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

We're officially launching UBI

givedirectly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 185 posts

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#131

Post by logfromblammo »

shkkmo wrote: post #117
logfromblammo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: Distribute 2 L of clean, potable drinking water to every person, every day, at no additional cost to them. Step 2: Distribute 2200 kcal of nutritionally adequate food to every person, every day, at no additional cost to them. Step 3: Allocate 20 m^3 of private, secure shelter to every person, with right-of-occupation intervals lasting no less than 4 years, at no additional cost to them. Step 4: Allocate ~350…

We do not know which of 1-7 are needed by which people, so giving them to everyone is wasteful. In addition, providing those basic necessities for free destroys the paid market for those goods and harms economic growth. > UBI is, in essence, an attempt to create a mixed economic system that is communist at the bottom end and capitalist at the top end. I think you do not know what "communism" means. There is nothing i…

Destroying the paid market for a minimum standard of existence is the whole rassafrassin' point! The idea that you have to pay something if you want to continue living is the root cause of trade relationships that are fundamentally skewed against the already-disadvantaged party.

You give everyone the bare minimum for free, and charge for anything on top of that. It's the freemium model applied to national economies, and the market for smartphone apps suggests that it would work fine. People complaining about pay-to-win are preferable to those complaining about pay-to-not-die.

It doesn't have to be communism where the government owns a government corn field and government trucks and government dispensaries, so that it can distribute corn to the residents. It could also be acceptance of those specific foundation goods and services in lieu of cash taxes, where your cash dividend from shares in AgriCorp is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax in the form of truckloads of UBI corn. And your dividend from TransporTech is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax by moving that UBI corn from the grain elevator to the distribution points. And your dividend from Grocerino is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax by giving up shelf space and administering the food part of the ration card system. Or maybe your salary from nonprofit FoodServ Inc is not taxed, because that company moves that UBI corn into the food deserts where the for-profit grocery stores either do not have a presence or choose to not pay their taxes in-kind.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#132

Post by shkkmo »

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

As I understand it, NIT is very similar to UBI.

The differences are

1) Payout schedule. We currently have no means to calculate and provide NIT payouts on a weekly or monthly basis. Annual payments (like the Alaska PFD) have problems with splurge spending since the people who need it the most tend to have the worst money management skills.

2) The shape of the curve at the bottom. While the shape is not actually inherent to either proposal, UBI proposals tend to provide greater income gains per extra dollar earned by those at the bottom of the income distribution

3) The name "Negative Income Tax" is a bit confusing. A "negative tax" is not a term we use (we use "subsidy" or "tax credit") and so it can be easily misinterpreted as a tax on those with negative income... "Universal Basic Income" is clear and easily understood.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#133

Post by pogimabus »

chatmasta wrote: post #22

How can you meaningfully experiment with UBI if the “BI” is not even universal ? My understanding is that many of the criticisms of UBI are based on externalities that would only become manifest in a meaningfully large population. For example, price increases and inflation might arise from everyone having extra money. If you’re only testing UBI on a small population, then 1) it’s not even universal, and 2) there will…

I'm getting really tired of seeing this argument at the top of every single thread about a UBI experiment, as if:

1. There are no other concerns that we can gather info about besides "UBI might cause so much inflation that it cancels itself out" and

2. Nothing can be learned from these experiments unless they prove that the concern in #1 is unfounded.

This is just obstructionism. Using less than 100% accurate simulations to attempt to predict the outcome of implementing actions and to inform our choices has been common practice since the dawn of civilization, there's no reason that the tool is suddenly completely useless in this particular situation. This isn't a "hard science". We have massive problems with poverty and economic inequality in our society and statements like these only serve to stop the conversation that potentially leads to solving them. Why do people seem so stubbornly against seeing if a UBI works?

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#134

Post by shkkmo »

monkseal wrote: post #92
Romanulus wrote: post #54

This is a poor implementation of Welfare 2.0 and it will fail just like the first iteration.

At its heart, UBI sounds like a good thing but it ignore basic human nature and particularly in-group and out-group conflicts. UBI in America would calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off their work. The working group will come to resent the non-working group and it will further divide the society. People are living a bubble if they don’t think this would be a major source of poli…

Nobody is talking about giving you 50k and free housing. You would likely receive much closer to 15k (federal poverty level) and free housing (if any) would likely not be in a ski town. Good luck affording food and rent in a ski town, plus enough video games to keep you busy all year on 15k.

You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards, new video games, and trips to other ski towns.

Disclaimer: I am currently doing part-time freelance work and living in a ski town.

Plus, if you truly love programming, you would still want to work on side projects and assist with open source development that you find interesting or valuable.

Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The questions are:

1) How many of these lazy people are there?

2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their workforce.

3) How much economic output is wasted by the systems employers have to create to force the lazy people they do hire to be productive.

