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

Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

nerdinvest.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 158 posts

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#31

Post by Domenic_S »

hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#32

Post by Domenic_S »

debacle wrote: post #13
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

Exactly this! If you create UBI and have universal healthcare, entrepreneurship, makership, lifestyle businesses, etc, are going to explode.

"and have universal healthcare" is the functional clause here, but it's thrown in as an afterthought. All the BI in the world isn't going to help you if you incur a $200k broken arm 'cause you didn't have health insurance.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#33

Post by graeme »

herge wrote: post #16
jbrun wrote: post #2

If you are in Quebec - join us at http://revenudebase.quebec In Canada: join us at : http://biencanada.ca

What do you think about Jean-Robert Sansfaçon's critique in Le Devoir ( http://www.ledevoir.com/economie/actualites-economiques/4624... ), where he calculates that to give only 10,000$ per inhabitant in Quebec per year, you would need 68 billion dollars, ~22 times the amount currently spent on social welfare. Also, that would constitute 70% of the current tax revenue of the Quebec government.

Does that take into account that for middle class people it's effectively a wash?

i.e. Your taxes go up $10,000, but you get a $10,000 payment. I haven't seen a cost calculation that explicitly factors this in. I imagine it's still expensive, but perhaps less than it seems?

It's a good article though. A lot of people vastly overestimate current social payment expenditures. They're much lower than I thought, and I am not in the camp that thinks basic income will be costless to implement by replacing social programs.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#35

Post by debacle »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #24
debacle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to return to a wealth-oriented tax. Neither income tax nor VAT are taxes on wealth. But even as someone without a lot to worry about, I can't think of a fair way to tax wealth outside of land taxes, which would greatly disrupt the economy.

The estate tax is one mechanism we have now to tax wealth.

The estate tax is bullet-hole ridden, unfortunately. Overall the US tax system is a mess.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#36

Post by jerelunruh »

Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500.

Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#37

Post by debacle »

manyoso wrote: post #17
debacle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to return to a wealth-oriented tax. Neither income tax nor VAT are taxes on wealth. But even as someone without a lot to worry about, I can't think of a fair way to tax wealth outside of land taxes, which would greatly disrupt the economy.

I would take the cost/benefit of a combination UBI and VAT over a wealth/income tax with current social safety net any day and twice on Sunday.

The problem with VAT is that it's a tax on consumption, not a tax on the accumulation of wealth. It's incongruous with the goals of UBI.

A wealth tax and an income tax are two different things.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#38

Post by devonkim »

Domenic_S wrote: post #31
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

It's the difference between living on the street homeless like a lot of families experienced in the Rust Belt and getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available. My big concern with BI is that costs of many staples could simply rise as consumer spending goes up due to such depressed wages for most people and we'll be back in the same situation where a shocking number of people still can't afford healthy food or a roof over their head.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#39

Post by strasser »

Kenji wrote: post #14

Haha, I love how the tech community is so liberal and critical against government when it comes to privacy and meddling with our private lives, yet that exact same community is mostly in agreement with UBI which in turn means being completely dependent on the state. If the state thinks you do something it does not like (you're a ''terrorist''), your UBI will be striked - you know that, right?

Great comments Kenji - pointing out the futility of the liberal mindset.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#40

Post by JonFish85 »

graeme wrote: post #33
herge wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about Jean-Robert Sansfaçon's critique in Le Devoir ( http://www.ledevoir.com/economie/actualites-economiques/4624... ), where he calculates that to give only 10,000$ per inhabitant in Quebec per year, you would need 68 billion dollars, ~22 times the amount currently spent on social welfare. Also, that would constitute 70% of the current tax revenue of the Quebec government.

Does that take into account that for middle class people it's effectively a wash? i.e. Your taxes go up $10,000, but you get a $10,000 payment. I haven't seen a cost calculation that explicitly factors this in. I imagine it's still expensive, but perhaps less than it seems? It's a good article though. A lot of people vastly overestimate current social payment expenditures. They're much lower than I thought, and I am…

"Does that take into account that for middle class people it's effectively a wash?"

I guarantee that if/when this gets implemented, it won't be a wash for the middle class. The middle class is where the tax money is, and they'll be the ones bearing the brunt of the bill, as usual.

Post reply on HN