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

Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 413 posts

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#151

Post by nocman »

taeric wrote: post #127
briandear wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still a disincentive: my effectively hourly rate decreases the more hours I work. Not sure how that's fair. A flat tax is the only fair tax. You make more, you pay more, but you aren't taking an effective pay cut per hour based on simply working more.

Most flat taxes do not land in the "you make more, you pay more" scheme. Instead, they are in the "you spend more, you pay more." Which, doesn't sound bad, necessarily. However, there are two problems that I see. I suspect there are more. First is that what you spend is only related to what you make. Specifically, it is relatively easy to find ways to not spend money if you have extra. What this means is that, at an…

'Most flat taxes do not land in the "you make more, you pay more" scheme':

I think you are missing the point. If it is truly a flat tax, the number of dollars you are taxed goes up (in a directly proportional way to the number of dollars you make). So you DO pay more the more you make. It isn't even a logically arguable point.

"a flat tax actually gives a very easy way for high income people to have a lower tax rate.":

  -- again that's a completely illogical statement.  If it is truly a flat tax *EVERYONE* has the same rate -- that's the very definition of a flat tax.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#153

Post by lacampbell »

mrleinad wrote: post #149

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

I agree with you in principle. But I am extremely dubious of using the state to accomplish this. I would rather see a cultural shift where we all agree we don't need state coercion to get us to help one another. Anything the state does IMO will be inefficient and involve pay offs to a few select chosen corporations.

Do we need force to do this? Do we need cronyism? Do we need corruption?

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#154

Post by pgwhalen »

mrleinad wrote: post #149

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume even these basic needs.

I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#156

Post by reddytowns »

briandear wrote: post #88
dfraser992 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reminded of an article I read years ago (sorry, no reference) about a low income family in Chicago (I think) during the Reagan era. The family had saved up a bit of money to send their kid to college, but some bureaucratic org found out. It was responsible for handling their benefits and because the total amount of assets the family had was over an acceptable limit, they cut out _all_ benefits to the family. Til…

Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. If I want to donate to charity, I will. Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which r…

Exactly. And there is nothing stopping a group of people right now from forming up and, enforced by contract, giving basic income to all members by taxing those that make money.

If it were such a great idea for a country, it would have already occurred at a smaller level.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#157

Post by nradov »

Instead of just giving people money our governments at federal / state / local levels should become employers of last resort for everyone who has exhausted their welfare or unemployment benefits. Guarantee 30 hours / week at minimum wage to anyone who wants to work. Even if it's just trail maintenance or graffiti cleanup they will at least be maintaining basic employment skills, and have enough spare time to retrain for something better.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#158

Post by danharaj »

pgwhalen wrote: post #154
mrleinad wrote: post #149

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume even these basic needs. I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

The amount of work to produce our basic necessities has fallen decade after decade for over a century.

We are wringing our hands over the perceived threat of "lazy" people when the cure for this alleged disease causes so much misery for so many people already. It's not a fear founded on empirical evidence.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#159

Post by hibikir »

mrleinad wrote: post #149

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

Because giving people money is a better way of doing the same thing while matching people's preferences.

For instance, food: Handing people a government decided food basket will not optimize for what people want to eat, or know how to prepare. Give them enough money to feed themselves, and we spend the same amount and we have happier people and less distortions. Same thing with shelter: Money means that we let people make their own choices, instead of recreating a new version of the projects. The one place where the market tends to fail is medicine, but that's because people's preferences there are a lot less valuable, as all people really want is someone to help them get healthy when they are sick. And even then, there are cases where giving people choices is better: The US' end of life care is so expensive and so dismal in part because what is covered and what isn't is decided by third parties: Often people prefer to end their life comfortably than to do many of the uncomfortable, but somewhat life extending things that we do to them.

That's the ultimate argument for money: Maximizing people's choices in how to go around getting the basic necessities of life. The trick is that the amount of money we give people would have to be modified to make sure said necessities can be met.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#160

Post by DonaldFisk »

briandear wrote: post #88
dfraser992 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reminded of an article I read years ago (sorry, no reference) about a low income family in Chicago (I think) during the Reagan era. The family had saved up a bit of money to send their kid to college, but some bureaucratic org found out. It was responsible for handling their benefits and because the total amount of assets the family had was over an acceptable limit, they cut out _all_ benefits to the family. Til…

Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. If I want to donate to charity, I will. Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which r…

Much of your earning power is the result of work done by others, many of whom are long since dead. If you earn a living by using a computer for any purpose, you've taken advantage of work done by Michael Faraday, George Boole, John Backus, Tim Berners-Lee, and others too numerous to mention. Even if you didn't use one, you still benefit from being able to read and write, for example.

So some of your earning power really belongs to the community, and should be divided equally among the community, including yourself.

Post reply on HN