Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#691

Post by danielweber » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #671

danielweber wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could create basic income as a family of associated benefits. For example, give everyone a housing voucher. They can only spend it on housing, with the assumption they will need to top up from other funds It would still be "universal" because everyone has it and you don't suffer clawbacks.

This would lead eventually to the system we have now, only larger (because it's not means tested). It also has huge supply-side economics problems: If you stipulate that every family can spend an extra $1000 on housing, rent will go up by $1000 pretty quickly, and housing prices will go up by whatever $1000/mo in mortgage payments will allow.

In consumption-based positional goods, rents will always go up by whatever the basic income is. Because people are entering a zero-sum rat race for status. That's irrelevant to whether it's doled out as BI or as housing voucher.

But in normal markets, people will still try to supply the good at the lowest cost and consumers will still try to gain it at the lowest price, and the market will find some midpoint.

Moreover, if you can't make "universal housing vouchers" work, how are you going to make "universal basic income" work? The former is a much simpler problem.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#692

Post by grownseed » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:16 PM UTC

Yen wrote: post #638

grownseed wrote: post #342

This is probably where my ignorance of socio-economics will shine, so please bear with me. In all the articles I've come across regarding universal basic income, I've never seen the idea of a flat tax rate mentioned (e.g. everybody, everything, 20%). It seems to me that it could work for the same reasons UBI is supposed to, i.e. reduce overheads among other things, while in this case also potentially reducing the ris…

If I understand your proposal correctly, you propose to * set the income tax to a flat 20% * provide no (or very little) universal basic income * Increase freely available benefits Addressing the tax issue specifically - you propose the benefits are: * Reduce overheads * Reduce risk for abuse and manipulation I don't think a flat tax rate will achieve the things you want it to. A progressive tax rate doesn't add any…

Thank you for your comment, you bring up some very valid points. I think I might not have expressed myself clearly enough on some of mine so I apologize for that.

  set the income tax to a flat 20%

The 20% I mentioned was a completely random figure, my guess is that it should be much higher, but this would obviously need to be researched properly. This also wouldn't solely be for incomes, but rather for all financial transactions, which I believe (though I may be misguided) would reduce potential loopholes that rely on declaring income in various ways (including not as income). I think this idea is more or less in line with your idea to "simplify or refactor the different definitions of income".

Additionally, with a flat tax rate, I imagine it would be much easier to subtract taxes at the source (e.g. as is done in the UK for incomes) which in turn would reduce administrative work and therefore overheads.

  provide no (or very little) universal basic income

I am definitely in favour of a substantial universal basic income (within reason, of course). I simply believe that it would work better alongside a strong support network (i.e. education, healthcare, etc.).

  A flat 20% tax rate means decreased government revenue overall, lower taxes for the rich, and higher taxes for the middle-class and poor.

Regarding "lower taxes for the rich", I'm not sure how true that is (again, if we agree that 20% is a made-up figure for now). The rich benefit from ways of skirting these things that poor and middle-class people do not have. This reminds me of an article by Warren Buffet in the NYT on how the rich get special treatment (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-...).

As for poor and middle-class people, I think it's important to look at the bigger picture. The initial tax spending would be, as you note, possibly higher, however relatively speaking this is money they would no longer need to spend on basic necessities, which for society as a whole seems more beneficial and a greater equalizer.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#693

Post by gremlinsinc » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:16 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…

The problem with this is that it negates one of the biggest benefits of BI -- getting rid of red tape and bloat.

Printing and mailing checks can be done almost fully automated and would close down millions of welfare buildings, and give people back dignity.

There's a stigma that you get when you're on public assistance or welfare. It creates a feeling of less self-worth. This causes you to believe that the best job you'll ever get is McDonald's - so why even try to better your circumstance.

GBI on the other hand goes to everyone - even the wealthy. The message is that we're all equal and it's basically a reverse citizen tax on the government to ensure everyone can live and grow in nurtured environments.

The world I see in the next 20 years - there will be no more truck drivers. Fast food restaurants will be run by 1 manager alone. Gas stations will be ran by self-serve kiosks, and be fully automated, as will be grocery stores - including re-stocking. Other jobs that will be gone: Surgeons / Doctors (probably not fully but the need will be a lot less because of AI like Watson, where you once needed 30+ doctors in a hospital you might need only 3 or 4.), construction workers, trash trucks, oil rig workers, fishing, pilots, military (replaced by drones / droids), manufacturing, etc...

We will move from a society where it's expected that everyone work 40+ hours and sometimes two jobs to meet basic needs to a society where work is optional, and 20 hours is the norm. More focus and time is spent with family and having experiences that truly enrich one's life. GBI gives people the freedom to also pursue entrepreneurism, startup ideas, music, art, writing, and any other number of hobbies and past times that could enrich society in general. Studies have shown that truly happy people aren't the ones who have the most 'stuff' it's the people who experience the most that life has to offer (i.e. traveling, events, concerts, etc...)

For us to get to GBI we need to hurry up the automation revolution -- I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, and progressive democrat who's FOR robots at Wendy's and McDonald's as well as a $15+min wage... I see it coming. 40% of jobs will be gone by 2030 and never replaced. The faster we tip the scale and hit the dirt the faster government will need to respond or there will be riots when people are starving and losing jobs left and right. It needs to get worse before it can get better essentially.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#694

Post by pyronik » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

bcheung wrote: post #553

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 would lean towards the "tough shit" method. Although, if it was paid bi-monthly they would only be screwed for 2 weeks. Not long enough to realistically have any life threatening consequences. They would learn pretty quick. Maybe even do weekly.

