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

Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#51

Post by garrettdc »

ubernostrum wrote: post #28
garrettdc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are constantly told that 7.25/hr isn't enough to live on, but people find a way to do so at the moment. 7.25 $/hr * 2000 hrs/year = 14500 which isn't far off from 12000. If the choice was between working for that and not working, I think the choice is easy. Unless this program were to completely eliminate welfare spending, then you'd likely end up with people choosing not to work because they don't need to. This o…

If you want to eliminate the possibility of people who don't need to work choosing not to work, you should be in favor of a 100% estate tax before you should be against UBI. Make it impossible for children to inherit enough wealth to live without working, and get those lazy parasites into the workforce where they belong! (or you could look at what happens when people are actually presented with realistic options for…

People can choose to work or not. I just don't want to be stuck with the consequences of it. The word parasite means that they are increasing their well-being by reducing another individual's well-being.

The number of children who are able to live off of their parents / grandparents money and don't work at all is so finite that it isn't really worth mentioning. Alongside that, they are a net gain for the economy.

Think about it - you have vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases, and no impact to the labor force by them working. I may not agree with their decision to not work, but I really couldn't care less whether they do what I agree or not.

Also, a 100% estate tax would do one of two things: 1) create a disincentive for wealth accumulation as their is nothing to do with it afterwards thereby reducing their overall output 2) force those people into different investment vehicles where they can pass their wealth to their children as a "gift" prior to their passing.

That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though. For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down, or the funds that could have gone to their grandchildren's college is now funneled into the government, or other similar act of smallish amount of funds being siphoned off by the federal government.

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#52

Post by norea-armozel »

mseebach wrote: post #33
norea-armozel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how my comment really struck the nerve that it did since it's partly in jest. But I will say this much, historically the rich have always favored military solutions rather than economic (or social) ones in dealing with class warfare. If the rich of today want to take a page out of history, they should be more like Otto von Bismarck and pay off the poor and disenfranchised. Meaning that some kind of reforme…

It has nothing to do with nerves being struck and everything to do with your 150 year out of date social analysis being so absurd that it's not even wrong. By the way, the lower class is striking back, but it looks more like a fake tan and a combover than the image of St. Petersburg in 1917 you seem to lust for.

>It has nothing to do with nerves being struck and everything to do with your 150 year out of date social analysis being so absurd that it's not even wrong.

Tell that to the US DSA which is seeing record membership increases. And tell that to Kamala Harris who's an astute politician that co-signed Sander's single-payer bill. If the winds of change aren't blowing leftward then explain the current trend.

Also, Trump's ascendancy is the result of the capitalists not the working class. Robert Mercer (one of Trump's key supporters) has as much in common with you and me than does a mouse with a moose. Essentially, Trump is the carefully created result of decades of right wing propaganda and concerted destruction of the welfare state. Want to see less of Trump? Then tax the living heck out of the super rich and/or ban their right to fund any kind of think tank or PAC forever (down to a constitution amendment if necessary).

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#53

Post by lg »

phkahler wrote: post #37

Another missing element in the model: People who need it most are renting. You hand everyone $1000 per month and I guarantee there will be a large uptick in rents. This will short circuit economic activity and just push the money straight to those who own rental property, thereby increasing the wealth gap while raising the cost of living. I won't all go into this effect, but certainly a lot of it will.

this is the perspective of someone who lives in a housing market in dire shortage. basic income might enable people, for the first time, to try living outside these places, where they are tied to their current job. in the rest of america, there is competition between landlords to attract tenants.

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#54

Post by specialist »

phkahler wrote: post #37

Another missing element in the model: People who need it most are renting. You hand everyone $1000 per month and I guarantee there will be a large uptick in rents. This will short circuit economic activity and just push the money straight to those who own rental property, thereby increasing the wealth gap while raising the cost of living. I won't all go into this effect, but certainly a lot of it will.

The moment I get my monthly cheddar, I'm moving to a nicer place with lower cost of living.

The USA has more housing than people. Alas, that excess supply isn't near the jobs.

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#55

Post by mseebach »

jrs95 wrote: post #45
rbanffy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - There is zero effect on propensity to work OTOH, imagine parents that today can't be present to raise their kids may have the option of dropping one of their jobs to be with their family.

Or someone wasting their time working at one of 10 fast food places that are all right next to each other that no longer has to do that. How much is that job, or even that entire business, really contributing to the economy?

Fast food? Actually, literally feeding people? It's contributing a lot to the economy.

