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

Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#11

Post by thrower123 »

ubiopinion wrote: post #6

UBI is just an excuse to do the real fix, and that's tax the wealthy and the corporations their fair share. It's ridiculous my tax rate is over 30% while wealthy people has it at 15%, and Amazon has it at 0%. That's the real problem! Yang wants to give people #1kBro so they can shut up about the real issue here is tax fairness.

Depends heavily on your state, which no federal tax is ever going to fix. I'm always going to be less taxed than in Maine, so long as NH has no income tax. Not to mention sales tax.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#12

Post by roenxi »

ubiopinion wrote: post #6

UBI is just an excuse to do the real fix, and that's tax the wealthy and the corporations their fair share. It's ridiculous my tax rate is over 30% while wealthy people has it at 15%, and Amazon has it at 0%. That's the real problem! Yang wants to give people #1kBro so they can shut up about the real issue here is tax fairness.

I agree with your overall point that this result is backwards to what people probably want. That being said the situation is hardly ridiculous.

Eg, To a pretty reasonable first approximation, all of Amazon's income is either going to be (1) distributed to shareholders and trigger income/capital gains tax or (2) invested in making goods cheaper for amazon's customers.

It isn't immediately obvious that it is a good idea to tax a system designed to get goods to people cheaply. The money Amazon reinvests in itself is in the short term all about making life better for its customers, not its owners. In the long term that reverses, but the reversal triggers additional tax events.

> It's ridiculous my tax rate is over 30% while wealthy people has it at 15%

The wealthy will be paying much more tax than you though. In raw amounts, the wealthy are doing much more to run the government financially than you are by orders of magnitude.

It isn't immediately laughable. A billionaire is making an absurd contribution vs. other taxpayers even at a 5%. And again, that part of their money isn't going towards themselves, it is difficult to consume that much in real resources in a year. It is likely going to investing in things that other people want.

There is no obviously-right or obviously-wrong with tax. Systems are complicated.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#13

Post by mwilcox »

roenxi wrote: post #12
ubiopinion wrote: post #6

UBI is just an excuse to do the real fix, and that's tax the wealthy and the corporations their fair share. It's ridiculous my tax rate is over 30% while wealthy people has it at 15%, and Amazon has it at 0%. That's the real problem! Yang wants to give people #1kBro so they can shut up about the real issue here is tax fairness.

I agree with your overall point that this result is backwards to what people probably want. That being said the situation is hardly ridiculous. Eg, To a pretty reasonable first approximation, all of Amazon's income is either going to be (1) distributed to shareholders and trigger income/capital gains tax or (2) invested in making goods cheaper for amazon's customers. It isn't immediately obvious that it is a good ide…

In reality Amazon is accumulating cash faster than it can spend it, same as the rest of big tech. If it had things to reinvest it into it wouldn't be such a problem

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#14

Post by gnarbarian »

realtalk_sp wrote: post #9
gnarbarian wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea. How about a flat tax with no loopholes? Seems fair to me.

What's the rationale for a flat tax over progressive? I believe that an ideal tax system should properly reflect that the value of a marginal dollar is inversely correlated with income/wealth in a nonlinear fashion. But I'm open to having my mind changed.

One point is that "fairness" is highly subjective. One can perform many contortions to justify their own definition of what they perceive as "fair".

Personally I like a flat tax because it drastically simplifies the tax system and removes the loop holes that wealthy people who can afford accountants use to achieve the lower effective tax rate stated in the root comment. It also deletes the tax prep Industry and a significant majority of the IRS, these Ultimately act as drag in our economy for arguably a net negative benefit.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#15

Post by fzeroracer »

roenxi wrote: post #12
ubiopinion wrote: post #6

UBI is just an excuse to do the real fix, and that's tax the wealthy and the corporations their fair share. It's ridiculous my tax rate is over 30% while wealthy people has it at 15%, and Amazon has it at 0%. That's the real problem! Yang wants to give people #1kBro so they can shut up about the real issue here is tax fairness.

I agree with your overall point that this result is backwards to what people probably want. That being said the situation is hardly ridiculous. Eg, To a pretty reasonable first approximation, all of Amazon's income is either going to be (1) distributed to shareholders and trigger income/capital gains tax or (2) invested in making goods cheaper for amazon's customers. It isn't immediately obvious that it is a good ide…

> The wealthy will be paying much more tax than you though. In raw amounts, the wealthy are doing much more to run the government financially than you are by orders of magnitude

This also has a disproportionate effect on the rest of the government, however. The wealthy clamor for tax cuts because they already pay more than everyone else (and as long as income disparity exists, this is going to be a fact, so it's not really much of an argument) which in turn means said tax cuts can break the bank so to speak. Which results in cuts to systems that the poor and less wealthy rely on to live, things such as basic schooling or financial aid.

