Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 178 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#61

Post by lambdapie »

bandrami wrote: post #58
lambdapie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI might be a great policy, but your argument makes no sense from an accounting point of view. Every kind of redistribution must sum to zero across all people. Basic income is no different in this regard. So to say that basic income is different because the right and poor both receive it is pure sophistry.

Every kind of redistribution must sum to zero across all people. Only if it has no impact on monetary velocity. Redistributing money from people who are not going to spend it to people who will (or vice versa) is not zero sum. Lemma: redistribution is itself a monetary policy, given the velocity differences of different money holders.

You use the term "monetary velocity" as if it was some term of trade, but I have a PhD in economics and I've never seen it used this way. Are you referring to a specific school of thought or author when you use this term?

Redistributing money from people who are not going to spend it to people who will (or vice versa) is not zero sum.

This is the essence of (neo-)Keynsianism but it only applies during recessions. In the long run, redistributing money to people who are going to spend it has zero effect.

Of course redistribution has a positive effect on welfare as defined by the sum of total utility, but it doesn't increase, for example, GDP.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#62

Post by cma »

msandford wrote: post #33
paulsutter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.

Right, but those don't exist in a vacuum. There are people who funded that research and think that they should own the fruits of the labor as per the contracts that they executed with the people they paid to perform the work. If you want to do away with various kinds of property rights that's a valid argument to make. But you don't get to pretend that it isn't a new, different way. Ultimately you're going to take som…

>Ultimately you're going to take some things from some people in order to give it to other people.

You're already doing that with capitalism with land. Take a private beach as an example, no one created it, the state just added property rights to it and gave it out at some point.

Oftentimes in the US you can trace land ownership all the way back to the original grant of a King or Queen.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#63

Post by el-mapache »

lambdapie wrote: post #34

Basic income is just classical economics rebranded, and basic income is not drastically different from welfare systems that are simple, rule based, and have minimal compliance monitoring, for example Australia's. Most of the arguments for basic income apply just as well to a welfare system like Australia's. The ones that to not are the worst ones. E.g. it's said that basic income avoids disincentivizing work. And yet…

Wasn't the money in Namibia given out to some of the poorest members of the community? The articles cited a 301 percent increase in self-employment. The concerns about gaming the system are certainly real, but it seems to me that you will always have outliers who want to take advantage. The question is whether or not a certain percentage of people behaving badly is worth the overall benefits to society, and I believe that is it.

As far as it being more of a burden on the middle class, I would happily pay more if it meant that everyone was getting more in return. Furthermore, why does it only have to be the burden of the middle class? If a corporation sees a 500 million dollar increase in profits because it aggressively automated its processes, why can't we institute rules to mandate they pay a certain percentage of the back into the UBI fund? More money for people means more potential consumers of their goods, right?

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#64

Post by Rumford »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #46
um_ya wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't.... If I'm rich, and I have to pay 20% more for UBI, but I get 1% back from UBI, essentially I'm paying 19% for other people. To paint this as "they're getting the benefit too", is completely ignorant.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't. One of the best-known advocates of UBI/negative income tax was Milton Friedman, and he most definitely was a libertarian. There's a difference between idealistic versions of political philosophies that don't match human behavior, and practical versions of those philosophies that do. Let's say we wind up with 50 million peop…

Oh not this again. First of all, Friedman advocated a negative income tax as a replacement to the ad-hoc mess of redistributive taxes, grants and welfare programs that exist now. Add a UBI to food stamps, unemployment benefits, farm subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the problems only get worse.

Second, this doomsday scenario of 50 million people waking up one day to discover there isn't a single thing in the world they can do to feed themselves is such hyperbolic nonsense you might as well be asking how opponents of a UBI plan to deal with a meteor demolishing Texas. Economies change. Sometimes a profession becomes obsolete. The people involved in it go elsewhere and on the whole everyone gets richer. It may sound unpleasant but it's only the same thing mankind has done a thousand times over already with great success. Unless you're mad about the fact that you don't have to milk your own cows anymore. This supposed choice between killing, jailing, or subsidizing millions of people is a false dichotomy that would sound like a joke to me if so many weren't sincerely buying into it. The other and far more reasonable option is to let free human beings navigate a changing world by adapting in the way each of them sees fit. They do it all the time. They don't need some savior swooping in with armloads of other people's money.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#65

Post by jsprogrammer »

lambdapie wrote: post #53
jsprogrammer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need tax with a basic income? Flip it around and incorporate the tax into the income distribution.

