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

If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#91

Post by nkohari »

Simon_says wrote: post #44
nkohari wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that sales tax is an extremely regressive model. If two people buy $100 of goods, but one makes an income of $100K a year and the other $20K, the taxes are effectively 5X higher for the person making less money. No one likes paying any taxes, but at least income tax aligns the motivations of the individual with those of the government. If you make more money, you prosper, and so the government -- which…

Because the guy who makes 5 times more will spend 5 times more?

In practice, that isn't remotely true. People on the lower end of the income scale (are forced to) spend a much larger percentage of their income in order to meet their basic needs. People on the higher end of the scale spend more on a dollar-by-dollar basis, but a much smaller percentage of their income. Then they save and invest the rest, which also creates more wealth from their existing wealth.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#92

Post by Simon_says »

pedrocr wrote: post #88
Simon_says wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, you caught me. I repeated the same argument because I think it works. And I don't see how your argument addresses it. In particular, this sentence: > Compounding means that since you only pay sales tax at consumption rich people will pay much less as they will invest before the tax and have gains on all that pre-tax money. doesn't really make much sense. Of course investments are pre-sales tax. The sales tax app…

>doesn't really make much sense. Of course investments are pre-sales tax. The sales tax applies after the investments are liquidated to cash and the cash is used to purchase stuff. Say you have 100$ and you're rich. You invest that in the markets, compound for 40 years and end up with 4500$. You then get to pay sales tax on that after you've gotten your capital out multiple times over. If you're poor though you spend…

If a poor person earns $100 and spends it, they're paying ~$9 in sales tax in my hypothetical world of 10% sales tax. The rich guy who earns $100 and invests it, spends $4500 and ~$409 (about 9%) of it goes to sales taxes. Sure, he gets 45x the value of purchased goods, but he also pays 45x in taxes.

Did you lose track of the topic of conversation? It looks like you're just detailing the ways that it's better to be rich than poor.

I was responding to ChrisSD's specific point many comments ago that: "Taxing spending tends to be regressive." To the contrary, it looks like it's neither regressive nor progressive. (I don't know the word for that. "Neutral", maybe?)

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#93

Post by Simon_says »

nkohari wrote: post #91
Simon_says wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the guy who makes 5 times more will spend 5 times more?

In practice, that isn't remotely true. People on the lower end of the income scale (are forced to) spend a much larger percentage of their income in order to meet their basic needs. People on the higher end of the scale spend more on a dollar-by-dollar basis, but a much smaller percentage of their income. Then they save and invest the rest, which also creates more wealth from their existing wealth.

When they save and invest, what do you think happens to that investment eventually? It's converted back into cash and spent, donated, or bequeathed. The fact that there's an intermediate step of investment is irrelevant to the fact that lifetime ingress of value equals lifetime egress of value.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#95

Post by err4nt »

rentmoney wrote: post #49

UBI is free money for landlords. Just once, just one single time, I'd like to hear or read a convincing explanation for how UBI will not be completely captured by rents. I'm still waiting.

So you're saying UBI has a better chance of working if we took away private land ownership and the government was everybody's landlord?

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#96

Post by dibbsonline »

It's very biased, so the people that get the UBI won't be able to afford nice things or to live in nice suburbs near good social/health/education services as people with earned money will be competing for those. Choosing not to work is choosing to not take part in society, social services are part of a society.

It still needs some sort of utopia to work, that's where it has some similarity to socialism, but there is no utopia.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#97

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Simon_says wrote: post #59
akvadrako wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism might be central planning. Basic income is almost the opposite of central planning, because it replaces all sorts of conditional and focused welfare with what is equivalent to a negative income tax. That's why so many libertarians are on board with the idea.

That doesn’t sound right to me. Speaking as someone with mild Libertarian tendencies, UBI seems pretty contra to Libertarian ideals. Not the UBI itself, but the taxation required to fund it. Can you give references to any well-known Libertarian thinkers who are on board with UBI?

You are probably thinking exclusively of right libertarianism and must not be familiar with geolibertarianism[1] based somewhat on the ideas of Henry George[2]. They share most views with right libertarians such as the view that the fruits of a person's labor should not be taxed, but differ in that they view all land and natural resources as the common property of all people and as such believe that use of land and natural resources should be taxed at the full market value and then the proceeds redistributed equally to everyone.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#98

Post by TheCoelacanth »

creaghpatr wrote: post #65
akvadrako wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism might be central planning. Basic income is almost the opposite of central planning, because it replaces all sorts of conditional and focused welfare with what is equivalent to a negative income tax. That's why so many libertarians are on board with the idea.

Libertarians are not on board with the idea- libertarians are absolutely be against mandated handouts without critical purpose. A disingenuous claim at best.

Only right libertarians hold that view. Geolibertarians hold the view that all land and natural resources are the common property of all people and should be taxed at the full market value and then the proceeds redistributed equally.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#99

Post by stmfreak »

Money is not a market demand signal, it is a medium of labor exchange. I buy your labor with my labor. Some labor is more in demand than other labor, some is in short supply. Money bridges all the divides between these.

Where UBI fails is that it cuts labor out of the mix and allows some to benefit from the labor of others without performing any labor in exchange. Of course, banks and politicians have been doing this for decades, but a host can only support so many parasites.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#100

Post by untangle »

Mz wrote: post #84

I can't manage to get past about paragraph two. What an idiotic piece of writing with zero basis in reality. Money is not a means to "vote" on what we should produce. Money is a means to reduce friction in the trade process. It does other things as well, but its primary purpose is to make it easier to get the things we want by reducing how much time and effort goes into coming up with a thing to trade for the thing w…

The article that you linked was well-thought and well-written. I liked the more bottom-up approach to the issues and that Mr Sarris at least offered kernels of alternatives.

Ignoring for a moment that the decision-making ability of the US legislature is all but broken, I worry that the sheer complexity of the issues surrounding UBI would make adoption – or even learned consideration – impossible.

And, as you and Sarris mention, the relationship between UBI and healthcare and housing (rents) is a whole other can of complexity.

Post reply on HN