Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#251

Post by kilroy123 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

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?

Why not just give them money? If someone is "too lazy" to work, they're not going to be productive in any job anyways. We already give these people substantial subsidies in the form of food stamps, housing assistance, etc.

If someone wants to not work and live in a bad part of town. No offense, by why do you care? You'll live a much nicer life than them, working, and having more.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#252

Post by chimeracoder » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

kilroy123 wrote: post #212

prokes wrote: post #105

Can anyone explain how this can be implemented mathematically? Assume 300 million people @ $12k / year, you are spending $3.6 trillion. That is already more than current government revenue, leaving all current government services unfunded.

Pretty sure the number is significantly smaller than that. Children under the age of 18 wouldn't get money. People in prison likely wouldn't get money. I'm sure there would be other reasons to decline some people. Such as mentally disabled. (maybe parents or care giver would receive more?) So it would probably be around 200,000,000 - 250,000,000.

> People in prison likely wouldn't get money.

Well, people in prison are the ones who need money the most, given that they're currently working for a fraction of minimum wage just to buy basic toiletries.

> I'm sure there would be other reasons to decline some people. Such as mentally disabled. (maybe parents or care giver would receive more?)

And then you get right back to the whole question of determining who is eligible, or isn't eligible, and having some means of enforcing that... and we're right back where we started, with a means-testing system.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#253

Post by senseless » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

Good to see steps like this being made!

As a slight aside, there are strong proponents who argue, based on Ricardo's law of rent [0], that any excess income above the basic subsistence level will inevitably be swallowed up by landlords in the form of rents.

I'd be very interested to hear from the folks involved in this study if they have an opinion on such an assertion, and if you have any ideas on addressing that effect when it comes to instituting a basic income. Since, if you agreed with those arguments, it seems that a BI's long-term impact on disposable incomes would trend towards 0.

I am still studying the topic, but find the arguments compelling that say a basic income would need to also be paired with something along the lines of either a land-value tax or a community land contribution [1] (which, as the argument is often used, would have a dual bonus by obviating the need for property and income taxes) in order to have meaningful effect.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

[1] https://www.unitism.com/land/en/9-keep-what-you-earn-pay-for...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#254

Post by rtkwe » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:59 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?

Then you get into a whole mess of determining what's actually a company and what's a job and lose one of the (hopeful) benefits of BI which is allowing people to explore creative endeavors like the arts which aren't totally job based or allowing people to study for a better job without having to compromise and basic living standards.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#255

Post by xienze » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

namenotrequired wrote: post #177

simonsarris wrote: post #141

"Basic Income that ends in 1/5/10 years" is not basic income at all. For some of the population they will literally be studying the effects of a temporary salary increase that follows a person if they change jobs. For some of the population they will be studying a don't-have-to-work sabbatical.

Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last. Edit: rephrase because I didn't express myself very well

> Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last.

That's like saying our existing welfare programs won't be around forever. But guess what -- they will. Handing out free money is an easy way to win votes and an even easier way to lose them if you take it away.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#256

Post by pessimizer » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

Strilanc wrote: post #167

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

Delivering the money in small chunks might help. Instead of 70$ every week, make it 5$ twice a day. So no matter how broke you were yesterday, you'll have enough money to eat in a few hours. Another "make it easy to get food even if you really screwed up" option might be to give grocery stores 'first dibs' on the money. Basically, let people spend the money a couple days in advance if they do it at a grocery store. A…

With every sentence you type here, the cost of the bureaucracy rises. Also the profits of the payday loan industry...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#257

Post by dctoedt » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #192

prokes wrote: post #105

Can anyone explain how this can be implemented mathematically? Assume 300 million people @ $12k / year, you are spending $3.6 trillion. That is already more than current government revenue, leaving all current government services unfunded.

- To a large extent, it is expected to replace current programs like welfare and social security. So those budgets, in theory, would be reduced or eliminated and supplemented with Basic Income. - It will be a taxable income. So a family including two adults would have an additional $24k on which to pay taxes. Those taxes help pay for the program by effectively reducing the additional funding that needs to be raised.…

> The most important question, in my mind, is what is the extent of inflationary pressure applied by BI?

Agreed that this might well be the most important question. A study by the NY Federal Reserve Bank concluded that college tuitions skyrocketed when easy money became available from the feds. [0] The abstract says:

The causes of the rapid growth in the price of college education have been the source of much debate in recent years, and the similarly quick growth in student borrowing, funded largely through federal student loan programs, has also been of substantial concern. This paper studies the relationship between these twin increases, and in particular, the extent to which increased access to student credit has contributed to rising tuition. To disentangle the simultaneity of the education cost and credit, we exploit detailed student-level financial data and changes in federal student aid programs to identify the impact of credit on tuition.

We find that institutions more exposed to changes in these programs increased their tuition disproportionately around these policy changes, with a pass-through effect on tuition from changes in subsidized loan maximums per qualifying student of about 60 percent, and smaller but still positive pass-through effects of Pell Grant aid and the unsubsidized federal loan program.

The subsidized loan effect is most pronounced for more expensive degrees, for those offered by private institutions, and for two-year degrees or vocational programs.

(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added.)

[0] https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#258

Post by clavalle » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

kauffj wrote: post #97

cm2012 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The biggest need that's expensive to make work is shelter - the cost has not gone down over time. There are millions of Americans either on the streets or living with toxic family members they need to be away from.

Tents or other very basic structures exceed or match the quality of shelter that humans lived in for tens of thousands of years. There is no innate need for modern conveniences, other than the innate need to not be so far away from the other guy.

Where do you put the tents? How do you prevent disease in a tent city without plumbing? How do they prepare food?

Basic Income wouldn't even be possible if it were not for modern society. Why try to divorce the standards of society from the implementation of basic income?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#259

Post by function_seven » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

jackpirate wrote: post #211

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

> ... mental illness ... This is hardly a "decision somebody made".

No, it's the reason the bad decisions get made. Same as alcoholism, drug addiction, and other "vices". Some may stem from initial poor decisions in the past, but they're all good contexts for why continued, daily bad decisions are made that serve to keep the person in poverty.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#260

Post by jedberg » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #224

Strilanc wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delivering the money in small chunks might help. Instead of 70$ every week, make it 5$ twice a day. So no matter how broke you were yesterday, you'll have enough money to eat in a few hours. Another "make it easy to get food even if you really screwed up" option might be to give grocery stores 'first dibs' on the money. Basically, let people spend the money a couple days in advance if they do it at a grocery store. A…

I agree with that one. It is probably worth it to deliver the money each day or at least each weekday. You could handle the food stamp microloan via and debit card that only is for small food purchases which deducts payment from future daily payments over a certain period of time. It would also stop the amazingly timed police checkpoint on the first day of the month. Handling the debt-collector issue is probably goin…

> It would also stop the amazingly timed police checkpoint on the first day of the month.

I've never heard of this. Do you have a link or something? I assume it's like a checkpoint they set up in poor areas so they can get money from the welfare checks or something?