680
submitted 5 months ago by testeronious@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 8 points 5 months ago

That's not true. There is a wise spending. Or to be more correct there is a foolish spending. Gambling your money away for example is f* stupid.

[-] ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

The point is that the government really shouldn't have any say in which is which. I agree with you that gambling all your money away is a poor financial choice, but that doesn't mean that I think we should ban gambling, because many people enjoy it responsibly. Teaching people financial literacy, and treating addictions is the solution, not policing how people use their UBI.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

but that doesn't mean that I think we should ban gambling, because many people enjoy it responsibly

More like because it’s an adult human’s right to be free. That is the point. Responsibly, irresponsibly, these are secondary concepts.

[-] valtia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I agree with you, except that we should ban gambling.

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg -4 points 5 months ago

If it's government given money, that's somebody's tax dollars and the government absolutely should have a say, because the people giving that money should have a say.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

If it's government given money, that's somebody's tax dollars and the government absolutely should have a say,

The issue is it costs money for the Government to have a say and 99% of the time it's not needed.

If you just get rid of the Government overhead to make sure people are "spending it wisely," the money lost by the 1% who spend it foolishly will be far less than the money saved by getting rid of all the administration.

[-] ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Why attack the people for their spending on vices when you could just outlaw the vices. If you care so much about people's morals, then the government should just outlaw alcohol, gambling and anything else deemed an ill use of this money. It's the exact same thing, except you only want the government to police people who you think don't deserve freedom because you consider them lesser.

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg -2 points 5 months ago

When you take someone else's money, you should have a good reason for doing so. Money is an exchange of labor, straight up. You're not entitled to anyone else's labor without qualification.

Social benefit programs are just that, programs for the social benefit.

People are allowed to have vices, but irresponsibly spending other people's money is not okay, just like breaking/trashing other people's stuff (and thus spending their time and money) is not okay.

This is a basic part of the social contract.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Nope. The nature of money is that when you transfer it to someone else’s, it is now their money. It’s no longer your money. It’s their money.

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg -3 points 5 months ago

No that's not how it works. It is extremely common for government issued money to come with stipulations on how it can be spent.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

now let's say you heavily tax gambling at a state level. Suddenly you get more tax kickback from that UBI even though nothing particularly effective was done with it.

I mean, theoretically, gambling itself, as a tax revenue source is actually pretty good. It's money going to a good cause, even though technically wasted.

this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
680 points (98.9% liked)

News

22838 readers
4088 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS