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

361–370 of 444 posts

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#361

Post by pitay »

ghostwriter wrote: post #169
dwiel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldnt that same argument apply to people fighting for democracy in the age of monarchy? Why try to get rid of the king when he will just be replaced by a president? Dont even bother. Obviously power structures and concentration of power always exist in some form, but that doesn't mean we should never try to rein it in on occassion.

You cannot achieve that by replacing an almighty king with an almighty government dictating who gets what (which is a prerequisite of UBI).

Doesn't a UBI get rid of actually prevent a government from dictating who gets what?

With current social support programs the government does get to choose who gets what. But with a UBI, every adult would get the same amount, effectively removing the government's ability to choose who gets benefits.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you are saying, I don't know.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#362

Post by manfredo »

jostylr wrote: post #332
paulddraper wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're not able to support your thoughts with data Likewise. That article is a highly anecdotal puff piece, focusing on a few exceptional inspirational stories from a single tribe. I could find all sorts of non-UBI rags-to-riches stories too. AFAIK, despite no end of UBI pontification, no real study has even been done about existing native UBI (correct me please). What we do know is that Native Americans consist…

Here is a study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1... Their chosen highlights: >Highlights >The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) has provided UBI averaging $6600 US (2015) dollars for a family of four since 1982. >The PFD reduced the number of rural Alaska Indigenous people in poverty during 2011–2015 by 22%, down from 46% in 2000. >The PFD reduced poverty among rural Alaska Indigenous…

This is not really that significant of a result, given that the measure of poverty they used is an income threshold. In other words, the study result found that supplementing income with direct cash payments reduced the percentage of people that fell below the poverty income threshold. Which is an obvious consequence of a uniform increase in people's income.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#363

Post by paulddraper »

reissbaker wrote: post #286
coredog64 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax. Can you explain this, as this doesn’t appear to be backed up by IRS stats on effective rates & total revenue.

Wealth is not taxed. If you have a large amount of wealth, you don't need income, and it's likely that — if you do have income — your income represents a very small percentage of your net worth growth over time. Most of it is capital gains, which: 1. Are taxed at a much lower rate, and, 2. Are only taxed when the gains are "realized," e.g. when you sell at a profit. As a result, if you have a large amount of wealth,…

It does't make sense to take wealth though.

The only way wealth can increase (in a usuable liquid form at least) is through income, which is already taxed.

If I eat beans and rice for 10 years to help save for a awesome retirement, I should be able to save that money.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#364

Post by paulddraper »

kyledrake wrote: post #334
andreilys wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil” It’s always puzzling to me when people equate wealth with evil. Why the unnecessary moralizing? Just say “concentrated wealth in the hands of the few has the potential to cause systemic societal harm” No need to paint it as a battle of good vs evil, it severely diminishes the substance of your point.

Actually a lot of them do very bad things with their money that are very harmful to society, whether it's Bill Gates fraternizing with a convicted child sex trafficker, Peter Thiel platforming for racist demagogue Trump, Vinod Khosla spending unlimited amounts of money to carve out private access to beaches, or running for president and sinking a record setting amount of money on his campaign like Michael Bloomberg i…

TIL supporting the 2016 Republican presidential candidate was evil.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#365

Post by paulddraper »

ghostwriter wrote: post #308
claudiawerner wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitzan and Bichler argue quite convincingly that capital is power - money isn't necessarily power, but money-capital absolutely is.

No amount of capital (economic power) will save you from the power of the state to take it from you, should that idea arise in the minds of those who define the state policy.

Lobbiests + campaign finances

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#366

Post by paulddraper »

pascoej wrote: post #162

Yang does have an interesting idea for campaign finance reform too. 100$ a year for any citizen to spend on political campaigns. In some ways I think this is bigger than the UBI. If everybody spent this voucher it would be ~23B, almost 4x what was spent on federal races in 2016. I think it will be more likely that our elected officials make better policy for normal people if their campaign funding also comes from the…

Different, but in the spirit of prior art, my state gives $2 per adult to spend on party campaign funds. (This is chosen at tax return time.)

