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

Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

theincomer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 157 posts

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#131

Post by xienze »

munk-a wrote: post #102
xienze wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. ... then they'll leave the country. I don't think you've thought this through.

America has a real problem with money in politics which has prevented strong penalties on top earners. But, the US does currently levy a minimum tax total for overseas personal income, it basically can be summarized as "If you earned X in the US you'd owe us Y, you payed the government of the country you're residing in Z which is less than Y, you owe the US government Y-Z", this law is extremely poorly enforced curre…

Yep, and you can just renounce your US citizenship. That Facebook guy did it a couple years ago.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#132

Post by DonaldFisk »

moduspol wrote: post #126
DonaldFisk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. If people don't have work to do then they are already, practically by definition, on vacation. If you mean going on package tours and the like, there's no more reason to discuss those as a Basic Income "entitlement" than there is with social security payments.

Perhaps "travel" would have been a better word, but the point still stands. --Social security isn't intended to be a single monetary payment people will, by design, rely on for their entire lives. That's the key difference.-- EDIT: Actually it does do that for specific subsets of people (those with disabilities and similar), but it's a very limited subset as opposed to the entire population, and I think the differenc…

Basic income proposals that stand any chance of being adopted are for it to replace other forms of government provided unearned income (unemployment benefit, old age pension), and are approximately revenue neutral, so those out of work and claiming benefits would receive the same amount, those working or earning private unearned income would on average see their tax bills rise by the same amount as the basic income they would now get, and those not working and not currently claiming any benefits would receive it, but at the same time there would be savings from simplifications of the benefits system.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#133

Post by twblalock »

zackmorris wrote: post #115
twblalock wrote: post #29

The big problem with UBI, aside from how to pay for it, is that it will not survive as either universal or basic once the voters get their hands on it and decide that, say, UBI benefits should be cut for felons, increased for single mothers, indexed to the cost of rent, etc. In other words, we have a bunch of different welfare standards for people in different situations because that is what succeeds politically, and…

This is my biggest concern as well. Just to address your points: * My firm belief is that once felons do their time, their debt is paid and they should be full citizens again. They should definitely have the right to vote, although gun ownership might need to be addressed on a case by case basis for violent criminals for the safety of society. So UBI might need nondiscrimination laws attached to it. * If UBI is per c…

> My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that.

How could the government maintain current welfare payments and also give UBI to everyone at the same time without a massive spending increase?

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#134

Post by moduspol »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #132
moduspol wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps "travel" would have been a better word, but the point still stands. --Social security isn't intended to be a single monetary payment people will, by design, rely on for their entire lives. That's the key difference.-- EDIT: Actually it does do that for specific subsets of people (those with disabilities and similar), but it's a very limited subset as opposed to the entire population, and I think the differenc…

Basic income proposals that stand any chance of being adopted are for it to replace other forms of government provided unearned income (unemployment benefit, old age pension), and are approximately revenue neutral, so those out of work and claiming benefits would receive the same amount, those working or earning private unearned income would on average see their tax bills rise by the same amount as the basic income t…

I've heard those theories and am quite skeptical, but they don't relate to my claims.

My point is that even if everything you claim works out exactly as hoped, that will only be on day one. It is not the case that a growing majority of voters will simply be content with whatever is handed to them and be grateful. There will be ongoing debates about what that number should be, but it will almost never go down.

And I've still seen no reasonable "exit plan" for how to transition away from a UBI society where some huge majority of people have, for decades or generations, been told they will never be working a day in their life.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#135

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Retric wrote: post #77
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not. Rich people are more likely to invest it; the economy also needs that.

Owning stock is not investing in economic terms. Companies are going to maximize profits independent on how much individuals pay in capital gains because nothing about capital gains changes the companies costs or profits. Buying existing properties is the same thing. If no assets are created then it's not an economically useful investment. VC money is often thought of as rich people investments, and it is an investme…

Buying stock is investing in economic terms if it's a new issue. Buying bonds is investing, too (again if it's a new issue), and the bond market is twice as big as the stock market.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#136

Post by jostylr »

twblalock wrote: post #130
jostylr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People already remove the universal right to vote for felons so what would the difference be here? One can always talk about universal and then not actually do it.

If UBI is not universal there is no point to doing it -- it would just be a complicated welfare system, and we already have one of those, and we certainly shouldn't throw it out just to end up creating another one.

There is a world of difference between taking away benefits from someone convicted of a crime and saying that "such and such people qualify for assistance if they fill out forms x,y,z and do a,b,c."

It would be analogous to saying that since we send some people to prison, we should all be in prison. It makes no sense to compare these two things. A person who commits a crime loses some rights. That may include a UBI, it may include voting rights, it may include loss of limbs. Felons are fundamentally treated differently than non-felons.

How they are treated does reflect greatly the moral fiber of the population. I personally would not want to take either a UBI or voting away from felons, but that is a completely separate debate and should not be a factor in the UBI being applied to the other 99% of the population.

The UBI debate is about what distribution of resources leads to the best society. It is about who has power, who does not. It is about who gets to make the decisions of what is made and to whom that stuff is given. It is about whether people can live secure or in constant fear. It is not a debate about the criminal justice system though that debate needs to be had as well.

They are not totally independent, of course. There would be a great deal less crime if the stress of surviving was removed from much of the population.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#137

Post by manicdee »

xienze wrote: post #90
magduf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. It's really not that hard: if they have assets here and reside here, then you tax them, and seize them if necessary. The only reason this isn't done is because too many people vote for politicians who pass laws favorable to the very wealthy.

> The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. ... then they'll leave the country. I don't think you've thought this through.

How do you take real estate out of the country?

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#138

Post by Retric »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #135
Retric wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning stock is not investing in economic terms. Companies are going to maximize profits independent on how much individuals pay in capital gains because nothing about capital gains changes the companies costs or profits. Buying existing properties is the same thing. If no assets are created then it's not an economically useful investment. VC money is often thought of as rich people investments, and it is an investme…

Buying stock is investing in economic terms if it's a new issue. Buying bonds is investing, too (again if it's a new issue), and the bond market is twice as big as the stock market.

A relatively small amount of new stock is issued each year on the open market when you exclude companies that trade their own stock. Bonds are often issued for things like taking a company private which are again not really investments just asset transfer. Further, profitable companies often issue bonds even if they have cash on hand or regular dividends.

So again it might be a useful investment, but that’s not nessisarily true.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#140

Post by 3131s »

kire2345 wrote: post #83

I am wondering often with UBI: if everybody gets a certain amount of money. Wouldn't prices just adapt and everything gets more expensive, and there would be the same divide as before? Similar to Scandinavia where prices are very high. What mechanism could prevent this from happening?

Why exactly do you think this would happen? It doesn't actually make sense. Let's say Company A charges 2$ for an apple and each apple costs 1$ to procure, and then at some point a UBI is implemented. What changed that suddenly allows company A to raise the price of an apple without being undercut by Company B? The cost to procure an apple might increase somewhat because laborers have more leverage under a UBI, but there's an upper limit to this with automation anyway. A more equal distribution of wealth in itself will not cause any increase in the cost of goods.
Post reply on HN