4) How much economic output can we gain by giving non-lazy people a safety net that allows them to find ideal vocations for their talents and preferences.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#135

Post by house9-2 »

moduspol wrote: post #63
skybrian wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're sending money then people will spend it (such as on shoes) and increased spending and investment will tend to help local businesses much more than sending goods that compete with them. So I'm not seeing why you think skills will atrophy? It seems like there's more danger of that when people are poorer? (For one thing, education becomes less affordable.)

The shoes don't have to come from Bomet County. Nor does the food, or the electricity, or much of anything else. The poverty rate is just under 50%, per Wikipedia at least. If all the money is coming from the county (presumably it is), then it's going to be coming from the other 50%, and at a rate higher than neighboring (non-UBI) counties. It will be in the rational self-interest of that non-impoverished 50% to leav…

> If all the money is coming from the county (presumably it is)

I believe most of the money comes from outside the country, I started donating $25 a month to GiveDirectly this summer.

In the years to come technology is going to replace the need for a lot of human labor and UBI will be required to maintain a civil society.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#136

Post by quaunaut »

pc86 wrote: post #58
quaunaut wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've understood, it solves multiple problems that the negative income tax didn't, because it didn't apply to everyone. To clarify for those coming later: The negative income tax is the idea that beneath a certain amount of income, you actually are given money by the government. If you're over the amount, you get nothing, and in fact are taxed a portion of your income. Depending on how far beneath the amount…

In the US at least all the rates are marginal. The only "disincentive to work" is completely psychological and made up. If you make more money, you get more money. There is no financial scenario where you make $1 more and lose anything close to $1 in government benefits, tax credits, etc. I was on unemployment for approximately 6 months in 2008 and every $100 I made only decreased my unemployment benefit by $15-20. A…

But the disincentive to work is that your first X amount that is under the yearly amount you get from the negative income tax would be you working and getting absolutely no benefit.

That's what I'm referencing.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#137

Post by burkaman »

monkseal wrote: post #114
burkaman wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live that politicians aren't constantly trying to remove welfare benefits?

This is why UBI will never become law. Once you start talking about taking away benefits (Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Food Stamps, HUD Housing Subsidies), people will freak out. The backlash will be very loud. Look at the tax reform debate now: When they proposed taking away deductibility of mortgage interest or state and local taxes deductions, I started seeing headlines from the New York Times and Washington P…

Look up the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. And with UBI you'd be replacing benefits, not removing them.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#138

Post by jpindar »

ythn wrote: post #111
munk-a wrote: post #97

I would be extremely interested to see the social/psychological effects of UBI on how people treat the homeless. This is a bit divergent but if UBI was introduced without any increase in mental care I am curious if the portion of the population remaining homeless would be exploited for their earnings or supported into stable life settings. I do believe it's a good idea to try UBI but this particular point has always…

This may be slightly on a tangent, but how would UBI be distributed to the homeless - esp. people who have no address or documents or identification of any kind? Is step one everyone needs a national ID in order to receive UBI?

I assume it would be the same as any kind of government benefit. Many homeless and unbanked people now get various forms of benefits via a card that functions like a prepaid debit card.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#139

Post by Romanulus »

monkseal wrote: post #92
Romanulus wrote: post #54

This is a poor implementation of Welfare 2.0 and it will fail just like the first iteration.

At its heart, UBI sounds like a good thing but it ignore basic human nature and particularly in-group and out-group conflicts. UBI in America would calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off their work. The working group will come to resent the non-working group and it will further divide the society. People are living a bubble if they don’t think this would be a major source of poli…

Tonnes of people are already living in a bubble: welfare (speaking broadly here) is doled out to lots and lots of folks, and thus is a huge source of friction. Welfare was meant to help those poor through/in bad times, not those choosing to be poor.

Furthermore, plenty of people are already not working (or hardly at all)... all you need to do is eavesdrop/overhear the conversations single mothers are having; which forms to fill out, available programs, which Ministry to hit up and how (for the Canadians here), etc.

Isn't it odd how the ultra-rich trumpet UBI as an amazing godsend from government and society? A Smooth Sea Never Made a Skillful Sailor, and coddling those without the drive to hone their skills (with the money of those using their skills) will result in failure.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#140

Post by matt4077 »

ttoinou wrote: post #123
matt4077 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single proposal of UBI has included it replacing all other welfare benefits. That simplification, and the resulting reduction in administrative overhead, is among the top arguments for UBI. Also: spaces before question marks look strange.

Every single proposal of UBI has included it replacing all other welfare benefits Only so that their cost calculations don't go crazy and seem sustainable. No one in the UBI side is even remotely interested in deleting previous welfare

Now you're just making stuff up to sustain your apparent hatred of everyone "in the UBI side".

I think you're working from some wrong assumption who these UBI proponents are, and what their motivation is. Just to give you an idea, Wikipedia lists Elon Musk, Tim Berners-Lee, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Bill Gross, and Tim Draper, among others. These aren't lazy know-nothings trying to get you to finance their lazy Tuesdays.

Post reply on HN