Basic Income Research Proposal • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#231

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:14 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #225

zanny wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Figures put 14-20 million unoccupied houses in the US. A lot of those are just rich people buying valuable real estate and hoarding it as a store of value, but a lot of them are also in locations where nobody who would want to buy them can afford to live because there is no work available. There are thousands of ghost towns in rural America which depopulated for a wide variety of reasons since the 70s but all could b…

The unoccupied homes in the U.S. is primarily due to banks holding onto foreclosed properties. You could say, "This is a problem with the current financial system," which it is, but it's not a problem that UBI will solve. If UBI is enacted, then prices will still inflate and people who purchase foreclosed homes at auction will continue to do so today, because they will also have the same increase in income as everyon…

The net increase in income won't be the same for everyone.

If UBI is funded by printing money, people with assets will see them devalue through inflation (people with no assets won't have this loss).

If UBI is funded by taxes, it's likely to be progressive. So sure, the high income people get the UBI check. And a bigger tax bill to go with it.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#232

Post by greedo » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:15 PM UTC

billmalarky wrote: post #116

eric_b wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, basic consumer staple price inflation is something I never see addressed with any satisfaction when people are talking about UBI. Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality?

>Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality? Unlikely. UBI removes the connection between location and income. As a result you can move to somewhere incredibly cheap to live since there's no need to be in an in demand market in order to hav…

So you expect people to relocate from California to Detroit... Good luck with that happening.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#233

Post by bduerst » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:18 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #231

bduerst wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unoccupied homes in the U.S. is primarily due to banks holding onto foreclosed properties. You could say, "This is a problem with the current financial system," which it is, but it's not a problem that UBI will solve. If UBI is enacted, then prices will still inflate and people who purchase foreclosed homes at auction will continue to do so today, because they will also have the same increase in income as everyon…

The net increase in income won't be the same for everyone. If UBI is funded by printing money, people with assets will see them devalue through inflation (people with no assets won't have this loss). If UBI is funded by taxes, it's likely to be progressive. So sure, the high income people get the UBI check. And a bigger tax bill to go with it.

If you assume UBI is based on an income tax, then that's not universal basic income, that's negative income tax.

Even so, if you hypothetically see a decrease in income for 3% of the population and an increase in income for 97%, you still have inflation. 100% of the population purchases housing, which is income-elastic, meaning housing prices will increase because 97% of the population's income will increase.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#234

Post by godelski » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:19 PM UTC

aschampion wrote: post #201

godelski wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overestimate how much the average person prepares for the future. Look at the number of people who have emergency funds. 62% of Americans have So with this time frame I believe initial ideas of "I'm going to put this to savings" will quickly disappear. Five years is a pretty long time, especially when considering at how bad humans are at preparing for the future. What I think will be interesting is to see…

The 60 percentile income is < $46k. That people have little emergency funds on incomes less than this is largely explained away by necessary expenses. 20% have no savings -- the 20 percentile income is $17k. Show me a net savings budget on $17k.

The median income is $57k/yr [1]. Or we can go to the second chart and get the following: 11.2% make under $15k. 20.8% make under $25k. 30.2% The point isn't that the lower can't save, it is that people above the median income still don't save. These people should be able to save, but don't.

[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/income-poverty/...

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#235

Post by tangent128 » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:20 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #211

billmalarky wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>raising the income for everyone will raise housing prices for everyone This is a truism but incorrect in the context of this conversation. UBI does not increase incomes for everyone. It is a wealth redistribution. Many will see their income fall, especially initially, in order to prop up the incomes of the poor and those who decide to live solely off UBI.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) at it's core increases income for everyone - universally . What you're thinking about is a negative income tax or some other BI that is disproportionately weighted.

A universal income increase is not a universal net income increase, if taxes on non-UBI income become more progressive at the same time.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#236

Post by philwelch » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:20 PM UTC

LyndsySimon wrote: post #158

bduerst wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One party's platform is built on the fear of socialism - they will most definitely oppose this and use it to get votes, but by egging it publicly.

I think you're confusing the GOP's motivations and their rhetoric. See also: their failure to repeal the ACA despite having the presidency and a majority in both houses.

That's because the GOP isn't a party, it's a coalition of bickering factions that has chosen to prioritize winning over purity. (As opposed to Democrats, who prioritize purity over winning.)

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#237

Post by greedo » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:20 PM UTC

eduren wrote: post #69

roceasta wrote: post #35

I like the idea of basic income but I confess that my ideal of a basic income recipient is someone akin to the 19th-century amateur scientist subsisting on a private income whilst making original contributions to human knowledge, and, as a side effect, to society. Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to survive wit…

>Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to survive without being motivated to find a job. That's why I always clarify that an essential piece of Basic Income is that it is unconditional . Whether you're on the bottom rung of society or the top, employed or unemployed, basic income should be the same amount. When the…

How will you work part time if there are no jobs due to robotic automation (not that I believe that's a significant problem for a century)?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#238

Post by greedo » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:22 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #194

chris_va wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between loaning $1T once, and getting paid back, versus giving it away every year.

You loan 1T to the poor one year and get paid back 1T from the rich the next from all those poor spending money on goods the rich sell. UBI isn't like defense spending. It isn't a black hole you put tax dollars down and get nothing out. It means tremendous goods demand for the necessities of life that is extremely stable and reliable for businesses to profit off.

Revenue doesn't equal profit, much less the tax on profit.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#239

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:23 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #233

maxerickson wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The net increase in income won't be the same for everyone. If UBI is funded by printing money, people with assets will see them devalue through inflation (people with no assets won't have this loss). If UBI is funded by taxes, it's likely to be progressive. So sure, the high income people get the UBI check. And a bigger tax bill to go with it.

If you assume UBI is based on an income tax, then that's not universal basic income, that's negative income tax. Even so, if you hypothetically see a decrease in income for 3% of the population and an increase in income for 97%, you still have inflation. 100% of the population purchases housing, which is income-elastic, meaning housing prices will increase because 97% of the population's income will increase.

I'm not assuming it would be distributed through the tax system, I'm insisting that it is either funded by taxation or inflation.

Maybe it would be funded by magic fairies, who knows. I guess funding it with inflation would be close enough to that.

The point I'm making is that the "universal" or "unconditional" just means that everyone gets it. It doesn't mean that everyone is better off after it is put in place, because there will be tax and economic effects from putting such a thing in place.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#240

Post by billmalarky » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:23 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #211

billmalarky wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>raising the income for everyone will raise housing prices for everyone This is a truism but incorrect in the context of this conversation. UBI does not increase incomes for everyone. It is a wealth redistribution. Many will see their income fall, especially initially, in order to prop up the incomes of the poor and those who decide to live solely off UBI.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) at it's core increases income for everyone - universally . What you're thinking about is a negative income tax or some other BI that is disproportionately weighted.

At a glance (and because of the name) it appears that way, but it does not universally increase income, it gives everyone universal access to basic income.

Many people (the wealthy) will have their net income (income after taxes) go down considerably in a UBI system.

For example, everyone gets $12k a year in UBI income, however funding such a system will require a fairly stiff tax increase (this is how the wealth redistribution will occur), so for high earners, their $12k in UBI will be negatively offset by the increase in taxes.

As an extreme example, someone earning $1MM annually will get the $12k UBI same as everyone else, but an (example) increase in the top income bracket from 39.6% to 60% will cause them to pay $118646.4 more in taxes resulting in their net income under a UBI system to go down (-$118646.40 taxes + $12000 ubi) $106646.40.