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

Basic Income Research Proposal

basicincome.ycr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#341

Post by greedo »

Retric wrote: post #340
greedo wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at social spending rates by government over time. It's typical that they rise, despite attempts to restrain them. Critics call attempts to slow the growth rate "cuts" and paint the reformers as heartless.

Richer society's can support higher standards of government spending. So IMO, the only metric that matters in Government spending is per person spending / per person GDP. And in that context you see various growth and cuts over time. However, even that is misleading as richer society's have a higher percentage of discretionary income and may be willing to pay higher tax rates.

Higher "standards" of spending? Is that the new liberal euphemism for higher taxes? Richer societies can spend more dollars, but percentage wise, there's obviously a limit. We'll find out in the next 20 or so years as the amount we spend on social services crowds out all other spending, and we can't pay back the principal on our existing debt.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#342

Post by [deleted] »

maxxxxx wrote: post #251
thex10 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I’m someone who happened to both grow up on welfare AND watch zero people close to me work any sort of job ever. Your comment reads to me as an implicit argument against UBI. Is that your case? Allow to me comment from an insider perspective. - The welfare money didn’t cause the lack of work. They were not strongly related or if anything it’s the lack of work that drives the need to take up welfare. - It’s likely…

I am not arguing against welfare or UBI. I am just saying the long-term effect may be different from what people are thinking. Especially at HN people seem to think all people on UBI will turn into artists or develop software all day. Maybe that will be the case but I have my doubts. "People who grow up without working role models do have a harder time learning the ropes on the work life, on that we agree. That doesn…

[deleted]

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#343

Post by irrational »

ctdonath wrote: post #265

This is a test of charity, not UBI. 1. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers - an essential difference between tax-funded vs charity. 2. 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say…

I can't wait for UBI. I have a six figure income, but I'll quit the moment I get UBI, move into a tiny apartment and then spend the remainder of my days happily reading library books.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#344

Post by Cerium »

eanzenberg wrote: post #167
jacalata wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't assume they'll take a 5 year vacation at all. It's the difference between deciding to become an artist because you know you'll never worry about money, and deciding to study accounting so you can eventually have an accounting job you don't care about that will support your evening art practice.

Most will take a 5 year vacation.

In my experience it is hard to take a 3 week vacation without coming across an idea which "I would do if I had more time". I bet some interesting results will come out of this research even if every single person starts their 5 years with a vacation.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#345

Post by staunch »

gnaritas wrote: post #202
Falell wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this work? As I understand it pensions are almost never fully funded when they begin because the costs would be prohibitive. Can a smart contract guarantee that funds that are not available now will be made available at a later date?

It wouldn't work, almost nothing people want to do with smart contract can actually work because those people tend not to actually understand what a smart contract is or what it can actually do and what it can't do. Virtually every smart contract proposal is DOA due to a misunderstanding of their nature.

What's missing from your claim is any justification for it all. You're just claiming, on zero authority, that it's not possible. So enlighten us.

Why do you think it's impossible to encode the mechanics of a pension in a smart contract-based system?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#346

Post by Consultant32452 »

incompatible wrote: post #335
ctdonath wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We went thru "displacing the human workforce" in the Industrial Revolution. Don't worry, we'll create more low-skill jobs - just like we did back then. ...unless legislators continue prohibiting people from working if they can't produce enough value per hour. Minimum wage is "debtor's prison" redux. There's plenty of low-skill low-value jobs I could hire people to do, regardless of technological advancement, if only…

Fighting the minimum wage is a political dead end. People won't vote for that, since they believe people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. That's the case in Australia, at least.

In practice hardly anyone believes people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. If people actually believed that, then no one would purchase goods manufactured in Mexico, China, etc. Instead, it's more accurate to say that people don't want the inconvenience of actually seeing poor people.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#347

Post by staunch »

s73ver_ wrote: post #292
staunch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.

The "smart contract" is still reacting to things in the real world. It's not going to magically cause the stock market to not fail. And, as we've seen, they are vulnerable to hacking.

It doesn't magically solve all problems, just the most important one. Trust.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#348

Post by Retric »

greedo wrote: post #341
Retric wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richer society's can support higher standards of government spending. So IMO, the only metric that matters in Government spending is per person spending / per person GDP. And in that context you see various growth and cuts over time. However, even that is misleading as richer society's have a higher percentage of discretionary income and may be willing to pay higher tax rates.

Higher "standards" of spending? Is that the new liberal euphemism for higher taxes? Richer societies can spend more dollars, but percentage wise, there's obviously a limit. We'll find out in the next 20 or so years as the amount we spend on social services crowds out all other spending, and we can't pay back the principal on our existing debt.

Sorry, I mean if you keep the percentage of taxes the same you end up with more money. That often changes the perception of reasonable expenses. Police forces for example are often better equipped in wealthy areas. The high school football field may have better bleachers ect.

Nobody thinks it's important to add street lights in the middle of corn fields. But, cities have had various forms of lighting over time and increasing standards for lighting levels from the 1400's to now. US street lights for example could be perfectly useful for walking if they where 1/10 as bright as they currently are which would significantly reduce associated costs.

Historically, rates where vastly lower. But, people also got vastly fewer benefits from the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_medieval_England So, YMMV.

PS: Anyway, if inflation adjusted medium income was say 10x as much I could see people tolerating 70% tax rates as their take home pay would still be significantly higher than we have. AKA if average person make 500,000$ in inflation adjusted dollars then they might be ok with an after tax take home pay of just 150,000$ / year on average. But say government provided self driving cars and underground tunnel networks.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#349

Post by Frondo »

eanzenberg wrote: post #167
jacalata wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't assume they'll take a 5 year vacation at all. It's the difference between deciding to become an artist because you know you'll never worry about money, and deciding to study accounting so you can eventually have an accounting job you don't care about that will support your evening art practice.

Most will take a 5 year vacation.

Maybe you would, and you know what? Good for you if you do.

Just about everyone I know would start a business, volunteer, do creative things, contribute to making the world a better place.

But, at the end of the day, I don't care how people spend their time or their money. If some fraction of the population wanted to bum around on their minimal UBI for the rest of their lives, fine by me. It's never going to lead to a life of luxury, and I quite honestly don't care if that's how they want to waste their lives.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#350

Post by hossbeast »

Frondo wrote: post #349
eanzenberg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most will take a 5 year vacation.

Maybe you would, and you know what? Good for you if you do. Just about everyone I know would start a business, volunteer, do creative things, contribute to making the world a better place. But, at the end of the day, I don't care how people spend their time or their money. If some fraction of the population wanted to bum around on their minimal UBI for the rest of their lives, fine by me. It's never going to lead to…

If you don't care at all, then why are you okay financing that situation with your taxes?
Post reply on HN