Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty • Hacker News Board

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#121

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #92

toomuchtodo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

what if it's more than 100% of their income :) are YOU prepared to pay let's say an 80% income tax and a 25% sales tax for example ?

I'm prepared to pay whatever is necessary, while also contributing to whatever tech is needed to drive costs down to reduce the monthly government-wide nut needed to pay for entitlements.

Food too expensive? Robotics farming. More energy needed? Scale up solar, wind, and utility scale battery storage installations. Moar cheap transportation? Scale up bicycle and electric self-driving car manufacturing.

It _can_ be done. We simply need the will to do so. Work backwards, first principles style. We have lots of atoms and electrons, lets organize them efficiently for everyone's benefit.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#122

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

drabiega wrote: post #117

cmurf wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The income value I keep seeing floated is in the realm of US$8000 per year. This is not basic income, it's basically a large tax credit. I don't know why it's called basic income, there's nothing really basic about it when it can't completely pay for one basic thing like say rent or mortgage.

Actually, under some models $8000 could be enough. A job paying that much locks you down, but if you got that much in basic income you could move somewhere for which that is enough to leave, albeit cheaply. I know there are places in rural Pennsylvania where you could get by on that. Those places don't have much for jobs to go around, but population influxes of people with lots of free time and a willingness to work…

Well, enabling nomadism in a modern society very well may have positives for individuals and local economies alike for all the same sorts of reasons why nomadism is a successful and very efficient strategy of survival.

The ecological era "farmer" gene required a disposition in humans to feel compelled (or at least comfortable) staying put. And that gene just so happens to be common today in developed nations. But it's not for everyone, and the economics right now are very much against the nomadic personality type.

That could be mitigate to a good degree by such a small guaranteed income.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#123

Post by mason240 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #64

sharemywin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

obviously someone else is going to have to pay for people making under 10k.

Yes. Obviously. So the "cost of UBI" is clearly not $10k times (number of humans in the USA), but more like $10k times (number of eligible people making under $10k). The article omitting this pretty important thing basically discredits it and probably its parent site

>So the "cost of UBI" is clearly not $10k times (number of humans in the USA), but more like $10k times (number of eligible people making under $10k).

It is "$10k times (number of humans in the USA)," because the "number of eligible people" IS the number of humans in the USA.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#124

Post by grahamburger » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:04 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #72

dionidium wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Barely afford groceries after all non-discretionary spending is a lot different than "can't afford groceries or non-discretionary spending." I've been in the former category, for quite a long time - I would not call that poverty. If that was the worst of what people experience in the US, I would also call poverty solved.

(It's not the worst of what people experience, and I would not personally call poverty solved.)

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#125

Post by drabiega » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:05 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #110

drabiega wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Well, considering ~40% of Americans pay no income tax, I'd say the top is paying more than their fair share?

How is that relevant?

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#126

Post by ScottBurson » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:05 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #85

maxxxxx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

This is clearly the worst aspect of our system and shows that it was designed by the mathematically uneducated.

It needs to be done in such a way that the total-income curve is monotonically increasing, so recipients never have a disincentive to make a little more money in their job. This should be fundamental and obvious, but because doing it requires just the tiniest bit of linear algebra, our elected representatives are not capable of it. Mind-blowing.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#127

Post by tn13 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

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…

homeless, underemployed and malnourished etc. in USA are far better than Homeless, Underemployed and Malnourished 50 years ago and even the lower middle class in the rest of the world.

I would prefer to be a homeless in USA than lower middle class in India.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#128

Post by grahamburger » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #115

grahamburger wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't they actually get more like an extra 30-50k burden to cancel out the 10k they got and pay 10k to several other people?

The people who make under 10k outnumber the people making good money by a factor of 3-5?

I'm not sure that's the right ratio to look at - someone making under 10k isn't going to pay taxes at all. The average income in the US is just over 50k - I would expect that's about the income where your UBI would be 1 for 1 - your taxes go up 10k and you get 10k from UBI.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#129

Post by grahamburger » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

The biggest concern that I have with UBI is how do we avoid the Basic Income Trap? It's pretty widely accepted that we fell prey to the Two Income Trap [1]. If we institute UBI, how long will it be before a person needs their UBI and another job (or two, or three) just to scrape by?

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#130

Post by grahamburger » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #39

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…

If we start excluding groups, can we stop calling it a " Universal Basic Income" and admit that it will be yet another political weapon to wield?

UBI will be yet another political weapon to yield, just on the taxes side rather than the payout side. Where do we draw the line between who nets positive on UBI after their tax increases, and who loses money? That would be an enormous political weapon to yield.