[1] https://incometax.utah.gov/contributions/election-campaign-f...

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#367

Post by maxsilver »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #325
maxsilver wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It (UBI @ $1k/month) is just supposed to take starving and freezing to death off the table My point is that $1k/month does not do this . Hell, minimum wage is approximately 1.5x to 2x greater than UBI (depending on the area), and even it does not quite take "starving and freezing to death" off the table. "Working Homelessness" is a thing - https://www.npr.org/2018/09/30/652572292/working-while-homel... and https://…

Working homelessness is a thing in California because of outrageous housing costs. The problem there isn't insufficient wages, it's insufficient local housing. You can live a spartan life on $12,000/year in many places in the midwest and not die of poverty.

> You can live a spartan life on $12,000/year in many places in the midwest and not die of poverty.

I live in the Midwest, and this is simply not an accurate description of Midwest finances. These people who live on $12k/yr are either already asset rich (i.e., own their own house/car/etc) or are having their friends/family/roommates or the state pick up some of their living expenses, in one way or another. If they don't, they are literally dying of poverty.

According to the US Census Bureau, a $12k/yr income would put you below the poverty line, even for a single adult with no children living in the Midwest (Michigan).

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#368

Post by lidHanteyk »

aeternum wrote: post #354
lidHanteyk wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a problem if rich people resent having to pay money into the government in order to keep the system running. Rich people are only rich because the government maintains the monetary system. Being so rich that one resents the very government that establishes their riches is a feature, not a bug. Edit: As usual for rapid downvotes on polite posts, do downvoters care to explain themselves? Or is today a day for…

It is generally not the rich that resent it. The rich simply see taxes as a cost of doing business that they should attempt to minimize as they would any cost. If you look at welfare, those that resent it most are the people that are just over the threshold to receive it. They see themselves as significantly better than those on welfare who are lazy and gaming the system.

Okay, but we're talking about UBI, and in UBI systems, there aren't any people that are just barely over the threshold.

I don't really see folks resenting welfare. I see a whole lot of folks who have probably never experienced welfare, though, and who are ready to judge those who do receive it. I don't consider this a reasonable line of thought, though, but rather an indicator of bigotry and poor empathy.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#369

Post by paulddraper »

snidane wrote: post #183
JorgeGT wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answer is: never. The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago, but instead of settling we want more: traveling, more and more advanced tech, vast amount of entertainment, etc. Consider the multi-billion dollar media productions (games, TV series, movies, music, books, etc.) that you can access at the command of your voice vs. th…

So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs because we have TVs, Netflixes, Games, gadgets, toys etc. I would argue that many people nowadays feel more like slaves than monarchs since they can hardly even afford healthcare in many cases, they probably won't have a pension due to current demographics, they have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords, tax lords, pension lords, healthcare lords…

> So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs

18th century monarchs, yes. (Not 21st century monarchs.)

> hardly even afford healthcare in many cases

Better than leeches though.

> they probably won't have a pension

The reason that's a problem is precisely because health is good.

> hey have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords

Most adults in the U.S. own their own home (modulo mortgage...but even very wealthy people still choose to take mortgages for yet bigger houses). And expensive housing is generally driven voluntary by urbanization.

If you offered me the choice of life as King George III or the average American, I would choose the latter.

Re: Sam Altman and Andrew Yang talk UBI

#370

Post by paulddraper »

sudosteph wrote: post #291
paulddraper wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're not able to support your thoughts with data Likewise. That article is a highly anecdotal puff piece, focusing on a few exceptional inspirational stories from a single tribe. I could find all sorts of non-UBI rags-to-riches stories too. AFAIK, despite no end of UBI pontification, no real study has even been done about existing native UBI (correct me please). What we do know is that Native Americans consist…

The reservation system has created a uniquely imbalanced system for Native Americans where they often live on land that has neither abundant natural resources nor easy access to money from tourism, industry, or trading in general. In that respect, I think the best comparison would actually be to Americans in the parts of the Appalachians (though parts of the Appalachians have mining or tourism, some parts have neithe…

Tourism/entertainment in fact is the primary source of the UBI.
Post reply on HN