Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by josho » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:32 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

sanxiyn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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/

But, the disability fraud is due in large part to the rampant unemployment, poverty, and gutted social safety net in that area. So, the option for those folks is disability or live on the streets. I wouldn't exactly say you are making the case for requiring proof of need.

Also interestingly you see use of drugs as reason to refute need. I believe there is a correlation between desperate poverty and drug use, I think it's because for those people with no hope of escaping poverty they need some kind of escape. Unlike you and I if we ever loose a job or get hit with an unfortunate circumstance we can get out of it fairly easy because of our education and in-demand skills. Now imagine a factory closing and 5000 folks with barely an education now out of a job, some percent of that cohort is going to end up resorting to drug use as an escape from their hopeless position. Idealistically, I'm hoping a basic income gives people like this some hope back. But, even then if there truly are no jobs for them, then if some % of the population enjoys weed then maybe that's ok--it's better than a lot of other possibilities they could be doing.

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

#72

Post by cloverich » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #58

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not that clear cut. Your options are more like: 1) Trust your brother, feed him and let him crash. Costs you $50. 2) Don't trust your brother. Hire an investigator to determine if he bought weed. Most of the time nothing is found so you wind up helping him, which now cost $70. Occaaionally you discover something and choose not to help. Still costs you $20. Is #2 worth it? That depends on how often the investigat…

Also time -- the $50 option costs no time. I think your argument is important. We spend a ton of time debating and considering how to prevent freeloaders. I'm more inclined to just ignore them and see how it goes, then start adding checks into the system when (if?) its apparent the free-loaders are a legitimate threat to the system.

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

#73

Post by jackcosgrove » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #58

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not that clear cut. Your options are more like: 1) Trust your brother, feed him and let him crash. Costs you $50. 2) Don't trust your brother. Hire an investigator to determine if he bought weed. Most of the time nothing is found so you wind up helping him, which now cost $70. Occaaionally you discover something and choose not to help. Still costs you $20. Is #2 worth it? That depends on how often the investigat…

There's a third option which always costs $0.

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

#74

Post by heartsucker » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #66

heartsucker wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at what level do we accept there's assholes and move on and not let them ruin it for all of us? If we have a program that helps 1 person and 1 person scams it, we might get rid of that program. What if it helps 10 for every 1 scammer? 1,000? 1,000,000? Certainly with the last we'd say it's ok.

We stop when the marginal cost of additional oversight exceeds the marginal benefit of additional fraud prevented. I.e., we keep increasing oversight until diminishing returns causes $1 of additional fraud prevention spending to reduce fraud by $0.99. I don't know where that point lives, but as NPRs expose demonstrates, that amount is certainly larger than zero and probably a lot larger than where we are now.

I was taking the most simplistic approach. Your point is better than mine, but usually the argument I see is that "there are welfare queens, and that's not fair, therefore there shouldn't be welfare at all." I was more arguing against that.

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

#75

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #69

yummyfajitas wrote: post #27

It's extremely counterproductive to, as the article puts it, "take the question of the moral quality of the poor off the table." The fact is that a large amount of poverty is directly correlated with "moral quality". Most poor people in the US (maybe Canada is different?) have low "moral quality", which I define as engaging in behaviors that are likely to keep a person poor. These behaviors include not seeking work […

From what I have seen, the very rich are lacking in morals a lot. Avoiding taxes, exploiting workers, hiking prices of essential drugs to generate profits. Not all of them but many.

I've backed up my claims with careful citations. Can you do the same?

Or is this just scapegoating an unsympathetic minority in order to distract attention from the bad behaviors of a politically powerful and exploitative group? Kind of like how Trump blames illegal Mexicans for the plight of the white non-working class?

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

#76

Post by IsaacL » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #24

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…

At least some of the budget would come from realizing reductions in bureaucratic overhead from eliminating the welfare apparatus and costs associated with crime (which poverty is the biggest predictor of). We also always seem to have enough money to bomb the ever living shit out of brown people in all the far flung regions of the universe, so I don't understand why cost should ever be an issue. I don't think need is…

The right to life implies you have the right to earn an income. This also implies property rights on your earned income. (The original formulation was "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness").

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

#77

Post by err4nt » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

ep103 wrote: post #5

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…

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…

Maybe on paper, or in theory.

In my life I'm not ashamed to say it was the hunger of having nothing, no safety net, and having no job that STILL drives me today. That fire that got started when I had bills and no money is still burning strong today.

But I worry if theres too mucb cushion perhaps I would have not hurt as bad, and ever achieved what Ive accomplished since then.

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

#78

Post by Applejinx » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #54

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How can some people exploit basic income system to "rob us"? Maybe they can fabricate people which don't actually exist? (Or more realistically, delay reporting death to collect basic income of dead people.) These are concerns, but hopefully modern government can deal with fake identities. These still seem a lot better than current welfare system. If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "…

Absolutely. If you don't like it, sell them weed and then you have their $500. It always boggles my mind how many people would rather see the system grind to a halt, rather than anybody naughty be consuming. I would much rather see a class of people with disposable income.

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

#79

Post by chongli » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

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 of government money, and those who are net contributors.

This is only one way to split the pie. Another way to look at it is the division between people who earn their lot in life by working and people who collect economic rents from the commons. It seems only fair to me that those who collect rents should contribute more. This is the principle underlying the concept of the social dividend [0].

Take a factory owner, for example. They are net recipients of many societal benefits, including: roads, electricity, water, sewage removal, education and health care for their employees, favourable tax rates for their property, etc. For that factory owner to then turn around and cry foul at being called upon to be a net contributor to basic income is hypocritical bordering on antisocial.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dividend

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

#80

Post by jonwachob91 » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

jackcosgrove wrote: post #40

dsr_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Because most welfare is paid for by the states...