I don't understand your point. Can you clarify? For reference, when I speak of "marginal effective tax rate" I mean the marginal effective tax rate after including (1) welfare payments to you, (2) the tax you pay and (3) any basic income you receive, although (3) does not directly contribute to the marginal effective tax rate, since it is zero.

I'm just thinking that instead of taxing some other money (primarily debt) to fund the basic income, the basic income itself can be the money (though, additional monies may be desired), which would obviate any need for taxes/reclaimation.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#66

Post by nightski »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #46
um_ya wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't.... If I'm rich, and I have to pay 20% more for UBI, but I get 1% back from UBI, essentially I'm paying 19% for other people. To paint this as "they're getting the benefit too", is completely ignorant.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't. One of the best-known advocates of UBI/negative income tax was Milton Friedman, and he most definitely was a libertarian. There's a difference between idealistic versions of political philosophies that don't match human behavior, and practical versions of those philosophies that do. Let's say we wind up with 50 million peop…

Why do we have 50 million people with no marketable skills? Clearly the other 80% of the population was able to gain a skill that is marketable. I'd probably start there.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#67

Post by [deleted] »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #46
um_ya wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't.... If I'm rich, and I have to pay 20% more for UBI, but I get 1% back from UBI, essentially I'm paying 19% for other people. To paint this as "they're getting the benefit too", is completely ignorant.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't. One of the best-known advocates of UBI/negative income tax was Milton Friedman, and he most definitely was a libertarian. There's a difference between idealistic versions of political philosophies that don't match human behavior, and practical versions of those philosophies that do. Let's say we wind up with 50 million peop…

[deleted]

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#68

Post by nosuchthing »

SCAQTony wrote: post #55
paulsutter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.

I am not a sociologist but I do believe the strong should assist the weak but handing out cash to a set of people who may have disabilities, addictions, severe IQ deficits or otherwise may be a "fast curtain" to a "bad second act." I believe offering free food and shelter would be far less expensive and a better investment. Example: 25% of the homeless suffer from mental illness, what would they do with free money? h…

Investing in free mass transportation, health care, affordable/free higher education, affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'.

Basic Income seems like it would inevitably lead to inflation especially since 'fiat money' economics are so prone to emotional speculations. (cryptocoin systems have not yet seemed to develop anything usable for large scale economies).

As a nation, investing in and developing infrastructure is attainable and maintainable where as simply giving cash out is much riskier, especially at the scale for all citizens.

This of course comes with the risk of shady cronyism for the contracts and vendors whom build and maintain these projects.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#69

Post by rory096 »

eggnet wrote: post #60
Turing_Machine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the United States over the age of 18" You are assuming that every one of those people stops working and lives exclusively on the dole. That's almost certainly not going to be the case.

If you limit basic income, that's called welfare. I thought the point of basic income is that everyone gets it. Now sure... wealthy people will pay more in taxes than they receive in basic income. But it would still be a tax credit.

> I thought the point of basic income is that everyone gets it.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it needs to be enough for a "living wage." It can still be a universal basic income while being low enough that recipients generally still need to work.

(Of course you'd want to supplement it with welfare programs for those who can't work, which under more generous schemes might be eliminated entirely.)

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#70

Post by dantheman »

ploxiln wrote: post #59
vlunkr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a net loss for them. Yes they're getting some too, but it's just their money coming back to them. You'd be foolish to feel comforted by that. Also, UBI is far from libertarianism. Libertarians want to be in control of their own money.

I'm kinda libertarian, and I kinda like the idea of a UBI, because it means we no longer need people in power to make decisions about who gets welfare and other social support, and all the gaming and corruption involved. I've come around to the idea that there can't and won't be zero public social support, so UBI seems like the fairest, least-overhead way to take care of it. The downside is, the argument/power of who…

UBI can't replace welfare -- it cannot provide enough money to everyone to replace whole salaries. If you agree that welfare should exist to take care of people who cannot work or have expensive conditions that need to be treated then BI cannot replace it.
Post reply on HN