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

Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 251 posts

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#71

Post by refurb »

tomp wrote: post #20
hirundo wrote: post #3

Relative poverty is insoluble without totalitarian levels of redistribution to a very low common denominator, and that is unlikely to include the inevitable oligarchs. Absolute poverty is rapidly being solved ( https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... ) by markets and globalization, and radical redistribution such as a basic income tends to interfere with that.

You could simply introduce more taxes. For example, one interesting idea is a universal land tax - with more expensive/desirable land being taxed much more - the idea being that there's no fundamental reason why the right to use a piece of land would belong to one citizen and not the other just by the virtue of their birth. So those who want to use scarce land (wealthy people, corporations) would be paying rents to t…

not the other just by the virtue of their birth

What makes you think most land is owned through birthright? Any stats to back that up? I would assume most land was purchased.

And if you levy a big tax on property, be prepared for the value of that property to drop dramatically. Money flows freely from one asset to another. If land becomes unattractive, those dollars will just go elsewhere.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#72

Post by toomuchtodo »

dionidium wrote: post #58
toomuchtodo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are grossly misinformed: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

I think you both know that you're talking past one another, seemingly intentionally. It's absolutely true that, given even a minimal family/friend support structure, people to the very left of the earnings curve have a decent standard of living in the U.S. today. If you have an able body, it's pretty hard to starve (or even go without cable TV). I think you both know that. On the other hand, some people obviously don…

> If you have an able body, it's pretty hard to starve (or even go without cable TV). I think you both know that.

I'm not so sure. I know people who are able bodied, college degree educated, and some months can barely afford groceries after all non-discretionary spending is accounted for.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#73

Post by fixermark »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #51

This is nuts. Basic income is not to provide extra spending money for 100% of americans. It's help 10% of the most poor while everyone else ends up paying back the money in taxes. So we are talking about 300 billion. This is half of US military budget and will be instead of, instead of in addition to, current aid programs. It is true that basic income will not directly improve lifestyle of the middle class. It can we…

One of the points the author proffers is that displacing more targeted, conditional aid with UBI may not actually be better. The question of whether---if you just give people money---they spend it wisely enough to maintain their needs is an open question.

It's sort of the formalized version of "Don't give that wino a dollar; he's just going to spend it on more booze."

(The sense I get is economists lean towards "Yes, people generally look after themselves given the money to do so," but I believe this is an open question policy-wise).

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#74

Post by toomuchtodo »

refurb wrote: post #59
RamshackleJ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and it doesn't even bother talking about the $21–32tn of untaxed assets( http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_R... ). Or that we tax the rich too little while we tax everyone else too much to keep public perception focused on taxes being too high( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_... ).

Or that we tax the rich too little The top 3% of income earners pay 51% of all income taxes.[1] You think that's too little? What should that number be? [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-...

Whatever percentage it needs to be ratcheted up to in order to ensure that everyone is fed and has shelter.

Seems like we can work backwards to determine that?

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#75

Post by visarga »

witty_username wrote: post #50
lossolo wrote: post #25

Problem is with capitalism and it's founders that told us all that you can't live without work. In next decades we will need to change the system diametrical because robots will take all not creative jobs out there. If we want basic pay we will need to tax corporations that use robots at around 70-90%, money from tax will go for basic pay, money from people that receive basic pay will go to corporations etc. Thing th…

If robots take all the jobs, then nobody has to work anymore and everything will be very cheap. Think robot maids, drivers, and robot-cooked meals. People are so used to today's world of not-so-many-robots that people think not having a job is bad.

Not having any money or job is bad, though. I don't see the state as being reliable enough to care for the mass of useless and unemployed. They will probably set the UBI at a level below the necessary, there will be protests and riots, people will ask for more, politicians will tell them their excuses for why it isn't possible.

If push comes to shove, owning some land and cultivating it could be a job. The earth will hire people its owners to work it. That is, if people will be legally allowed to cultivate their own seeds on their own land.

