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

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#611

Post by aninhumer »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #592
ticviking wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employment is in fact often about fear or force. I work a day job because the state will literally show up with police and guns if I went out into the mountains and lived off the land. Therefore unless I want to starve I must work. Even when it's on shit I hate. I am lucky enough to have a skill that is sufficiently valuable that I can survive despite disabilities making it difficult to work. If you imagine that the…

the state will literally show up with police and guns if I went out into the mountains and lived off the land Why? Is it someone else's land that you're trespassing on, using up their resources, hunting their animals, etc? Shall all of us who don't feel fulfilled do the same thing as you propose? When you hurt yourself and get an infection, are you going to crawl back out of the woods and expect there to still be oth…

>When you want something from someone - food, medicine, etc. - you're going to have to offer something in return

What if the value of someone's labour is not enough for the things they need to survive? There's no function of the market that ensures it will be.

At some point, you either have to help people out without anything in return, or choose to let them die.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#612

Post by Grishnakh »

criley2 wrote: post #444
notahacker wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you get bipartisan support for the FairTax? Redesigning the tax structure to favour millionaires ( massive net beneficiaries because their US consumption expenditure is usually a tiny fraction of their capital gains tax and/or income tax bills) over the middle classes (no matter how high the stipend is someone has to pay for the millionaires' tax cut) isn't exactly a popular proposal even on the right That…

Poster is crazy to think liberals will EVER support a hugely regressive tax scheme. Consumption taxes destroy the middle class by acting as vehicle to transport wealth from the middle to the ultrawealthy, which makes it surprising that people continue to suggest it. Now perhaps a consumption tax combined with a large capital gains tax and inheritance tax -- to keep taxes going in the oligarchs economy AND the regular…

>Poster is crazy to think liberals will EVER support a hugely regressive tax scheme.

I just want to make one glib comment here about liberals and regressive taxes.

The Northeast is generally thought of as the most liberal part of America (aside from coastal California maybe). So why is it that I've seen far more toll roads and bridges there than in any "red state"?

I think some liberals make some good points about regressive taxes, but in practice, it seems like the liberals who actually get to power just love them.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#613

Post by azernik »

MicroBerto wrote: post #205
ww520 wrote: post #92

The Fed engineers a slow inflation every year via interest rate control and gives the benefit of the newly created money to banks, the loan borrowers, and asset holders as rates lower than keeping inflation at zero. Since the money supply increases anyway, might as well give the new money as basic income to ALL people. At least the money will be spent directly by the people for economic activities, instead of indirec…

Regarding inflation... if everyone instantly has $X now, doesn't $X become worthless? For instance, why would landlords not raise rents knowing that everyone now has this cash?

Because all money is the same; basic income dollars are indistinguishable from the rest of the dollars out there.

What would happen (if you funded this by printing money rather than taxation) is that the value of the dollar would fall by (monetary value of basic income payment) / (total number of circulating dollars), creating a redistribution effect similar to that of a taxation scheme, but less planned out.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#614

Post by shams93 »

10,000 isn't basic income its like slightly more than welfare for a basic income to be meaningful in a city like los angeles you're talking at least 70k if a person has even any hope of having a roommate situation. The other alternative is to give everybody everything they need in life at no cost, but 10k in los angeles is a joke, if they tax it you're talking still talking about having a choice between food and a youth hostel bed on that low an income.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#615

Post by hfsktr »

prostoalex wrote: post #540
clarkmoody wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? Gas tax? Hugely regressive. Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Value-added tax? Wouldn't those continue to "destroy the middle class"? What about the tax of inflation that serves to redistribute wealth from savers to debtors? (middle class -> government) Also interesting how you know better than others how they should arrange their financial lives…

If you followed recent headlines, tax on sugary drinks has been a subject in Democratic primaries. Even though high-fructose corn syrup has been linked to obesity, diabetes and myriad of other problems related to that, some members of liberal community oppose a consumption tax on sugary drinks on the basis that it hits lower-income families disproportionally http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0430/Bernie-…

Why is the new tax needed? What are we trying to fund that other taxes don't already cover? Don't we (the government) subsidize HFCS? Wouldn't not doing that raise the prices and not require a tax then?

I will oppose a 'sugar' tax because I don't think the government should be deciding what foods I consume, especially when I think taxes should be for raising money.

I am aware it's not the full picture and I haven't explained it well but I hope I got a little bit of my view across.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#616

Post by shams93 »

shams93 wrote: post #614

10,000 isn't basic income its like slightly more than welfare for a basic income to be meaningful in a city like los angeles you're talking at least 70k if a person has even any hope of having a roommate situation. The other alternative is to give everybody everything they need in life at no cost, but 10k in los angeles is a joke, if they tax it you're talking still talking about having a choice between food and a yo…

We've had this 10k basic income since the 1930s its called welfare, to reiterate what I just said basic income has to secure a middle class lifestyle for it to be meaningful.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#618

Post by jypepin »

shams93 wrote: post #614

10,000 isn't basic income its like slightly more than welfare for a basic income to be meaningful in a city like los angeles you're talking at least 70k if a person has even any hope of having a roommate situation. The other alternative is to give everybody everything they need in life at no cost, but 10k in los angeles is a joke, if they tax it you're talking still talking about having a choice between food and a yo…

> "at least 70k" you gotta get back on earth man. When I got my first job in San Francisco I was making 65k, had 1 roommate in a nice apartment in the Mission, lived well, and was still able to save money. And LA is cheaper than SF.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#619

Post by r00fus »

morgante wrote: post #404
Unklejoe wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social security works basically the same way in the USA. Once a system like that is in place, it's very hard to stop the pipeline. I honestly don't see the purpose of that type of system either. Why create this pipeline of money anyway? Why not just take the contributions that everyone makes and put them into individual retirement accounts? Assuming the system is stable (which it's probably not), it seems there would…

I despise social security, mainly because it's a wealth transfer tool masquerading as retirement savings. I would love to eliminate it and have everyone just save their own money. The reason that it's not done that way is three-fold: (a) People's contributions are not enough to cover their social security. Instead, they depend on the current workers paying in more than the previous generation did (in a perpetual cycl…

I think your point (b) is overly contentious and shows you don't really know much about Liberals.

In fact, most liberals I know are very much about personal responsibility - including towards society and the environment.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#620

Post by scld »

shams93 wrote: post #614

10,000 isn't basic income its like slightly more than welfare for a basic income to be meaningful in a city like los angeles you're talking at least 70k if a person has even any hope of having a roommate situation. The other alternative is to give everybody everything they need in life at no cost, but 10k in los angeles is a joke, if they tax it you're talking still talking about having a choice between food and a yo…

You wouldn't need to live in a city like Los Angeles. Without job security to tie you to a location, you would move to areas of the country/state where cost of living was lowest.

Additionally, if you wanted to live a middle class lifestyle, you would have a job. That's the incentive to keep working. The basic income is to keep people at an above-poverty income level, not to keep everyone at middle class. In fact, the mere definition of the term means you couldn't have everyone at middle class.

Post reply on HN