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

Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

igmchicago.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#41

Post by thaumasiotes »

wang_li wrote: post #23
Retric wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flater tax rate would make up a large chunk of the difference. Basicly, at 50k you still get UBI, but it's offset by new taxes to leave your after tax income more or less the same. At 25k, you pay a lot more in taxes, but get a UBI for a net gain. At 0k you just get UBI, not food stamps ect. There would probably be a net cost increase, but as SS counts as regular income it's not going to be huge for most retires. A…

I thought the U stood for universal. If you take it back in new taxes, it's just a transfer program from productive to non-productive.

It's a transfer from productive to non-productive under all possible setups. How were you imagining it would be funded?

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#42

Post by maxerickson »

cheald wrote: post #26
Retric wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flater tax rate would make up a large chunk of the difference. Basicly, at 50k you still get UBI, but it's offset by new taxes to leave your after tax income more or less the same. At 25k, you pay a lot more in taxes, but get a UBI for a net gain. At 0k you just get UBI, not food stamps ect. There would probably be a net cost increase, but as SS counts as regular income it's not going to be huge for most retires. A…

You're effectively describing a negative income tax, not UBI.

There's a whole miasma of overlapping ideas.

Lots of people propose a negative income tax as a way to implement a UBI.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#43

Post by chimeracoder »

lumberjack wrote: post #30
abannin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Social Security just age restricted basic income? It seems strange to have UBI and then give citizens another check after they hit retirement age.

What? No. People worked for that money. It's more like a mandated savings account or mandatory old age insurance or something like that.

> What? No. People worked for that money. It's more like a mandated savings account or mandatory old age insurance or something like that.

Well, if you take an insurance model to Social Security, the only real 'risk' is the question of how long you'll live. And depending on how much you make, it's very possible to pay in more to Social Security before the age of 65 than you can expect to receive in benefits even for a reasonably long lifespan, making it a redistribution rather than a mandatory savings account.

Put another way, even if you assume that Social Security will be around in 40 years[0], if you get a high-paying job straight out of college and keep getting paid at that rate (adjusted for inflation), Social Security is basically guaranteed to pay you less money than you would have if you just kept the withholdings yourself and stuck it in a regular savings account.

Whether or not you think that's a good thing, it's very clearly a redistribution and not an insurance.

[0] and also ignore the fact that the benefits being paid in 40 years will be based on the taxpayers 40 years from now, not the taxpayers today

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#44

Post by jcizzle »

aresant wrote: post #17

"It might also shift the norm whether to work. Work = being part of society " - Markus Brunnermeier(1) I love how simply Markus arrived at the fundamental political issue with Basic Income in the USA: American culture and society is a "work culture". If you're not working you're not part of society. That's a very plain and powerful statement that is central to many of the gut-reaction trump-esque disparaging argument…

That's not a political issue, although it somehow has been made out to be. Society is a group of people whose contributions - however large or small - are beneficial to the rest of that group. Those contributions are called 'work'. There are many benefits to being a part of a society. Receiving those benefits without contributing to the rest of the society is selfish.

This doesn't have much to do with Trump or gut-reactions. This has to do with some folks feeling entitled to the benefits created by hundreds of millions of people's effort because they were born in a certain place and time. Those benefits should be reserved for people who contribute to society.

The good thing is none of this will ever happen, as most people are good-hearted folks that want to contribute to society. A better discussion would be figuring out society can help facilitate that, instead of placating those who currently don't have a good way of contributing.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#45

Post by cheald »

jaimeyap wrote: post #2

The formulation of the question frames Social Security and Medicare as being mutually exclusive with a UBI. UBI ought to replace things like food stamps and welfare. Not healthcare or retirement benefits! I am a huge fan of UBI, and I would have voted "disagree" the way that question was framed. A better formulation would be to frame UBI as an "automation dividend". Where we dip into increased efficiencies produced b…

The reason it does so is that it's the only viable way to fund it.

235,715,590 people 21+ in the US. At $13k/year that's just over $3 trillion dollars per year. Social Security spending was $888b in 2015, Medicare spending was $546b in 2015, and other welfare spending was $1.031b. If you cut all SS, Medicare, and other welfare spending and redirected it into a $13k/yr UBI, you'd still be about 20% short of your necessary funding. Total federal revenues for 2015 were about $3.25t.

If you leave Medicare and SS in place? You could only fund 46% of the UBI requirement with existing welfare spending. Good luck passing the massive tax increases needed to fund that. And that's ignoring the fact that the SSA indicates that the long-term ability to meet SS obligations is already in danger.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#46

Post by malka »

1024core wrote: post #9
eanzenberg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause?

I keep asking the same question; and all I get, basically, is that the money will just appear from somewhere. What will happen to all the non-profits and government departments that are built around providing "services" to the poor, homeless, etc.? It's a huge industry, and it's not going down without a fight. In the meantime, you have added a few trillion dollars in annual spending to the budget.

UBI may not totally clear the homeless problem. Many of them are insane person without any care.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#47

Post by ncallaway »

jcizzle wrote: post #19
IanCal wrote: post #12

> Work = being part of society That's a sad state of affairs.

Society is a group of people whose collaborative efforts are able to accomplish more than any one individual and more than simply a sum of individuals. That means 'work', which is another word for 'doing something for someone else'. It is selfish to believe that one can belong to a group of people and obtain the benefits without contributing to it.

Why do you get to define what society is? Sure, if you take the definition that "society is the group of people who are working", then you get the conclusion that you are required to work to be in society.

I'm going to present a different definition of society:

> A society is a group of people involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society)

> the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. (Google [https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+society&oq=def...)

> an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. (Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/society?s=t)

It seems the definition that you're providing for "Society" doesn't line up with the common definition of the word. It doesn't mean "work". It can, as the parent comment states, mean "Volunteer" or "Interacting with people socially".

You don't get to exclude people from society by using convenient definitions.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#48

Post by twoquestions »

vkou wrote: post #29
aresant wrote: post #17

"It might also shift the norm whether to work. Work = being part of society " - Markus Brunnermeier(1) I love how simply Markus arrived at the fundamental political issue with Basic Income in the USA: American culture and society is a "work culture". If you're not working you're not part of society. That's a very plain and powerful statement that is central to many of the gut-reaction trump-esque disparaging argument…

Unless you're rich. If you're rich, and not working, your opinions are valued and respected.

I don't know, where I'm from we look down pretty hard on trust fund babies. This may be different on the coasts.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#49

Post by Retric »

cheald wrote: post #26
Retric wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flater tax rate would make up a large chunk of the difference. Basicly, at 50k you still get UBI, but it's offset by new taxes to leave your after tax income more or less the same. At 25k, you pay a lot more in taxes, but get a UBI for a net gain. At 0k you just get UBI, not food stamps ect. There would probably be a net cost increase, but as SS counts as regular income it's not going to be huge for most retires. A…

You're effectively describing a negative income tax, not UBI.

I am not sure there is a difference as UBI's must be funded.

At least in the US, oil states for example have a somewhat independent income stream.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#50

Post by sutterbomb »

apalmer wrote: post #21
rubidium wrote: post #7

I don't know a better way to put this. The whole UBI idea that shows up here a lot (e.g. https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/ ) is just naive. And now we have a nice poll of the experts to justify that judgement. UBI of $13k has the same support from experts as does denying climate change.

UBI, is one of those things I just cannot logically compute. I am completely in support of the end goals of UBI. Just cannot fathom how UBI can even theoretically works. It seems to ignore Economics, Game Theory, and Human Nature. I just dont understand how it could rationally be viewed as a workable solution.

Can you share details on what specifically isn't computing?
Post reply on HN