Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#421

Post by fosco » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #402

fosco wrote: post #384

I do not really know where I stand on BI yet, but my concern is that if the BI is coming from taxes, why not tax income less and tax consumption more? This will encourage people to still be productive members of society rather than trying to find ways to live off the BI forever.

> This will encourage people to still be productive members of society rather than trying to find ways to live off the BI forever. It sounds like you have a fairly narrow definition of productive member of society. A lot of volunteer work has little or no monetary value (things like dog walkers at your city's animal shelter) yet still are good for society.

Volunteering full time on BI sounds like they are paid to volunteer, and my narrow definition is because I see people behaving similar to what I've observed with foodstamps.

finding ways to live off solely that and making little to no effort finding a job, simply finding ways to increase foodstamps by having additional dependants or otherwise.

these people are not volunteering more or what I would say are being productive members of society, yes they are likely a small percentage, maybe 1 out of 50 however, I see that percentage skyrocketing if something like basic income is provided.... I don't mind being totally wrong, I just find it very very very hard to believe people will still try to be 'productive' members of society ina general term.

not to invoke Ayn Rand, because I disagree with more than 50% of Atlas shrugged, but the whole concept of 'To each according to their need and to each according to their ability' does not work. people will abuse the system of BI just like SNAP or foodstamps or Dole are abused today.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#422

Post by thomasjudge » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

Fomite wrote: post #168

sama wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did consider it, and we are working with some established academics. However, I think it's a good idea to push forward alternative models of doing (and funding) research. Frankly, most of the existing institutions we thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated, and it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower.

I'll be interested to see if this actually works. As an established academic, we constantly interact with private companies that seriously underestimate how much research actually costs.

If the "actual cost of research" as you mention it includes some "overhead" amount which has some amortized portion of professorial salaries, departmental costs, university costs, etc, then I think you've just underlined Sam's point about bloat and expense

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#423

Post by Nimitz14 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

newobj wrote: post #366

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…

This has got to be the most pathetic strawman argument I've seen on HN in a long time. "BI doesn't work because it can't perfectly protect the most pathological outliers"? Ok. Did anyone say it would solve this scenario? And I'm sorry, but what existing agency currently helps people back on their feet after their 12th car accident in the first place? I'm really struggling to see the unequivocal BI take-down you tried…

> And I'm sorry, but what existing agency currently helps people back on their feet after their 12th car accident in the first place?

Exactly. Not the first time I've seen this pathetic excuse for an argument.

People will be people. You cannot force people to do things they don't want to do. So don't be a fucking idiot and attempt it.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#424

Post by sievebrain » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #22

> Although basic income seems fiscally challenging today, in a world where technology replaces existing jobs and basic income becomes necessary, technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources and the cost of living should fall dramatically. I am 100% for this experiment. But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive. Throughout human history, we have seen rapid and accel…

Can you back up the statement that more people are working than ever before?

In the USA at least, labor force participation has been trending downwards since 2002 i.e. fewer people are working:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-pa...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#425

Post by st3v3r » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #199

xienze wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So for example, section 8 and food stamps might be phased out under a BI system (they're always going to get next month's or week's deposit) But my point is, when you hand someone a check and they must in turn be responsible for spending that money on food and shelter, they might not actually do that and then what? At least with Section 8 and food stamps you're earmarking the money for a particular purpose so as to…

If someone has that much difficulty managing money, I think social services need to get involved and take some control over the person's decisions away from them. I just don't think that should be the default.

Keep in mind that, under many current programs, you are not allowed to have savings. If you do not use all of your welfare money, then you get your benefits cut. If you have too much in your savings account, then you get your benefits cut. So it's not so simple as to say they have difficulty managing money, it's that they are not allowed to do many of the things you'd associate with successful money managing.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#426

Post by blktiger » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #321

acgourley wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The thing I'd like to see is government services that will optionally replace portions of your Basic Income. If you're having problems feeding yourself, I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI. If you're having problems housing yourself, an opt-in program for housing in exchange for $Y out of your BI. The same options should be available for all the necessit…

This makes sense to me because I have a feeling most people who would need to rely on BI also have a problem managing money.

As an example, I once had a homeless guy ask me for money outside a grocery store. I suggested that we go inside and get him whatever food he wanted, and he said he'd wait for me outside. Sure enough he was gone by the time I returned. I'm fairly certain he only wanted the money for alcohol or drugs. That kind of person doesn't save money for food, they beg for food and use the money for other purposes.

If you made the program automatically adjust your BI down when you started accepting food from government programs, that would basically act as the government stepping in for people who just aren't able to handle money.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#427

Post by greedo » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:19 PM UTC

pekk wrote: post #364

greedo wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"newly issued fiat currency" is theft. Forced inflation is theft from people with savings etc etc etc.

By this logic, anything that increases inflation is theft because anything that reduces savings is theft. This is too broad a notion of theft.

Intentionally devaluing currency is taking money from people's savings. It might not be considered theft by statute, because government, but it's still taking people's money. It's a great way to sidestep opposition to increasing tax rates.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#428

Post by tormeh » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:19 PM UTC

k2enemy wrote: post #385

cbr wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> worked for black money and collect the social benefit at the same time This one doesn't apply to BI, since you get the same amount of BI money whether you work or not and regardless of how much you earn.

I keep seeing this repeated in discussions about BI, but I honestly have no idea how it would be possible. I get that everyone receives the same size check, no matter what their income, but who pays for the BI program? I assume it is funded through taxes and that people that earn more income will pay higher taxes. So once you take BI received - taxes paid , people that earn more outside income get less from the BI pr…

Umm... No, that's the situation where taxes create a disincentive to work. Try solving that without having taxes be a flat fee.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#429

Post by fosco » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:20 PM UTC

fosco wrote: post #421

criddell wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will encourage people to still be productive members of society rather than trying to find ways to live off the BI forever. It sounds like you have a fairly narrow definition of productive member of society. A lot of volunteer work has little or no monetary value (things like dog walkers at your city's animal shelter) yet still are good for society.

Volunteering full time on BI sounds like they are paid to volunteer, and my narrow definition is because I see people behaving similar to what I've observed with foodstamps. finding ways to live off solely that and making little to no effort finding a job, simply finding ways to increase foodstamps by having additional dependants or otherwise. these people are not volunteering more or what I would say are being produ…

just to add quickly, I do believe one day the need for many types of work will be minimized to almost nothing, so some solution will be required, but from what I've observed with proposed BI solutions I have very little faith in actually succeeding.

I dream of a day that was referenced in Star trek where all of these challenges were 'solved'. I do not see BI in its current infancy being a possible solution, it needs work and I'm excited to see more research on the topic because that is what it needs in order for a solution like it to be truly successful.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#430

Post by mnx » Tue, May 31, 2016, 7:20 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #54

mnx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if a basic income were to be introduced at the state level, that still has no guarantee of continuing for any period of time.

There is a substantial difference between open ended with no guarantee of continuing, and being explicitly close-ended. (Its equivalent to the difference between cutting a tax -- which might in principle later be restored -- and issuing an explicitly limited-term tax holiday, to use a well-known example.)

Yes, it is substantially different. I guess what I thought of was that if the UBI were to be implemented while not being widely (as in by well over 50% of the voters) accepted, say by a far-left political party, barely winning elections, it could be perceived similarly.