Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#621

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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…

> 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 their money and now can't afford rent and/or food? Do you tell them "tough shit, you've exhausted all your social safety nets"

That already happens with existing welfare programs. It's not immediately obviously why BI would be worse.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#622

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#623

Post by MicroBerto »

senseless wrote: post #253

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 ef…

I've brought this up in the past, and am always met with arguments that just don't seem to dent the problem statement.

My simple question I always pose is this: "If everyone has $X dollars, then wouldn't $X become worthless?"

I fail to see how there won't be some kind of inflationary situation amongst the lower class, especially in the form of rents over the course of a year as leases reset. I also refuse to accept any argument that involves the majority of landlords "doing the right thing".

Thanks for posting the Law of Rent.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#625

Post by extrapickles »

mcherm wrote: post #209
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…

I can't speak for MOST BI fans, but I can tell you my own answer to that question. I believe that (like the rest of the world, but NOT the US) medical care ought to be provided to all, so I'd take medical emergencies off the table. I also think it is important that there not be a way to confiscate one's basic income for the repayment of a debt -- everyone gets to keep their basic income no matter what. Furthermore, w…

Basic income should be subject to garnishment, just like any other income. There are limits to the amount that can be garnished (In WA state its 25-35% of total income, depending on type of debts) that would protect them from having it completely taken away.

Doughnut holes in benefits always create odd distortions where people would turn down a small raise or increase in hours because they would actually loose money due to the loss of benefits at the higher income level. In this case, it would be people not willing to work as the extra money they would make would go mostly to the debt rather than their pocket.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#626

Post by jimbokun »

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…

"It's going to be cheaper to make sure people have bread and vaccinations despite themselves than it's going to be to solve the resulting issues later."

The limited research so far seems to show people generally make good decisions when given money without stipulation, and the idea we need to tell them how to spend their money "despite themselves" is probably very misguided.

Of course, more research is needed, which is exactly what the YCombinator program is planning to do.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#627

Post by danudey »

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…

As with current welfare programs: you get a check every , end of story. People are free to make bad decisions and get themselves evicted, but those situations will be because someone is incapable of managing their money, not because they're incapable of making it.

Likewise, landlords will be more willing to give people a chance because they know you're not going to 'lose your job' so to speak. That said, the idea of a basic income seems like it should also include free courses on managing your money – best practices, techniques, ways to work around impulse buying, how RRSPs/401k/etc. work, and so on.

Also, welfare programs as currently implemented aren't a safety net below existing incomes; they're not a line of credit that you fall back on when your car dies again. They're programs which are paid in lieu of an actual income, which is frustrating to apply for and be on, and in most cases they pay you so little that you can't afford e.g. child care and rent, but which also force you to prove that you're out there applying for jobs even though you can't afford someone to watch your kid while you do.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#628

Post by chimeracoder »

naasking wrote: post #516
robbiemitchell wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not enough discussion to this effect. When everyone has more money, the prices of everything will probably go up.

Good thing everyone will not have more money then. The total money supply remains constant under UBI.

> The total money supply remains constant under UBI.

Well - it doesn't, actually.

A self-sufficient program would have to be self-sustaining via tax revenue, and unless the goal is to defeat the whole purpose of the program, the tax revenue will disproportionately come from the wealthy. However, the wealthy are less likely to spend every extra dollar that they have, which means that they're more likely instead to save (invest) it[0]. In other words, this proposal would transfer money that is currently being used for long-term investments[1] and put it towards consumption.

The velocity of money would increase, but the actual supply of money would almost certainly decrease, holding all else equal.

[0] Money stored in the bank is an investment; it is the source of capital for others who want to procure loans for investment and infrastructure projects.

[1] These deposits create money, thanks to fractional reserve banking

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#629

Post by beat »

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…

Healthcare != food. As a liberal and a libertarian, I'd like to see BI replace welfare for basic living expenses like food, shelter, and transportation. Healthcare is different. It can be very cheap, or suddenly very expensive.

Part of the motivation for BI is that it's the least expensive means to the end of not having homeless people starving in the street (among other ends). Likewise, universal health care is the least expensive way to keep working-age adults from dying or being crippled by treatable health conditions.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#630

Post by mjevans »

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…

What I think the system(s) should do at this point is actually 'arrest' the person, take them to someplace that evaluates them for why this situation occurred and then addresses the malfunction.

Maybe it's a legitimate case of hardship; the individual is doing the best the can, but society and circumstances have simply doomed them to failure. Forgiveness (of various kinds) and moving forward are recommended.

Maybe they are in an area where the cost of living is too high or they can't find jobs to supplement the basic income and allow them to afford additional expenses. Find them a job and/or help them move to an area that society needs them.

Maybe they cannot manage their own life and circumstances: convert BI to paying for semi-managed lifestyle (E.G. a dorm and/or community food kitchen in their housing block).

You might have noticed a common theme here, instead of handling an exception with a punishment you handle it with identifying the actual cause and attempting to address it. Any 'punishment' as a result is a loss of freedom (in exchange for society helping you with your problems).

Post reply on HN