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

81–90 of 251 posts

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#81

Post by robotresearcher »

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…

> On top of free healthcare and education, why don't we just top up everyone's income to the equivalent of the minimum wage?

That strongly incentivizes under-reporting income. One of the strong points of universal income is that it is relatively easy to administer.

And well-off people would be taxed more so as to return all or most of their payments. It's not pointless, since it serves as a safety net the instant the large salary goes away, with no application or needs-based investigation that slows the process and costs more money to administer.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#82

Post by 1123581321 »

witty_username wrote: post #53
1123581321 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a very small number of people are on that $100/month edge, a percentage of them will increase their expenses until they are as desperate as they used to be, and the increased taxes to pay this money will put others on the edge. When considering BI, or any large money transfer program, you must consider the entire system, not just the beneficial effects on a small number of people for the first few…

Money is correlated with happiness. Sure, people will still yearn for more money, but with the more expenses people will be more happy.

That is the least important point, but please keep in mind then that the decreased expenses (alternately, increased tax expenses) to offset the cost of BI will make others unhappy.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#83

Post by carapace »

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…

(Dude, the "work ethic" predate capitalism by all of recorded history. C'mon.)

(Also, buy some robots. Enough to make more robots.)

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#84

Post by dionidium »

Jtsummers wrote: post #10
tn13 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poverty is an issue long solved in USA. We are talking about relative poverty and governments are trying to push totalitarian redistribution schemes everywhere.

> Poverty is an issue long solved in the USA. When? How? EDIT: While I disagree with the parent poster, primarily because I've seen plenty of homeless, underemployed, malnourished individuals in my travels around the US my entire life, and no significant decline in the past several years, my questions were not meant entirely sarcastically. If poverty is solved, explain how or by what measure you consider it to be sol…

The grandparent's POV is a pretty common one. Just about anybody can get a job making minimum wage, which will bring home at least (7.25 × 40) × 4 = $1,160 each month (more in some places).

That is enough money in most places to rent a basic apartment and buy plenty of food to eat. Plenty of people in that bracket also have cable TV and a car and a smart phone. It's not easy and it's not all that much fun, but you're not going to starve or freeze to death and the Wheel of Fortune you watch every night is the same Wheel of Fortune that Bill Gates watches.

That's the definition of "solved" that's in play here.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#85

Post by kefka »

maxxxxx wrote: post #52
jbob2000 wrote: post #28

Something that is missing from the basic income/poverty debate is the notion of "learned helplessness"; after a long time in poverty, people get used to the lifestyle and have difficulty adjusting to "regular" life. For example, if you've been homeless your entire life, you've never had to lock your apartment door or carry a key around. My partner (a social worker) had a client who's apartment was always getting robb…

When I was in my teens I worked summer jobs in a German social welfare agency (Sozialamt). There were many families that had been on welfare for generations and it was noticeable that their kids had no idea how to make progress in school or how to hold a job. They simply didn't know and had nobody who could tell them. They also had no role models. I think with basic income there is a risk that a lot of people will fo…

I'm unsure about the German system...

I've been on welfare here in the USA. The way it works is dependant on your income. The more you make by hard work, the less assistance you receive.

That sounds fair... Until you realize that section 8 (housing) is the same way. Food stamps are the same way. At the time, there was a cutoff for the free clinic (which counted benefits as income).. I made $100 too much.

When doing work and getting paid $1 means taking $3 in losses from assistance programs, this grinds people further into poverty. The further I try to dig out, the deeper I get until I hit the point that I can start to survive without any assistance...

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#86

Post by mempko »

newacct23 wrote: post #17
nullsmack wrote: post #6

The very first argument in the article is flawed which leads me to wonder how much of it is or isn't flawed. It talks about a Universal Basic Income for everyone over 21.. then it complains that would cost 3 trillion dollars for all of the 300 million Americans. According to the Census Bureau as of 2015 there were 321 million Americans and 24% were under 18. No clue how many were under 21. But that still takes it dow…

You are arguing about specifics that do not make any difference to the overall argument the author is trying to make. UBI for 244 million is still unfeasible. UBI is just a bad idea, jobs in themselves have nice externalities that UBI wont give. People that have jobs generally don't commit crimes. Also a UBI will disincentivize working jobs that are undesirable but are necessary for a functioning society.

Notice that people do undesirable jobs because they probably don't have many other options. UBI gives them another option. This would either make pay for undesirable jobs increase, OR people would be forced to automate them. Seems like a win win.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#87

Post by cat_plus_plus »

jbob2000 wrote: post #28

Something that is missing from the basic income/poverty debate is the notion of "learned helplessness"; after a long time in poverty, people get used to the lifestyle and have difficulty adjusting to "regular" life. For example, if you've been homeless your entire life, you've never had to lock your apartment door or carry a key around. My partner (a social worker) had a client who's apartment was always getting robb…

Government policy is for long term. We can think of how to help people to transition, but can't just stop progress because some are used to current system.

And long term basic income will work precisely to reduce learned helplessness. Society will provide some cash, but individuals still need for look for a hostel to stay in, manage money for meals etc. I would prefer daily deposits to recipient accounts so that if someone spends money for one day unwisely they don't end up needing other services for the rest of the month.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#88

Post by carapace »

Keep in mind when discussing UBI, especially in the context of poverty, that it is not a solution to poverty. It is a solution to automation crashing demand by throwing earners permanently out of the economy.

Robots take the jobs so people have no money to spend even as the robots make more stuff, cheaper.

What to do with the people? Throw them in a volcano? "Hunger Games"? Let's just give them money and see what happens, okay?

That's UBI.

UBI isn't for the bum. It's for you (okay, well, your cousin. You read HN, you're probably fine.)

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#89

Post by drabiega »

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-...

Not sure that is a relevant measure. Those people will also be paying a relatively low percentage of their income to taxes overall thanks to taxes which are flat or capped, so I'm not sure why it's meaningful what percent of tax revenues they contribute.

As an admittedly extreme example, if the population consisted of 100 people who make 2$ and pay 1$, and one guy who makes $1000 and pays $100, he's responsible for half the tax income but probably still isn't paying his fair share since he's only paying 10% instead of 50%.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#90

Post by RamshackleJ »

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-...

not sure about the top 3% but the top 1% have 34.6% of the wealth(measured in net worth) and the top 5% have 61.9%. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...)

So yes! I do think its too little, especially in the top 1%. I think some moderately more progressive tax rates would be an improvement.

One of the things that appeals to me about UBI is that it is a dramatic simplification of welfare bureaucracy. I would love to see something similar to the way we calculate taxes. Simplifying and closing tax holes would help extract more taxes from people who should be paying more while not punishing wage earners who have most of their taxes preempted out of their paycheck.

Post reply on HN