I see a possible utopia where individual farms or larger agricultural areas will be owned and worked by communities of people. They will be independent as a community from state welfare. They will be able to implement their own lifestyle as a consequence of their independence. Technologies working for this are: solar, batteries, 3d printers and robots.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#76

Post by mason240 »

cousin_it wrote: post #42

At a minimum, we need free universal healthcare that shouldn't be replaced with basic income, because poor sick people often need more expensive healthcare than a reasonable basic income can pay for. Similar for education, the current system of loans just sucks compared to universal free education which was achieved by the frigging USSR. Also it seems pointless to give basic income to well-off people. On top of free…

>why don't we just top up everyone's income to the equivalent of the minimum wage?

That's what UBI essentially is, giving everyone about the equivalent of a minimum wage income.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#77

Post by Smudge »

jbob2000 wrote: post #57
Smudge wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income doesn't always solve this for someone who is already homeless, but it might still act as a preventative measure, giving someone enough of a financial buffer to avoid homelessness entirely.

If you heard some of these stories, you would find that it's not just a lack of money that causes homelessness. To be brutally honest, it's a mixture of stupidity and often, an addiction. These people need other people actively intervening in their lives to keep them on track. The preventative measure should be the social worker, not the pay cheque.

I think the operating word is "some," not all. We know that UBI will sometimes be misspent. Most if not all aid programs have this problem. That doesn't mean it isn't worth it for those who would put the money to good use.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#78

Post by extra88 »

jbob2000 wrote: post #57
Smudge wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income doesn't always solve this for someone who is already homeless, but it might still act as a preventative measure, giving someone enough of a financial buffer to avoid homelessness entirely.

If you heard some of these stories, you would find that it's not just a lack of money that causes homelessness. To be brutally honest, it's a mixture of stupidity and often, an addiction. These people need other people actively intervening in their lives to keep them on track. The preventative measure should be the social worker, not the pay cheque.

Don't forget mental illness as a cause.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#79

Post by jimmytidey »

An absolutely key feature of basic income is the security it gives someone who is on breadline.

I can only describe the situation in the UK - but imagine this generalises. If you are on government benefits, and you accept some money to do a small or casual job, you face a choice. Not declare it, and face court and destitution if you are found out.

Declaring the income, on the other hand, is an administrative nightmare. Worse - it might trigger a recalculation, or removal, of your benefits. Most benefit seekers don't fully understand how their benefits are calculated, and, again, they could be destitute if benefits are removed or reduced.

So, for any long term unemployed person, it's often best to sit tight and not take any risks. Thus the person is trapped in poverty, plus of course the sense of self worth that comes from doing a job.

This is also true for an entrepreneur who decides to quite his job and build a business. Basic income can provide some security while you get that business going. This is not typically true of unemployment benefit.

Everything comes back to what unemployment benefits are - a payment conditional on not doing any work. That causes so many problems, and basic income can solve them.

On the cost: basic income, at substantial levels, is clearly very expensive. However, you simply tax that money back. This can leave pay after tax absolutely unchanged for everyone, while still delivering the advantages described above.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#80

Post by tomp »

refurb wrote: post #71
tomp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could simply introduce more taxes. For example, one interesting idea is a universal land tax - with more expensive/desirable land being taxed much more - the idea being that there's no fundamental reason why the right to use a piece of land would belong to one citizen and not the other just by the virtue of their birth. So those who want to use scarce land (wealthy people, corporations) would be paying rents to t…

not the other just by the virtue of their birth What makes you think most land is owned through birthright? Any stats to back that up? I would assume most land was purchased. And if you levy a big tax on property, be prepared for the value of that property to drop dramatically. Money flows freely from one asset to another. If land becomes unattractive, those dollars will just go elsewhere.

> What makes you think most land is owned through birthright? Any stats to back that up? I would assume most land was purchased.

Purchased from whom? I would imagine a lot of land in the most desirable locations (cities etc) are owned by private individuals or family trusts/companies, so they have been/will be inherited (even if the owners change in between). And if it's owned by a corporation, I guess the same logic could apply.

> And if you levy a big tax on property, be prepared for the value of that property to drop dramatically. Money flows freely from one asset to another. If land becomes unattractive, those dollars will just go elsewhere.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Land used for investment is the purest form of unproductive rent-seeking.

Post reply on HN