In turn, that money that they do get tends to go towards things that entrench their power. Politicians, mainstream media, things such as that. I personally have not heard a strong argument for not taxing the wealthy and corporations more, because for all the tax cuts we've seen we're still in dire straits when it comes to dealing with poverty and healthcare. So clearly something isn't trickling down here.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#16

Post by fzeroracer »

gnarbarian wrote: post #14
realtalk_sp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the rationale for a flat tax over progressive? I believe that an ideal tax system should properly reflect that the value of a marginal dollar is inversely correlated with income/wealth in a nonlinear fashion. But I'm open to having my mind changed.

One point is that "fairness" is highly subjective. One can perform many contortions to justify their own definition of what they perceive as "fair". Personally I like a flat tax because it drastically simplifies the tax system and removes the loop holes that wealthy people who can afford accountants use to achieve the lower effective tax rate stated in the root comment. It also deletes the tax prep Industry and a sig…

$10,000 of a million is worth less to the millionaire than $10 to the poor person with only a thousand to their name.

A flat tax isn't fair unless every other form of expense was flat as well. Which means rent would have to be some percent of your income and the same for power, healthcare and so forth.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#17

Post by true_religion »

danShumway wrote: post #10
sak5sk wrote: post #2

Great to see tech leaders get behind UBI. Now is the time and Yang is the candidate of a lifetime. I never understood how people buy into the whole "break up the tech giants" argument. It makes no sense, just a great platitude with no real accomplishment. Who wants to use the 2nd best Twitter or Facebook? Not a single person.

I'm assuming you're asking in good faith, so I'll point out three problems with your line of thought. First, you assume that having multiple competitors is pointless if one product is the clear winner. Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now, and the reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior,…

The break up Facebook plan isn’t going to end with two facebooks. They aren’t a phone company.

They may be required to provide interoperability with other networks. This kind of federation is what tech people claim is what makes the internet good.

Then there is the question of if all their sub companies need to be under one banner. Must they own WhatsApp? Instagram?

Seems like they don’t need to but just swallowed up competitors.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#18

Post by echelon »

sak5sk wrote: post #2

Great to see tech leaders get behind UBI. Now is the time and Yang is the candidate of a lifetime. I never understood how people buy into the whole "break up the tech giants" argument. It makes no sense, just a great platitude with no real accomplishment. Who wants to use the 2nd best Twitter or Facebook? Not a single person.

How does UBI even work? Won't it just lead to rampant inflation where the basic income is spread thin, eaten up almost entirely by the rising cost of goods? It seems like this in turn will require an even higher basic income, which exacerbates the problem.

Isn't an analogous situation that of private loans for tuition? Tuitions have risen across the board to eat up all the new "free" money in the system.

Won't UBI make goods much more expensive for everyone and also increase our taxes? Wouldn't a better expenditure be providing healthcare?

I'm earnestly curious.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#19

Post by keiferski »

I haven’t read all of the literature on basic income, but my (admittedly semi-educated) impression is that one potential downside is that it fosters dependence on the state and is thus not anti-fragile.

I’m just thinking out loud here, but: what if instead of a flat cash payment, the basic income program provided free technologies that covered basic needs. For example, a small greenhouse device that can grow enough food to sustain a family. Or a 3D printer that can turn raw materials into clothing or shelter. In terms of cash needs, you could create a sort of minimum-wage Uber-style online mechanical Turk system that allows one to put in work and generate cash. You would theoretically get the benefits of basic income without having them be controlled by an external actor.

I don’t know enough about farming, 3D printing or biology to know whether this is feasible, but it seems within the realm of possibility. Have any economists explored options like this?

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#20

Post by gnarbarian »

fzeroracer wrote: post #16
gnarbarian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One point is that "fairness" is highly subjective. One can perform many contortions to justify their own definition of what they perceive as "fair". Personally I like a flat tax because it drastically simplifies the tax system and removes the loop holes that wealthy people who can afford accountants use to achieve the lower effective tax rate stated in the root comment. It also deletes the tax prep Industry and a sig…

$10,000 of a million is worth less to the millionaire than $10 to the poor person with only a thousand to their name. A flat tax isn't fair unless every other form of expense was flat as well. Which means rent would have to be some percent of your income and the same for power, healthcare and so forth.

You aren't actually responding to my argument. I'm arguing for a more effective and efficient tax system which would ultimately result in outcomes you ostensibly support.

I'm done here it's new year in an hour and I'm not going to spend it arguing. ;)

Post reply on HN