fairness of where the money

comes from.

[moondust]

16. Both are unearned income, yes?

The problem is that in one case the money comes from a private donor and in the other case the money comes from tax revenues.

[yurbud]

20. If we were truly democratic, we could decide as a country to be the donors

[Hip_Flask]

17. Yes....