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

Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

newamerica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#41

Post by nickff »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #33
nickff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not declared myself king, and I don't have any more authority to tell you how to live than you (or the state) have over me. Did you agree to the rules? I didn't agree to any, and I don't know anyone who did; most people just follow them. There are some interesting theories on political authority derived from democracy, but all that I've seen are fatally flawed. Antarctica has many (overlapping) claims by non-A…

I think this is a wrong point of view for the entire issue. After all, one of the primary reasons people form societies - and societies as they grow form governments - is to prevent the oppressor scenario you describe. You can say that maybe every generation of adults should decide again if they like this idea, but that seems a bit inefficient. Consider instead a different question - what authority your parents have…

The parents/children example is an interesting one, and parents are usually given authority over their children until the child reaches the age of majority. The problem with this reasoning is that there are a few possible conclusions (which I can think of):

1) The state has authority over its citizens until the citizens reach a certain level of capacity. As an adult who makes most of his own decisions, I believe I have a level of capacity which allows me to make good decisions without a state. This seems reasonable, as the state has declared me "eligible to vote", and perform other tasks significant to the state, which appears to be an endorsement of my level of capacity.

2) The state is our eternal guardian, and has authority over all of us forever, thus North Korea and other totalitarian states have the moral authority to oppress and direct their people in ways that seem wrong, because we are but children.

The other problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't really define what gives a state this authority. If I declare my own state "The Kingdom of Nickff", and invade (a portion of) Canada, I have the same authority as the previous government, though I may be 'cruel' and 'despotic'.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#42

Post by BigDaddyD »

empath75 wrote: post #27
BigDaddyD wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office,…

Wealth redistribution programs do benefit everyone in that it prevents masses of people from getting desperate enough to murder you and take your stuff.

Emotional argument not found reality.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#43

Post by BigDaddyD »

lastyearman wrote: post #18
BigDaddyD wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office,…

Everyone benefits from a strong middle class and not-too-poor class. Including you. Also I believe there is an argument to be made that more equal society is better for everyone involved.

I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#44

Post by Kpourdeilami »

Apocryphon wrote: post #39
Kpourdeilami wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert. However, I think taxation becomes immoral when the amount you pay in taxes, is more than the amount that you keep... so anything above 50%?

The wealthy in the U.S. are nowhere paying that high. I don't think the upper class in Europe even has to suffer that.

I don't know much about U.S taxes. I'm from Ontario, Canada and taxes are ridiculously high here.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#45

Post by drabiega »

gedy wrote: post #30

It's not 'automation' it's free/low-tariff trade pacts with cheap labor countries supported by both corporations and politicians (both Democrat and Republican) Blaming tech and automation is all a lot of hand-waving and finger pointing away from the real issue.

The jobs lost to those trade deals are generally pretty crappy jobs. We'd be better off if we captured some of the value those treaties create and redistribute it to those negatively impacted... with something like UBI.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#46

Post by [deleted] »

elicash wrote: post #13
Kpourdeilami wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds of the quote: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Taxation when taken too far is immoral, regardless of the popular vote

I think you're absolutely right that the "taxation is immoral" argument is one against democracy. But I still go with democracy, but with protection we ALREADY have in place to protect human rights.

[deleted]

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#47

Post by jeremyt »

Apocryphon wrote: post #39
Kpourdeilami wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert. However, I think taxation becomes immoral when the amount you pay in taxes, is more than the amount that you keep... so anything above 50%?

The wealthy in the U.S. are nowhere paying that high. I don't think the upper class in Europe even has to suffer that.

Are you kidding? An upper income taxpayer in California pays 39.6% federal, 10% state. On top of that there are sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment benefit insurance, the 3.4% Medicare surcharge, car registration taxes and fees, transfer taxes on assets, and estate taxes when you die. Explain to me how that doesn't add up to more than 50%?

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#48

Post by BigDaddyD »

elicash wrote: post #15
BigDaddyD wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office,…

You wrote, "Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong." You had an "especially" in there, so you think it particularly applies here, but you still said that statement is true generally. And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone. In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs! Because it goes to everyone! I get the policy disagreement on this, but that's stil…

> And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone.

It benefits the poorer at the expense of the rich.

>In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs!

I would support the UBI as a replacement for the current welfare system but only as a replacement and only because it is less morally bankrupt and ineffective. Just to clarify, I don't support the UBI in general but if you're willing to completely get rid of our current system then we can talk.

> Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional?

No that was a response to the commenter supporting Democracy over Republicanism.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#49

Post by TeMPOraL »

BigDaddyD wrote: post #38
TeMPOraL wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN. > Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Also known as taxation, or living in a society. If you don't like money being taken from you by force then fine, just please opt out of all the services and benefits the societ…

> Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN. I'm new here! Don't kill me! > Also known as taxation, I wrote a lengthy reply to this argument below. Automation: There are still tons of physical jobs. The point is that even when automation "almost completely eliminated" the first type, unemployment did not skyrocket. I'd rather base my policy prescriptions on history and well documented economi…

> I'm new here! Don't kill me!

Sorry :). I'll leave that to Skynet ;).

> The point is that even when automation "almost completely eliminated" the first type, unemployment did not skyrocket.

Yeah, the labor pool moved to the service / cognitive jobs. With automation taking big bites off services and mental work, where should the labor pool move next? Now, I know there's a lot of place in marketing and all kind of bullshit jobs, but it surely has its limits, if not economical then those of mental health - bullshit jobs aren't exactly good for one's self-esteem.

That lots of humans are required to work the land, or that the horses are important for logistics and transporting people were both well-documented and established facts for many thousand years. Until at some point, they stopped being true.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#50

Post by twblalock »

Bartweiss wrote: post #34

> An odd coalition of conservative, libertarian, and liberal intellectuals has advocated for Basic Income over the past 60 years. This, of course, is the (political) downfall of UBI. That coalition will stand together right up until someone has to draft an actual Senate bill implementing the thing. Then, the liberals want to phase out existing social programs gradually, or implement it as a more-palatable negative in…

It's worse than you think. Even if all politicians agreed on what they wanted for UBI today, there is no reason to believe it would remain that way for long. There are any number of reasons people would want to tinker with it in the future, and some of them will be valid and will deserve to be considered -- for example, should disabled people receive more money under UBI, because they have a higher cost of living due to the necessity of wheelchair purchases, a wheelchair lift for their vehicle, or other kinds of equipment? Should UBI payments be made to people who are incarcerated?

There is no country in the world I am aware of that has passed a law that implements a simple, elegant concept, such as the ideal form of UBI, and resisted the urge to tinker with it over the years.

Furthermore, our current welfare systems are the way they are for powerful reasons. WIC, SNAP, the EITC, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. all exist the way they do for a reason, and those reasons won't go away if UBI is implemented. It's very likely that UBI will end up being a re-implementation of the same ideas behind WIC, SNAP, the EITC, and other programs, for the same reasons those programs existed in the first place. We will end up turning UBI into something similar to the welfare system we have now. Tyler Cowen has been very perceptive on this point: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha...

Post reply on HN