221–230 of 413 posts
> universal
Doesn't sound very universal. One of the big factors that make it a good idea is that receiving the basic income shouldn't make you disincentivized from doing more and getting a job, etc. Otherwise, how is it different from existing welfare programs and such?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Negative income tax would be a blatant subsidisation of labour, which has it's own issues. In another sense, it's just welfare, but a highly regressive one. More income would go to those who are poor but in work, and less to those for what ever reason (like disability) unable to work. If you were to further lower the costs of labour, you risk stymieing actual economic growth which comes from improvements in efficienc…
How is subsidization of labor worse than subsidization of non-labor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It has. The Svanholm community in Denmark (http://svanholm.dk) raised taxes to 80% for all its members, but in return you free housing, food and all other essentials. They have been doing this successfully since the 70's.
Finland's population is 5.439 million, It may work for 2000 people but will it be workable and scale up to 10-million, 50-million or 100-million people? I believe the "square cube law comes into play. Square cube law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
Why would the square cube law come into play here? I don't understand how it's related to this context.
If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal . If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working? This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Negative income tax (more emphasis) + basic income (less emphasis) would be a better system. A negative income tax would encourage people to work. Basic income by itself may just remove some barriers to working but may not result in a change (basic income > costs).
If a society produces so much value that everyone can be provided with a basic income that is greater than cost of living, why is that a bad thing?
Given the recent political developments (not just here in the U.S. but across the world including Europe), it is high time we speak frankly and not say things couched in vain pleasantries, suited to people who'd rather not hear or say anything disagreeable, to keep up appearances.
Having said that, if you want the honest truth as to why _some_ people may have an objection I'm willing to explain.
People who are unlucky to be earning just enough to be excluded in one way or the other, from these UBI handouts ( which already happen in disguised means and forms, but more on that later [1] ) but not enough - from their wages & other sources of income - to be living a comfortable life will find themselves asking how is it that suddenly
a) their kids cannot get into those choice daycare centers which weren't so crammed only a few years ago
b) the economy classes on most flights are filled with the riffraff & people from outside of the income/social
classes they're accustomed to
c) their favorite restaurants are always booked or have lines out the door ( a perennial theme in SF ) [2]
d) the rent pressure is greater for a smaller inventory of listings in the desirable neighborhoods
e) their friends cannot afford to socialize as frequently as they once did ( or worse, have moved to a different part of the
country simply because it is no longer affordable to remain ) due to the same wage pressures
Once those things are threatened people find it difficult to accommodate those things, even if it makes numerical sense - as in say an universal extra $10,000 bump to _absolutely everyone_ regardless of income class ( if that is what they even _mean_ when they say UBI; I doubt it is ) might only mean that Person X can send his kids to a much more exclusive summer camp every year but now that same bump in income means more crowded classrooms for the same kids during the rest of the year because Person Y can now afford to send his or her kids to the school for privileged kids.
More directly - and less politely - people don't want a handout-receiver ( and how you define that term depends on your political slant and can mean anyone from a lowly UBI claimant to a loftily paid city worker in any large progressive city[2] ) suddenly being able to afford the same niceties of life that they see themselves slaving at their 9-to-5s for.
Economists and policy makers can couch it in clever speak but it really is that simple.
[1] S.F. spends record $241 million on homeless, can’t track results http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
[2] Report: San Francisco has the highest density of restaurants in America, by far http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2012/08/01/report-san-f...
[3] This San Francisco Janitor Made More Than $270,000 Last Year http://time.com/4555692/san-francisco-bart-janitor-salary/
Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. Worst. Idea. Ever. I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US. I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Negative income tax (more emphasis) + basic income (less emphasis) would be a better system. A negative income tax would encourage people to work. Basic income by itself may just remove some barriers to working but may not result in a change (basic income > costs).
However, there would likely be implementation differences in practice as a consequence of their framing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Negative income tax (more emphasis) + basic income (less emphasis) would be a better system. A negative income tax would encourage people to work. Basic income by itself may just remove some barriers to working but may not result in a change (basic income > costs).
If a society produces so much value that everyone can be provided with a basic income that is greater than cost of living, why is that a bad thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a society produces so much value that everyone can be provided with a basic income that is greater than cost of living, why is that a bad thing?
I'm positive that this answer won't be appetizing if you belong to the dyed in the wool, coastal progressive contingent, heavily represented here on HN. Given the recent political developments (not just here in the U.S. but across the world including Europe), it is high time we speak frankly and not say things couched in vain pleasantries, suited to people who'd rather not hear or say anything disagreeable, to keep u…
Universal Basic Income means there are no such people, by definition.
>as in say an universal extra $10,000 bump to _absolutely everyone_ regardless of income class ( if that is what they even _mean_ when they say UBI; I doubt it is )
Yes it is. That is the definition of UBI.
>a) their kids cannot get into those choice daycare centers which weren't so crammed only a few years ago
>c) their favorite restaurants are always booked or have lines out the door ( a perennial theme in SF ) [2]
Your reference contradicts your point. It says SF has more restaurants per household than elsewhere, so one would assume they are much less crowded on average.
Moreover, if services start to become crowded as a result of increased demand, then new ones will open to cater to that demand.
> d) the rent pressure is greater for a smaller inventory of listings in the desirable neighborhoods
There's plenty of affordable desirable housing available, the problem is that it's nowhere near the jobs people need to pay for it. If you pay people Basic Income, they can afford to move out of the expensive cities which in turn reduces demand for housing within them.