Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in His Harvard Commencement Speech (fortune.com)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest major tech figure to call for universal basic income as a solution for inequality, joining a growing chorus from Silicon Valley. From a report: "Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his commencement speech at Harvard University. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things," he said. Zuckerberg told the class of 2017 that he was able to pursue his passion in Facebook because he knew he had a safety net to fall back on.
Facebook are one of a number of companies that have a habit of using exotic international tax vehicles to move profits from countries where corporation taxes are reasonable to countries where they are super-low. As a result of this, personal taxation in the countries where Facebook export their profits have to be higher. Which pushes down the standard of living for citizens in those countries.
I get that this speech was more about marketing and PR than actually intending to do anything useful, but in the event that Mr Zuckerberg would like to make a positive start to inequality, can I respectfully suggest that he pays taxes where they are due, and makes a declaration that Facebook will no longer use "international tax vehicles" to move profits around and thereby avoid paying taxes.
If Mr Zuckerberg and/or Facebook aren't willing to do that, then can I respectfully suggest that he is full of ####.
Yes, I would rather people be campaigning for Universal Basic Employment. That is, a system where everyone would always have access to a job that paid basic living expenses, a job built around each person's particular skill set.
Of course the CEO's of the world would never campaign for THAT, because it might threaten their cheap labor supply (who would then always have an alternative job to go to).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I think he knows it all too well.
First of all, please stop confusing economy and finance. At no point in history those two were further apart then today. Economy is about people doing and making things for each other. No money is needed for economy. If you need an example, look at any parent who raises a child.
Finance, on the other hand, is all about money. That money used to involve work, but the financial sector found out long ago that automatic gambling machines yielded more than actual work. The fiat money of today can be (and is) conjured out of thin air by banks and central banks. During the recent crises, central banks have made up more money than ever before, to stabilize their "hopes and dreams".
Alas they spent it on the wrong people. The European Central Bank, for example, buys "financial products" from internationals without ever caching them, they cant: it is their way of getting money into the virtual economy and caching would take it out again. In short, multinationals already DO have a Universal Basic Income. If you know that, why on earth would it be good to give it to multinationals and bad to give it to real people? Hint: real people might be lazy and greedy, but multinationals are guaranteed to be!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!