Because your dad is wrong.

Many of the UBI-type (universal basic income) studies show that most people continue to work and in many cases they are able to increase their income from work in short order.

Turns out relief from chronic money stress liberates mental resources that increase personal resilience and that translates into better employment for many.

It's stupid in even more ways. The economy needs people to buy things to keep going and allow people like your friend's dad to have jobs and act condescending to people who don't have jobs.

So if everybody was "smart" like that theoretical rich person and kept all their money, there wouldn't be an economy for them to leech passive income from.

If you water a dying plant, it will drink. It's almost like people without enough money need it for something

more importantly, it's not just scientific consensus. Remember that trump voters don't care about the science. they care about the economy. You have to make it about the economy.

My favorite story was when a Karen told someone to not give money to the homeless man because he was going to use it to buy drugs and the man just that, "That's what i was going to spend it on anyway."

They accumulate wealth because it gives them power. Power is what drives their greed. Greed is what is killing our society.

Good time to remind there exist two "models" of economy:

Commodity- Money- Commodity (where money is used for the sole purpose of getting commodities like house, food, clothes, healthcare, ...)

Money-Commodity-Money (Where the purpose of money is to turn commodities in more money, so the end goal is getting more money).

The first one is okay. Humans always did it.

The second one is a disease that starter with what we call "nowadays" Capitalism.

I'm saying that because I see on real life a lot of people conflating the two and thinking that "ending capitalism"=="ending comerce/trade/barter" when the truth is that "ending capitalism"=="ending hoarding wealth like a dragon"

How dare those communist scum create a small business, and become independent of welfare! Steaming

Yeah, I think this is what they mean. It is a form of poor bashing: poor people don’t invest their money to create jobs, grow the economy, etc. I have a friend who is very susceptible to this type of right-wing propaganda, and i had to point out that rich people can only invest a large portion of their income because their basic needs are (abundantly) met.

My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with you, because it seems like this policy would punish money hoarding and therefore keep money circulating.

Then I thought about what I would do if I had a sudden large influx of expiring cash, and quickly decided on buying illiquid assets (stocks, bonds, property, a couple fast food franchises in an underserved-but-growing area, etc) which is pretty much what the wealthy already do. The World's Richest Manchild doesn't have $300 billion in cold hard cash sitting around, he has maybe a few million in easily-accessible funds and the rest is tied up in investments (that's why he had to borrow so desperately to get the $44 billion to buy twitter - he couldn't quickly cash out his stock investments without cratering their value).

If money expired, the rich would continue to do what they already do - turn their money into long-term investment vehicles. The worst off would be the people who are in the middle - not doing so bad they have to spend every penny they make right away just to stay afloat, but not doing so well that they can invest in illiquid assets (either because they don't have enough left over after the bills are spent to realistically be able to invest or because they need a safety net in case the car needs to be replaced in a hurry or a tree falls through the roof or the hot water heater busts and ruins the floor).

'Expiring wealth' is something that would do society good by forcing the wealthy class to re-invest in their communities and peoples, whereas 'expiring cash' would just hurt those who would otherwise be on a path to being able to retire someday

That is literally what inflation is for. Central banks try to keep inflation at around 2% to discourage hoarding money.

Many indigenous americans including the Aztec and Mayan cultural groups used cacao as currency. I can't say if it was intentionally a method to reduce wealth hoarding but it did have that effect.

By the definition of money, that cannot happen. If all the money is owned by one person, then it is not money. If all of the money is owned by one group of people and another group of people have no access to it, then that will bifurcate the economy between those two groups and the second group will use something else as a substitute. No matter how little people have, there will always be some form of trade and commerce between them. Even North Koreans today (where private trade is largely forbidden) and enslaved Africans in the pre-Civil War US (who for the most part were not legally allowed to own anything) had some form of trade amongst themselves.

Each successive dollar (or euro, pound, yen...) gets successively more difficult to extract because as people have less and less to spend they get tighter and tighter with their spending. Without state intervention, there will always be a floor to how poor you can possibly make someone, because at some point they will realise that breaking the rules and risking the punishment is a better idea than continuing to play by them. And when enough people think this way, well... just ask Louis XVI or Nicholas II how that went.

Even if a communist revolution does not occur, this happens already to a lesser extent in the impoverished areas of cities worldwide, where people would rather turn to crime than work for starvation wages. So if you are someone on the side of the political spectrum which likes to talk against crime and socialism, the policies you should champion are those which prevent the poor from needing to resort to those things (not that any such people are likely to exist on Lemmy).

I think it's two different conservative talking points morphed together:

• "If we give homeless people money, they will just spend it on drugs and alcohol"
• "Poor people are poor because they spend their money rather than investing it."

Republicans will trot out the 'ol "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day" line.

That's Adora, who turns into She-ra but is not currently She-ra. From the show She-ra.

Yes. She can defeat any enemy except geometry.