Following a trip to Alaska,
CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently
wrote a blog post
defending — yet again — the idea of establishing a form of basic income in the U.S.
said he supported Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend, which pools money from the state's oil revenue and returns it to residents at the end of the year. In 2016, that dividend
amounted to $1,022
per eligible resident.
Alaska has a form of basic income called the Permanent Fund Dividend. Every year, a portion of the oil revenue the state makes is put into a fund. Rather than having the government spend that money, it is returned to Alaskan residents through a yearly dividend that is normally $1000 or more per person. That can be especially meaningful if your family has five or six people.
Okay, I think Zuckerberg is confused. He seems to like the idea of the state returning money to the people. So do I. If that money is returned to people whose money was taken from them via taxes.
Here's Mark's next paragraph:
This is a novel approach to basic income in a few ways. First, it's funded by natural resources rather than raising taxes. Second, it comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net. This shows basic income is a bipartisan idea.
See, he starts with one premise, ends with another. He agrees people should have more money, and likes the idea of government "returning" money to people. I'm with him so far. Then he goes off into the weeds. Having the government create a "basic income" isn't a principle of smaller government, it's wealth redistribution. In order for a government to give money, it must first take it. So if Mark wants people to have more money, the better way to go would be for the government to take less from people or corporations in the first place.
And that's the point he missed. People are inhibited from creating more wealth when government takes at all, to pool for future redistribution, or to fund little pet projects like studying why lesbians get fat. If Markster wants more people to have more money, he should not insist the government do it for them. He should insist government get out of their way.
Socialism is not the answer. Capitalism, as Mark Zuckerberg knows first hand, is the answer.