UBI is a much less bad idea, since people will be incentivized to select the best providers and to not waste limited resources.
Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
31–40 of 51 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some countries set fines based on the individual's income level, to dissuade this attitude.
But that makes people no longer equal in the eyes of the law. A better solution to that problem is to make sure there's some non-monetary component to the punishment too, e.g., towing the car, which then takes time and inconvenience to retrieve, or community service for worse things than parking tickets.
Those things are also much harder to use as punishment
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#33Same reason why universal health care is controversial: "I don't use as much as them, why should I pay for their use?"
Universal healthcare isn't controversial outside of the US.
Who by the way spend far more per person than any other developed country on healthcare, that's both government and consumer spending.
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An equivalent to that for power would be to cook up a baseline kWh usage for a household This just couldn't work in a fair way. People live in old houses, new houses, condos, etc. There are massive variations between households in terms of insulation, heating/cooling equipment, etc. In fact, I would wager that it's often cheaper to cool a wealthier person's 1,000 sqft home than a poorer person's 1,000 sqft home, ju…
Well, heating/cooling aren't essentials in many places. You could subsidize the cost of running a fridge and appliances but stop short of climate control. Alternatively, in places that are now reaching 50+ degrees celsius with high humidity at times, maybe subsidizing climate control is desirable to save lives?
>cook up a baseline kWh usage for a household
>charge for every kWh above that.
This is a little bit how it was in Texas in the 1970's and early '80's, when the utilities were still a tightly regulated monopoly.
There was no free energy, but prices could only be changed by a lengthy bureaucratic process. However HL&P had become familiar and had the upper hand in negotiations, but at least the Public Utility Commission still represented the public back then.
In order to be allowed an exorbitant overall increase, they "agreed" to much lower residential rates than business rates, and then deeply discounted the first few hundred kWh for residential customers. They could negotiate the number of baseline kWh as well as the (multiple) rates themselves.
That way once the rate increase went into effect, the largest number of the least financially capable customers would have the most tolerable increases, but the overall monthly cost really shot up quick once you started to cool the whole house with A/C.
This scheme lasted until deregulation and even beyond. There was no requirement to give up your previous monopolistic provider after they migrated to the "free" market, so if you stuck with the traditional HL&P "plan" you still got the baseline kWh way cheaper than anyone else would ever offer, but the remainder kWh over that amount was what was becoming competitively priced.
Even though no other electricity provider had the cheap first kWh's to offer, they were still taking customers away all the time. Regardless, most people had never paid any attention to how cheap it was for the first week or two of every month, and those affordable kWh's were strongly de-emphasized as HL&P came up with all kinds of tempting alternative plans to get you away from the lingering one where the core of everyone's personal energy usage was truly subsidized by those who could most afford it, by one of the last beneficial moves of the PUC.
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some countries set fines based on the individual's income level, to dissuade this attitude.
But that makes people no longer equal in the eyes of the law. A better solution to that problem is to make sure there's some non-monetary component to the punishment too, e.g., towing the car, which then takes time and inconvenience to retrieve, or community service for worse things than parking tickets.
But it does, the idea of the fine (or any punishment) is to stop you (and others) from doing that again. The equality is in what you are and are not allowed to do and in how harsh the penalty is to you.
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#36Why do you want the government to run these basic utilities? Is it that you want more people to be able to access them? Is it that you think the government would be more efficient at running them? It's interesting to see what people are trying to optimize for they suggest different political systems.
Good question! Because we need them to work. Function should be the goal not profit. Ofc maintenance would require public involvement which we lack and which is why everything was privatized.
We could do it differently, I like this formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_(Netherlands) > ...independent of administrative governing bodies like provinces and municipalities.
It makes it extremely hard if not impossible for conventional government to cut the budget. It does one thing and it does it well.
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some countries set fines based on the individual's income level, to dissuade this attitude.
But that makes people no longer equal in the eyes of the law. A better solution to that problem is to make sure there's some non-monetary component to the punishment too, e.g., towing the car, which then takes time and inconvenience to retrieve, or community service for worse things than parking tickets.
Well then update the law to better refer to what equality is. x% of your wealth + y% of what you could earn this year is far more equal than a set number
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#38Universal health care is not controversial in developed countries outside of the US. Universal basic utilities wouldn't work because it would need to be means-tested, and that's not easy to do. A household with $0 of income might have a secret $100M fortune somewhere. Should they get free electricity? It makes much more sense to have affordable utilities and just give people cash. If they want to use 10% of the elect…
> Universal basic utilities wouldn't work because it would need to be means-tested,
Means testing is a stupid idea. Give 2kWh/day and a (upon asking) a two bedroom house worth of insulation to everyone and properly tax wealth to pay for it.
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some countries set fines based on the individual's income level, to dissuade this attitude.
But that makes people no longer equal in the eyes of the law. A better solution to that problem is to make sure there's some non-monetary component to the punishment too, e.g., towing the car, which then takes time and inconvenience to retrieve, or community service for worse things than parking tickets.
Why would a percentage based fine make people unequal in the eyes of the law? The percentage does not change and everyone would feel the punishment in the same fashion
If a baby were to punch another baby, the second baby would feel pain but if that same baby were to punch a full grown 94kg man, the man would feel nothing. So we scale up the situation appropriately to two 94kg men.
From my perspective, having a small fine only hurts people who are poor where that is not even thought of as a punishment of even an inconvenience for the rich.
Re: Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
#40Because taxation is theft. You and the government wouldn't like me using "free" internet to post messages like that anyway so I'd get cut off so I will not support it.