Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#231

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

acgourley wrote: post #123

colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help. That's where family and charity hopefully take over. At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing gua…

You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. The liberal would prefer to keep universal healthcare and food programs and put cash on top, making the total distribution to the poor larger. The liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size. As an aside, if you pay attent…

> You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian.

Actually, I think the two main groups are both libertarian, though there's a left-libertarian and a right-libertarian viewpoint, with the libertarians that aren't strongly left- or right- splitting between them.

I personally prefer keeping the existing means-tested programs but counting UBI as income when considering eligibility, such that with growing UBI [0] you eventually reach the point where the income floor is above the eligibility level for the means-tested programs, allowing them to be discontinued.

[0] I also prefer basically tying UBI to a tax stream that should grow with economic growth, with mechanisms to provide reserves so that you don't have UBI drop with cyclical recessions.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#232

Post by mizchief2 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

I would be down with Basic Income if we implement it as part of the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax provided basic Income before it was cool. Everyone gets a "prebate" every month to offset the cost of sales tax for basic goods and services. Also means people can buy any used goods for no tax not only helping the poor, but creating a bigger market for smaller shops to sell local used goods to compete with the big retailers.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#233

Post by namenotrequired » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

kauffj wrote: post #34

Unfortunately, the explanation most consistent with data on happiness/satisfaction is that the primary utility gain from wealth is derived from gains in zero-sum social status. We can tell this even from the language of the post itself: "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs." Basic needs? Everyone in America has their basic needs. Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we r…

50,000 years ago we had a dramatically shorter average life span than today. Are you saying that improvements that cause us to not die are luxuries?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#234

Post by haaen » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #216

haaen wrote: post #133

The YCR statement says: "We think everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs—no matter what, especially if there are enough resources to make it possible." Why give free money to people who are too lazy to work?

There are plenty of people who do work but still can't cover their basic needs reliably (minimum wage isn't nearly enough in big cities but cities still need the jobs that pay minimum wage) and then people who can't work (infirmity or lack of skills). Why should money just accumulate at the top where it's marginal utility is vastly smaller than if it were in the hands of the bottom portion of our population? Finally…

Of course there will always be people who cannot work. But the point is, BI is a basic income for anyone. No strings attached, Here's OPM, even for people who could make a living without BI. Strikes me as a waste of taxpayer's money?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#235

Post by kilroy123 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

prodmerc wrote: post #189

This shit again. NO ONE has given me an answer to the question: what will happen when basic income inevitably raises the overall price of basic stuff because now "everyone can afford it"? It will be back to zero, people with basic income will not be able to afford both housing/bills and food. Moreover the ones without will be totally fucked. So, what gives? Run BI in a few small counties and call it a success? Gee wo…

This has happened in a small country. Cuba.

Everyone basically gets the same small amount of money. What has happened? People desperately want to work and earn extra money. Some people can and do survive on just what they get from the government. Still, everyone has a hide hustle to earn a little more and live better.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#236

Post by andreasklinger » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

mattkrisiloff wrote: post #38

badloginagain wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think how isolated the ecosystem is too important. I would be more concerned with the methodology of measuring how behaviour has changed- Are they going to follow around candidates before the checks come rolling in to establish baseline behaviours?

We're going to have a control group for the pilot that doesn't receive an income, and following base-line behavior is something we'll consider doing for the main study.

To understand this correctly: the core goal of the study is to see how people will behave?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#237

Post by nirmel » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

stared wrote: post #170

dustinmoorenet wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't sell your social security benefits, so I would guess the same restrictions would apply.

You can - by taking a loan.

Right, often the guarantee of future payments can be treated as collateral to make getting a loan much easier. At a minimum it can be used to show proof of future income.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#238

Post by crdoconnor » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

acgourley wrote: post #123

colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help. That's where family and charity hopefully take over. At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing gua…

You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. The liberal would prefer to keep universal healthcare and food programs and put cash on top, making the total distribution to the poor larger. The liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size. As an aside, if you pay attent…

Universal healthcare is simply more efficient. The NHS delivers the same outcomes (longevity, infant mortality, etc.) as the American health system at less than half the cost (healthcare spending / % GDP).

Fully private provision of insurance for any events that follow a non-normal distribution (as most, but not all healthcare costs do) simply does not work, has never worked and will never work.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#239

Post by runako » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

simplify wrote: post #156

Has anyone considered "subsidizing jobs" as an alternative to BI? Would it work better if the government gives $X to a company when they hire someone?

I posted a comment with a link to a NYT article that mentions subsidizing jobs.

I do wonder though -- if the government subsidizes jobs by $X/hr, what incentive is there for companies to not just reduce their contribution by the same amount (so the net to the employee is the same)?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#240

Post by FLUX-YOU » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

psadri wrote: post #19

Would a basic income simply cause a rise in the cost of living (housing, food, etc...) and therefore nullify its intended effect?

I think the idea is that there would be so much housing and food that there would be no way to compete (without the necessary manufacturing capital if/when BI becomes law) in the lower end market because the supply is so high.