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#56

Post by jrs95 »

hacker_9 wrote: post #2

"But a $12,000 a year per adult basic income is another matter. The Roosevelt paper finds that paying for it would require increasing household tax revenue by 120 percent — a more than doubling. To do that, it assumes that all but the poorest 40 percent pay more in taxes. The middle quintile (households with an income between $48,300 and $85,600, per the Tax Policy Center) would see their average tax rate go from 14…

Not necessarily. I wouldn't be surprised if this model meant leaving capital gains taxes low and making the middle class pay for it. If that's the case, then politicians wouldn't have much of an issue with it since it doesn't really harm their donors. In fact, I'm sure there are a lot of companies that would be excited about all that new consumer spending.

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#57

Post by irb »

xienze wrote: post #31
appearsonline wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One wonders which humans you surround yourself with to consider that "basic human behavior".

Trying to maximize earnings is basic human behavior, sorry to break it to you. Welfare scams occur regularly, and that's before UBI. And you're dodging the bigger question: I'm on UBI and my money runs out, can't afford to feed the kids. Multiply that by at least several thousand people every month. Now what?

How can maximising earnings be basic human behaviour when 'earnings' have only existed for a few thousand years, a tiny fraction of the history of our species?

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#58

Post by logicchains »

mseebach wrote: post #20

> They find that enacting any of these policies by growing the federal debt — that is, without raising taxes to pay for it — would substantially grow the economy. The effect fades away within eight years, but GDP is left permanently higher. The big, $12,000 per year per adult policy, they find, would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent — or about $2.5 trillion come 2025. It would also, they find, i…

I did my bachelors in economics, and one of our textbooks taught that all other things being equal (ceteris paribus), more wealth equalisation (taking from the richer and giving to the poorer) means less wealth creation in the long term. Why? Wealth will naturally concentrate in the hands of those more capable of creating it: if Jo is making 2% per annum return and Jane is making 4% per annum return, and they both start with the same amount, then Jane's share of the total wealth pool will continuously increase relative to Jo. The key thing to note is that as Jane's producing twice as much from her wealth as Jo, if we take resources from Jane to give to Jo then they'll be used less effectively, slowing overall growth.

To illustrate, imagine they both start with $1000 each. The total wealth pool is hence $2000, and they both have 50% each, perfect equality. Now, let's look 50 years in the future, assuming the previously mentioned interest rates per annum compounding annually. According tohttp://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calcu..., Jo will have $2,691.59 and Jane will have $7,106.68. The total wealth pool is $9,798.27. Jo hence now has 27.47%, and Jane has 72.53%. They're both less equal, but they're also both wealthier, and the overall wealth pool has increased.

Now, let's look ahead another 50 years. If no wealth transfer occurs, Jane will have $50,504.92 and Jo will have $7,244.65, with the total wealth pool being $57,749.57. If we equalise wealth, however, such that both have $4,899.13, then in 50 years Jane will have $34,816.57 and Jo will have $13,186.44, for a total wealth pool of $48,003.01. This is 83.12% of the total wealth pool that there would be if no wealth transfer took place. This effect is applies similarly if wealth redistribution happens every year through redistribution of income.

In this sense there is hence a direct tradeoff between economic growth and wealth transfers from richer to poorer in the long term (all other things being equal).

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#59

Post by phkahler »

specialist wrote: post #54
phkahler wrote: post #37

Another missing element in the model: People who need it most are renting. You hand everyone $1000 per month and I guarantee there will be a large uptick in rents. This will short circuit economic activity and just push the money straight to those who own rental property, thereby increasing the wealth gap while raising the cost of living. I won't all go into this effect, but certainly a lot of it will.

The moment I get my monthly cheddar, I'm moving to a nicer place with lower cost of living. The USA has more housing than people. Alas, that excess supply isn't near the jobs.

So you'd move to one of those places with cheap housing and no jobs? Does that mean you'd not be working?

Of course the influx of people to low cost areas with no jobs would create some jobs in those places and raise prices on everything from housing to pizza.

Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy

#60

Post by MarchHare »

xienze wrote: post #31
appearsonline wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One wonders which humans you surround yourself with to consider that "basic human behavior".

Trying to maximize earnings is basic human behavior, sorry to break it to you. Welfare scams occur regularly, and that's before UBI. And you're dodging the bigger question: I'm on UBI and my money runs out, can't afford to feed the kids. Multiply that by at least several thousand people every month. Now what?

Food banks exist already, why would UBI change that.
Post reply on HN