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

Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#81

Post by notahacker »

DanBC wrote: post #45
_andromeda_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing against basic human nature? For the vast majority of people, if they don't have to work in order to earn, most people will choose not to work. So then who supports these folks? The people who put in actual graft. But the question is, for how long? Is this sustainable. This is a mindset and it must be fought against vehemently. You want to help people? Advocate for the following: - hard work as opposed…

> For the vast majority of people, if they don't have to work in order to earn, most people will choose not to work. So then who supports these folks? Those people are already being supported with fantastically expensive bureaucratic benefit systems. Sometimes those systems also act as a disincentive to return to work, trapping people on benefits, by making it impossible for them to get education or work experience o…

The cost of maintaining the "fantastically expensive" massive bureaucracies pales in comparison with the cost of paying a livable basic income to everyone.

The DWP's administration costs are 3.6% (FOI request: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_percentage_of_th...) and only about 1.5-3% of the population is claiming Job Seekers' Allowance at any one time. The proportion of people voluntarily economically inactive and neither claiming any benefit nor paying income tax is much larger[1]. Eliminating the "job seeker" requirement is obviously going to cost orders of magnitude more even if there's no resulting change in behaviour.

One can criticise the nature of the bureaucracies and weaknesses in the way they handle people getting back into work, but the idea sometimes floated by UBI supporters that they're more expensive than just handing out more cash is flatly and unequivocally wrong.

[1]this is true even after accounting for recipients of sickness benefits. You could save a bit in some areas by eliminating all sickness and housing benefits over the BI payment level, but that's probably hurting quite a few vulnerable people...

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#82

Post by [deleted] »

danieltillett wrote: post #74
WalterBright wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No communist societies have ever been able to feed themselves - from the Pilgrims, to the USSR, to Jamestown, to the kibbutzen, to North Korea. Voluntary or coercive, the results are the same.

There have been a lot of communistic societies over the years so I would be cautious about declaring them all unable to feed themselves. Having said this the only exception I can think of are the Doukobors [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobor

[deleted]

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#83

Post by _andromeda_ »

flexie wrote: post #61
_andromeda_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no other way to define this except that it is socialism brewing here. In that light, I'd like to refer you to the words of Milton Friedman, 'If you want to learn the truth about socialism, look at how people vote with their feet'. People always leave socialist nations when their inevitable collapse occurs. Please folks, I'd like to urge you to reconsider such initiatives. Take a look at these two articles ab…

I grew up in what is generally considered an extremely successful socialist society; Denmark. All media is fully or partially state sponsored, a third of the adult population is on some kind of welfare (incl public pension or student grants), a third of the adult population work for the government, and only a third of the adult population work in private companies, many of which derive all or a big part of their inco…

Scandinavian countries also happen to feature prominently in the list of the most expensive countries to live in and I don't think that in the long run it is sustainable - just ask the Greeks.

Someone has to pay dearly for all these extravagant social programs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/map-expensive-count...

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#84

Post by _andromeda_ »

malloryerik wrote: post #76
_andromeda_ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This experiment has already been done. It always fails and leaves a devastating trail of destruction every time. People die and those that don't(die) leave their countries on dangerous makeshift rafts in pursuit of capitalist nations. I implore you to look at countries that have tried re-distributing income/sustenance; they always fail. Many of them actually realise that that model is unsustainable and quickly revert…

They aren't talking about a "dictatorship of the proletariat" taking ownership and control of all means of production, nothing like that at all.

But who pays for UBI? Isn't it you and I through taxes and inflation(theft)? If I then have no say in whether I want to pay up or not but the majority do want me to pay, isn't it dictatorship?

It is indicative that it is indeed dictatorship of the majority since I have received a massive number of downvotes for my sentiments on this matter.

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#85

Post by _andromeda_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #44
labster wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/Egalitarianism/Authoritarianism/

No communist societies have ever been able to feed themselves - from the Pilgrims, to the USSR, to Jamestown, to the kibbutzen, to North Korea. Voluntary or coercive, the results are the same.

