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

Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

basicincomecanada.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 259 posts

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#31

Post by bsbechtel »

exabrial wrote: post #18
IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

Your last two sentences couldn't be any more eloquent. When reasoning on these issues, one should always carefully examine the phrase: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Every single word is chosen very carefully.

A basic right is something you inherently have, and cannot be taken away. It's not something to be provided by the government. I wish more people had a better understanding of this.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#32

Post by emodendroket »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

Consider the resilience of a system like Social Security, where everyone both pays in and gets benefits, compared to means-tested programs.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#33

Post by dsr_ »

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

"those who are net recipients... and those who are net contributors"

We already have that in the US. For example, on a state-by-state basis: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...

Every serious basic income article I've read addresses the question of who pays for it. The answer is, unsurprisingly, everyone who pays taxes.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#34

Post by [deleted] »

err4nt wrote: post #3

As a Canadian entrepreneur I worry that mincome/basic income will serve to knock the wind out of the sails of many innovators and entrepreneurs who, like me, are currently DRIVEN to work hard, research, push the industry along and crank up competition. I would much, much rather work hard, earn more money, and feed my neighbour - than have no hope of digging myself out of my situation no matter hos hard I worked, bein…

[deleted]

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#35

Post by emodendroket »

exabrial wrote: post #18
IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

Your last two sentences couldn't be any more eloquent. When reasoning on these issues, one should always carefully examine the phrase: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Every single word is chosen very carefully.

And every single one could be interpreted either in favor of or against universal basic income. So what?

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#36

Post by yummyfajitas »

sanxiyn wrote: post #21
IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

What this seems to say is that people shouldn't starve, but to get food people should demonstrate that they are starving. I am unsure why demonstration is essential, because either way others are still obligated to provide food so that people aren't starving.

If my brother tells me he's hungry and broke I might make him dinner and let him crash on my couch. If I just saw him spend $500 on weed I'll probably tell him he's on his own. The demonstration is essential because if we don't require it, some people will exploit our kind nature to rob us.

This is already a massive problem in programs where we do require demonstrations of need. See NPR's expose on rampant disability fraud: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

It's hard to see how eliminating safeguards will improve things.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#37

Post by krupan »

Every time basic income comes up people seem to missunderstand the key points:

1) It's basic income, like, enough for beans and rice and a small apartment. Nobody who is willing to work at least a part time job is going to just sit back and live off of basic income alone for their whole life.

2) It's a huge reduction and simplification of government, replacing several huge bureaucratic entities with one that effectively just mails out checks to everyone periodically.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#38

Post by ep103 »

pmalynin wrote: post #11
ep103 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the reports I've seen have stated that actually, it works the other way around. That the vast majority of people who go into entrepreneurship only do so if they have money to fall back on, one way or another, should their business fail. So by that logic, basic income should actually significantly increase the likelihood of entrepreneurship, because while mincome will still be low enough that people will want…

I think there was a bit on NPR a few months ago that discussed the idea that having a fallback will make you work and try less exactly for the same reason. I think having the "cornered animal" type of drive goes a long way.

I don't know what the NPR piece was about, but you're right... when I _don't_ have a fallback is absolutely when I work the absolute hardest.... but not at my job. When I don't have a fallback, I'm doing the absolute minimum at my job, and working extra hours around the clock studying to line up a fallback. When I think I have a fallback, or things are going really well at my job is the only time where I'm fully dedicated to my employer

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#39

Post by clavalle »

bsbechtel wrote: post #31
exabrial wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last two sentences couldn't be any more eloquent. When reasoning on these issues, one should always carefully examine the phrase: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Every single word is chosen very carefully.

A basic right is something you inherently have, and cannot be taken away. It's not something to be provided by the government. I wish more people had a better understanding of this.

A reasonable expectation is something that should be provided by others in a society to those that need them and is the glue that holds that society together. I wish more people had a better understanding of this.

Edit: for example, if someone is in a severe accident and unable to help themselves, it is a reasonable expectation in a functioning society that a passerby might call for help or help directly.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#40

Post by jackcosgrove »

dsr_ wrote: post #33
IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

"those who are net recipients... and those who are net contributors" We already have that in the US. For example, on a state-by-state basis: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... Every serious basic income article I've read addresses the question of who pays for it. The answer is, unsurprisingly, everyone who pays taxes.

Why break it down by state except to make a politically charged generalization? The modern economy is dependent on cities and states are a mostly arbitrary political division inherited from a time when cultivated land area determined economic value.
Post reply on HN