51–60 of 157 posts
Perhaps the most ironic thing I've read in a while: "Suicides would also decrease, as the most of them are result of depression, which is mostly caused by anxiety about survival."
There ought to be a name for a minimal UBI that can allow people who are normally just scraping by to bridge short periods of unemployment, unexpected expenses etc. £4K wouldn't be much for the average Hacker News reader, but for people on minimum wage it could make a real difference. You can't really call this "Basic Income" though, because that term comes with the build in assumption that it's enough for a person t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to get a BI of £12K, average taxes would have to go up by £8K per person. And since about 2/3 of the adult population are taxpayers, that gives £12K per taxpayer, which balances the payout they'd receive from BI. People with above average incomes would pay into BI, and those with below average incomes would net from BI.
I thought BI was equal distribution across the population; how can you charge less than its value per person, and pay it off?
I'm curious to hear how folks, who are more knowledgeable than I and have done more research, reconcile data points like these with the data showing lack of success in places like Finland.[1] [1] https://nypost.com/2018/04/25/finlands-universal-basic-incom...
Additionally, Finland had to release a response to the article you linked because of misleading reporting by US media: https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN...
So officially there are no results since the experiment is not over. But whatever the results end up being, they won’t say anything about actual UBI one way or the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That assumes that GDP would not be impacted negatively by the massive tax increase. I'm sure there are many theories, in both directions, of what would happen to the total tax revenues if you were to raise rates significantly, but it's surely far more complicated that your idea makes it sound.
Moving money from rich people to people much more likely to spend it rather than hoard it should result in a significant GDP boost.
There ought to be a name for a minimal UBI that can allow people who are normally just scraping by to bridge short periods of unemployment, unexpected expenses etc. £4K wouldn't be much for the average Hacker News reader, but for people on minimum wage it could make a real difference. You can't really call this "Basic Income" though, because that term comes with the build in assumption that it's enough for a person t…
I've always thought there should be an essential basics program, where you can always receive an adequate amount of flour, rice, beans, corn, and other basic foodstuffs to survive. I'd also add toothpaste, soap, and other sanitary items. We can still have food stamp programs that allow people to spend as they please, but the guaranteed floor ensures literally no one need go hungry. Sticking to basics keeps the costs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to get a BI of £12K, average taxes would have to go up by £8K per person. And since about 2/3 of the adult population are taxpayers, that gives £12K per taxpayer, which balances the payout they'd receive from BI. People with above average incomes would pay into BI, and those with below average incomes would net from BI.
In other words, legally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but that’s what this program is.
He was on SH's show [0] and apparently has a book on it [1]
[0] https://samharris.org/podcasts/130-universal-basic-income/ [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36204293-the-war-on-norm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to get a BI of £12K, average taxes would have to go up by £8K per person. And since about 2/3 of the adult population are taxpayers, that gives £12K per taxpayer, which balances the payout they'd receive from BI. People with above average incomes would pay into BI, and those with below average incomes would net from BI.
In other words, legally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but that’s what this program is.
It might be true - but this doesn't feel like a credible source.