If this is Walter Bright creator of D, I must say I'm in awe.

Nonetheless, I agree with you 100%. It doesn't matter what form it takes. Majority of my millennial peers refuse to even accept that socialism leads to the inevitable outcome that is communism and that it is an evil that would deprive all of us of our individual liberties to a point where all human decency will be lost.

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#86

Post by happyslobro »

_andromeda_ wrote: post #84
malloryerik wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't talking about a "dictatorship of the proletariat" taking ownership and control of all means of production, nothing like that at all.

But who pays for UBI? Isn't it you and I through taxes and inflation(theft)? If I then have no say in whether I want to pay up or not but the majority do want me to pay, isn't it dictatorship? It is indicative that it is indeed dictatorship of the majority since I have received a massive number of downvotes for my sentiments on this matter.

If the majority decide that you should pay a tax, and you then become obligated to to pay that tax, that's democracy, not dictatorship. That doesn't mean it's good, it's just democratic.

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#87

Post by douche »

happyslobro wrote: post #86
_andromeda_ wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who pays for UBI? Isn't it you and I through taxes and inflation(theft)? If I then have no say in whether I want to pay up or not but the majority do want me to pay, isn't it dictatorship? It is indicative that it is indeed dictatorship of the majority since I have received a massive number of downvotes for my sentiments on this matter.

If the majority decide that you should pay a tax, and you then become obligated to to pay that tax, that's democracy, not dictatorship. That doesn't mean it's good, it's just democratic.

Which is why democratic mob rule is a terrible, terrible idea. Removing the checks and balances on raw, unbridled democracy doesn't have a great track record, historically.

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#88

Post by jayjay71 »

_andromeda_ wrote: post #84
malloryerik wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't talking about a "dictatorship of the proletariat" taking ownership and control of all means of production, nothing like that at all.

But who pays for UBI? Isn't it you and I through taxes and inflation(theft)? If I then have no say in whether I want to pay up or not but the majority do want me to pay, isn't it dictatorship? It is indicative that it is indeed dictatorship of the majority since I have received a massive number of downvotes for my sentiments on this matter.

'dictatorship of the majority' sounds like democracy to me.

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#89

Post by happyslobro »

_andromeda_ wrote: post #68
aninhumer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It really isn't a question of the rentier class vs proletariat. Capitalism solved that problem a long time ago. How exactly did Capitalism solve that problem? We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive.

>We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive. It is true that there are divisions, but anyone can now participate in the acquisition of wealth and resources. You can save and reinvest until you attain your goals in life but most people are engaged in the consumption of capital goods such that even if they wanted…

Work will set you free

Re: Ask YC: Any Updates on the Basic Income Project?

#90

Post by _andromeda_ »

happyslobro wrote: post #86
_andromeda_ wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who pays for UBI? Isn't it you and I through taxes and inflation(theft)? If I then have no say in whether I want to pay up or not but the majority do want me to pay, isn't it dictatorship? It is indicative that it is indeed dictatorship of the majority since I have received a massive number of downvotes for my sentiments on this matter.

If the majority decide that you should pay a tax, and you then become obligated to to pay that tax, that's democracy, not dictatorship. That doesn't mean it's good, it's just democratic.

This is an argument that comes up a lot and usually it becomes clearer when this concept of democracy is simplified anecdotally:

If 5 people come to you and take your car from you, most reasonable humans would call that theft and consider it to be immoral.

The same 5 people come to you and say, we're going to take a vote on whether we should take your car and give you a bicycle, but here's the consolation, you will also be included in the democratic process. I think we all know what the outcome of such an election would be. Would you consider that to be a moral or immoral thing?

Just because I'm included in a democratic process which I didn't sign up for in the first place doesn't make it right to replace my car with a bicycle.

Post reply on HN