AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#91

Post by rjkennedy98 » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #67

kyledrake wrote: post #44

If you pass this without passing radical reform of zoning and building millions more homes, it will be yet another wealth transfer mechanism from poor consumers to wealthy California landholders. Rents will eventually match the increase in income as way too much demand chases an incredible, inhumane, History Will Judge You shortage of supply. Which, amazingly, is one of the reasons this could actually pass. Californi…

>an incredible, inhumane, History Will Judge You shortage of supply. I'm starting to feel it's really just the massive demand. California cities are already quite dense. We can certainly do more but to say we're historically failing just doesn't make sense to me. I'd love to see numbers on just how much pent up demand there is and how much building would need to take place before residents felt it but I realize its n…

They are not dense. Not by any measure. Show me a statistic that shows that the Bay Area is dense in comparison to anywhere else in the world. I am so sick of people make such incredibly inaccurate statements about density and housing.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#92

Post by cmurf » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

infecto wrote: post #39

rmah wrote: post #24

Can they not do basic math? There are around 30 mil adults in California. Even if provision 18992.1 (b) is 5 mil people, that's still 25 mil people. That's 25 mil * $12,000 = $300 bil a year. The ENTIRE California state budget for 2020 is only $220 bil. They would have to more than double the tax revenue for a state with already very high taxes. Now, assuming the most generous interpretation of their 10% VAT proposal…

Boy, I already pay some of the highest taxes in the country and now I get to pay more. For what? They cannot manage anything else properly in this state.

Run for office.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#93

Post by jayd16 » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #91

jayd16 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>an incredible, inhumane, History Will Judge You shortage of supply. I'm starting to feel it's really just the massive demand. California cities are already quite dense. We can certainly do more but to say we're historically failing just doesn't make sense to me. I'd love to see numbers on just how much pent up demand there is and how much building would need to take place before residents felt it but I realize its n…

They are not dense. Not by any measure. Show me a statistic that shows that the Bay Area is dense in comparison to anywhere else in the world. I am so sick of people make such incredibly inaccurate statements about density and housing.

>Not by any measure.

Person per mile squared? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#94

Post by alistairSH » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #68

rmah wrote: post #24

Can they not do basic math? There are around 30 mil adults in California. Even if provision 18992.1 (b) is 5 mil people, that's still 25 mil people. That's 25 mil * $12,000 = $300 bil a year. The ENTIRE California state budget for 2020 is only $220 bil. They would have to more than double the tax revenue for a state with already very high taxes. Now, assuming the most generous interpretation of their 10% VAT proposal…

If you double taxes, but the money is literally just going back into people's pockets, less administration fees of the UBI program, it's just income redistribution and can completely work.

Read the bill - many of CA's existing welfare programs are staying in place. Their INCREASING admin costs with this bill. UBI should replace most/all other welfare programs, if reducing admin costs is a goal.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#95

Post by dave5104 » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

option wrote: post #61

Evan Low introduced this bill. He is on the ballot right now, please vote accordingly

Sadly, I'm not in his district, so I can't vote for him.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#96

Post by alistairSH » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

Very mixed feelings on this. I'm in favor of UBI, but the devil is in the details and this bill doesn't pass the smell test.

As noted elsewhere, $1000/month for all adult residents adds up to more than the state's current budget.

The bill doesn't appear to remove other welfare programs. UBI is usually touted as a moral-judgement free program that replaces all the targeted welfare programs (food stamps, housing allowances, etc).

So, I'm glad people are taking UBI seriously. But, bills like this feel like a footgun. People are rightly suspicious of UBI (at minimum, it's new and untested) and bills like this do nothing to assuage their fears.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#97

Post by gok » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #62

I’d be a lot more interested if they’d fund it via property tax instead of VAT. Since California has such severe restrictions on housing construction, anything that puts more money in people pockets just gets absorbed by higher rent. The entire CA game is the fixed supply of housing eating up most of the economic output of individuals who aren’t grandfathered in. So if you’re going to fix it, collecting against the p…

Prop 13 essentially makes raising revenue through property taxes impossible in California.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#98

Post by anoonmoose » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

infecto wrote: post #84

searine wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For what? Schools. Roads. Sewers. Water. Clean air. Power. Safety. Just to name a few. Nothing important really.

You joke surely? - I live in the Bay Area, we largely have some of the worst schools on average. Yes some areas are perfect but the majority you don't want your kid going to. - Roads? What roads? The roads that are over-congested? The roads that have potholes that are measured in feet deep? - Power, water, clean air? Surely some of that is covered in the fees I already pay for? I pay some of the highest water/sewer/e…

> Again, I ask, what for?

You're paying high taxes because they can tax you that highly and you haven't moved away yet. When they increase them and you still don't move their take away will be that they can probably raise them even higher.

You're the sucker here.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#99

Post by JamesLeonis » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #33

If I read it correctly it seems to apply to all residents over 18, present legally or not. Combining UBI with open borders / non enforcement of immigration policy is going to be interesting from a budget point of view.

"California Resident" is a significant phrase. Here's an entire document that details how California determines it [0], specifically how it taxes those individuals. Sections F through I, with specific details in G, govern these specifications. How about doing a little digging before appealing to wild speculation?

[0]: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2019/2019-1031-publication.pdf

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#100

Post by SllX » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #83

option wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WA has no income tax and their schools aren’t worse. Oregon has no sales tax and their schools aren’t worse. Are CA public schools by far the best in the nation? ( they are not) Edit: before you jump into the “other means funding” - I lived (and owned house) in WA and CA and the overall tax burden is MUCH higher in CA

This is correct. School funding has little correlation to performance because there is little accountability or performance measurement. Even where you might think higher salaries would result in better teachers, this does not happen in any timely fashion because union rules results in long tenure of incumbent instructors in most places.

Don’t forget that those same unions are a political powerhouse in terms of keeping California effectively a single party State, and so long as they remain a reliable means of winning elections, the legislature as it is currently composed has every incentive not to change this. Keep in mind public sector unions are ultimately paid by the taxpayer via a series of payments which originate from us, go through the State and school districts, eventually a teacher’s paycheck and then from their dues, into the unions who turnaround and support the elections and re-elections of their favored politicians.