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

AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#191

Post by AnimalMuppet »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #65
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…

Maybe its not the general population that will foot the bill. Also, if other state benefits were reduce, that would change the math. It's easy to throw around FUD. But anything that redistributes wealth from the top 0.1% is the right direction.

> But anything that redistributes wealth from the top 0.1% is the right direction.

No. No, it's not. There are several ways to do it that are very much not the right direction. (See Venezuela for a couterexample.)

Note well: This does not mean that this specific proposal is in the wrong direction (though I suspect it is). I merely mean that "just take it from the 0.1%, it will all work out" is a very inadequate failure mode analysis.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#192

Post by exabrial »

danhak wrote: post #38
exabrial wrote: post #36

Nothing that requires the labors of other is a "right". UBI funded by private equity is fine. UBI funded by taxes is theft and extortion.

Hmmm, how about my right to a fair and speedy trial? That requires the labor of others, doesn’t it?

You completely missed to grep anything valuable out of a fairly obvious response. Is there judge there under duress?

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#193

Post by cscurmudgeon »

searine wrote: post #50
infecto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

And corruption.

Just one example: http://sfappeal.com/2013/05/arrest-warrants-issued-for-sf-sc...

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#194

Post by thereisnospork »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #175
thereisnospork wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Houses get built, maybe just not in the favorite places. So 9 out of 10 families get to live in a commutable distance to where they work, or 2 families get to live in half the appropriate space. Not good for the economy, not good for the families, very good for landlords. Whether or not housing is naturally flexible, CA's government has done pretty darn well making it inflexible. See rents vs. inflation. Every doll…

Straw man.

Please elaborate: which man is made of straw?

Has California real estate valuations and rents not exceeded inflation for the past decade+? In economic equilibrium should rents not equal amortized construction costs? Have increasing rents not impacted commuting distances and housing availability for the renting class worker? Would these impactions not hurt the economy as a whole? Or do you disagree that regulatory barriers to building housing benefit those who own existing housing?

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#195

Post by thereisnospork »

fargle wrote: post #179
thereisnospork wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Houses get built, maybe just not in the favorite places. So 9 out of 10 families get to live in a commutable distance to where they work, or 2 families get to live in half the appropriate space. Not good for the economy, not good for the families, very good for landlords. Whether or not housing is naturally flexible, CA's government has done pretty darn well making it inflexible. See rents vs. inflation. Every doll…

Pretty sure it's not the landlords and wealthier classes that are making CA's government into a giant tarpit. They'd love to see less and smaller government. Over-regulation is only a part of the cost. The biggest part is the demand. But don't worry, whenever people figure out that silicon valley jobs can easily be relocated, to basically anywhere, that will all work itself out.

> Pretty sure it's not the landlords and wealthier classes that are making CA's government into a giant tarpit. They'd love to see less and smaller government.

They, like anyone else, want to see a government act in their interest. Sometimes that means less government, sometimes it means more. Democrats want more government in healthcare, Republicans want more government in immigration; it is about what they want not how they get it.

And yes it will sort itself out, much like Detroit has worked itself out after the auto boom. It is just sad seeing myopic governance[0] lead CA towards that future.

[0]"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#196

Post by dragonwriter »

thereisnospork wrote: post #194
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straw man.

Please elaborate: which man is made of straw? Has California real estate valuations and rents not exceeded inflation for the past decade+? In economic equilibrium should rents not equal amortized construction costs? Have increasing rents not impacted commuting distances and housing availability for the renting class worker? Would these impactions not hurt the economy as a whole? Or do you disagree that regulatory bar…

> In economic equilibrium should rents not equal amortized construction costs?

No.

I mean, even with the kind of generic-market idealized assumptions (such an unlimited competition) that never really apply to real estate anyhwere, rent would equal the amortized cost of providing the rental property, including land acquisition, construction, maintenance, etc.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#197

Post by infecto »

searine wrote: post #166
infecto wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 live in the most expensive real-estate in the country and complain that it costs money to maintain. Pay your fair share.

You must not understand me well.

My complaint is that I pay some of the highest taxes in the country for some of the lowest benefits.

Not sure what this has to do with me paying my fair share?

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#198

Post by infecto »

secabeen wrote: post #102
infecto wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While your property tax is high, property taxes in CA are generally low. See Prop 13. Also, feet-deep pot-holes? So how many cars are bottoming out each week? California's tax burden is ~9%, and within 1% of the median: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-bur...

The worst one I measured in my neighborhood was about 12 inches so I guess the majority are more in the 3-6inch ranch. Enough that its an issue. I live in one of the nicer parts of Oakland too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmCNMQ7TOgY

You don't have to tell me about Prop 13, its a joke and I push to remove it as often as I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmCNMQ7TOgY

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#200

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #196
thereisnospork wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please elaborate: which man is made of straw? Has California real estate valuations and rents not exceeded inflation for the past decade+? In economic equilibrium should rents not equal amortized construction costs? Have increasing rents not impacted commuting distances and housing availability for the renting class worker? Would these impactions not hurt the economy as a whole? Or do you disagree that regulatory bar…

> In economic equilibrium should rents not equal amortized construction costs? No. I mean, even with the kind of generic-market idealized assumptions (such an unlimited competition) that never really apply to real estate anyhwere, rent would equal the amortized cost of providing the rental property, including land acquisition, construction, maintenance, etc.

Notably including opportunity cost.
Post reply on HN