I lean towards "tough shit" for all welfare. It's theft pure and simple.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#695

Post by CaptSpify » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

MicroBerto wrote: post #623

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 a…

Wouldn't this give lower-income households the opportunity to move elsewhere?

I do agree that it seems likely to have some kind of inflationary affect, but it will also give more options.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#696

Post by maerF0x0 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #678

star0zero wrote: post #659

I'm a complete armchair economist and realize that a lot of really smart people are tackling this, but, in my limited understanding of supply and demand, my concern would be that a new floor for basic goods and services would materialize due to the new buying power of those on Basic Income. Doesn't that artificially inflate the base price of those goods and services without ever having a natural (market-based) opport…

There wouldn't be a problem delivering goods, because companies would still compete to deliver those goods using price signals. The problem is that a lot of goods delivered to the poor are delivered by low-skill workers, and since demand curves slope there will be significant inflation here, along with a lot of things undone.

IMO the spike in demand will cause shortrun inflation, then suppliers will scale up production/competition in response. IDK if 5 years is enough time to see this all through. Depends on what they end up demanding most of. Food seems to be in good supply so minimal inflation there. Housing is tight in bay area so likely to see inflation there.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#697

Post by cortesoft » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

MicroBerto wrote: post #623

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 a…

This would be the case if the X dollars were being printed from scratch every time they were distributed. They aren't, though; they are coming from tax dollars.

Yes, it would most likely cause some inflation of consumer goods, since poor people spend more of their money on consumer goods than rich people (so when you transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, consumer goods will become more expensive)

This increase in consumer good prices, however, will also cause more resources to go into producing goods for poor people (who suddenly aren't so poor anymore). Depending on the limiting factors for these consumer goods, this will most likely cause prices to stabilize at a reasonable place.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#698

Post by sah2ed » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

thedevil wrote: post #226

coldtea wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 accelerating technology improvements. Arguments from "but this is how it always have been" have a tendency to break down when significant societal/technological changes happen.

I use a different model than everyone else which I think gives insight on this. I split jobs into 3 categories (simplified here to make it easy to understand): 1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology. 2) jobs that mostly transfer economic value (marketers, lawyers): these jobs keep increasing. (Note:…

> 1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology.

I really don't follow why job types 2 and 3 would grow instead of shrink; shouldn't job types 1 and 2 be the ones to increase with technological advances?

Technological advancements meant massive increases in output per farmer but farming itself does not require specialized skills, so the increased productivity lead to the drop in the farmer population. Contrast this with activities like programming and medicine which cannot be automated wholesale -- programming and medicine do require specialized skills.

For instance, we'll need more programmers in future than we have now since someone has to program/maintain code written for self-driving cars (for the rest of the population), precision farming (for farmers), telemedicine (for doctors) etc, and with efforts like Learnable Programming [1], more people will pick up programming as a career, so the ranks of people that identify with the programming profession would swell not decrease.

I believe the same increased productivity would eventually happen to the field of medicine -- if computers become really good at the basic stuff -- physical examinations that can produce an initial diagnosis that is fairly accurate, would-be doctors will spend a shorter time in training since they have less material to master. I think this will eventually lead to more people qualifying to become doctors.

So the point I'm making is that including farmers along with doctors and programmers as examples of job type 1 needs some rethinking.

[1] http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming/

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#699

Post by antisthenes » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #683

Namrog84 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you miss the point of why we actually need BI research and one of the foundational reasons for it. I know predictions could be off. But if in 20 years there are simply no jobs available to 60% of the population. What are they gonna do? Just all starve to death? BI is the inevitable step towards a post scarcity society. When majority of people not only don't want to work but that there are simply no jobs for m…

> in 20 years there are simply no jobs available to 60% of the population Said people in the early 1800s. And early 1900s. Look, it's just not gonna happen. Jobs will change, but there will always be work for those willing to do it. You may not like the job - hell, you may not like your current job either - or it may be a better job than any that exists today. Look around you, how many of the jobs you see people doin…

> Look around you, how many of the jobs you see people doing in your office existed 100 years ago? How about 50? 20?

Close to 95% actually. Customer service and sales existed since the introduction of money; and 50-100 years ago, our company probably would have required many more employees to provide a comparable level of service that we do today.

Maybe that's not true for a silicon valley office, but for the vast majority of companies out there, the sales, customer service and management still comprise the bulk of the employee force.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#700

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 31, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

MicroBerto wrote: post #623

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 a…

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

The answer is no.

> I fail to see how there won't be some kind of inflationary situation amongst the lower class

Ignoring any potentially counteracting monetary policy intervention, there absolutely will be some price inflation for goods disproportionately in demand at the low end of the economic distribution. Reasonably, you expect both market clearing price and market clearing quantity of such goods to increase with a transfer of income to that group (and UBI funded by tax is a transfer, in effect). In short, nominal net beneficiaries will get more stuff, but by somewhat less than prices before the UBI would suggest.

Essentially, production will shift from things demanded by the net contributors to things demanded by the net beneficiaries.