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

201–207 of 207 posts

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#201

Post by thereisnospork »

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.

I agree that my earlier argument is simplistic in its presentation, (here I would treat 'construction costs' as to build and operate an apartment, amortized over lifetime and apartments in a building -- I understand I could have phrased that better but terseness is necessary lest every comment devolve into an essay) but is still correct in its assessment: CA rents are far in excess of any reasonable economic equilibrium, per 'amortized cost of providing the rental property, including land acquisition, construction, maintenance, etc.' Given in particular that in CA (the bay area and SF too) land is in surplus[0].

[0]Regulatory-allowed access to said land, on the other hand, is less permissive.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#202

Post by dragonwriter »

thereisnospork wrote: post #201
dragonwriter wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree that my earlier argument is simplistic in its presentation, (here I would treat 'construction costs' as to build and operate an apartment, amortized over lifetime and apartments in a building -- I understand I could have phrased that better but terseness is necessary lest every comment devolve into an essay) but is still correct in its assessment: CA rents are far in excess of any reasonable economic equilibr…

> CA rents are far in excess of any reasonable economic equilibrium, per 'amortized cost of providing the rental property, including land acquisition, construction, maintenance, etc.'

Really? Show the numbers. I was under the impression that the Bay Area had a very high land ownership premium, that is, that land acquisition costs are very high compared to rents.

Plus, real prices are usually out of line with economic equilibria in dynamic markets, the equilibrium is the price that a market would achieve if it was in a steady state with no changes for an infinite period. A sustained market distortion raises the equilibrium, it doesn't maintain prices above the equilibrium. Prices above (or below) equilibrium are so are do to frictional forces which cause prices to adjust toward equilibrium at a limited rate. So, I'm not sure why you are harping on equilibrium, it seems to be the wrong issue for what you seem to be concerned about.

> Given in particular that in CA (the bay area and SF too) land is in surplus[0].

Even if that was true, regulatory permitted access largely effects rent through land acquisition costs, not independently of it, so it would explain why both land acquisition costs and rents were higher than they would otherwise be, but not why rents are higher than they would be expected to be given costs to landlords including land acquisition costs.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#203

Post by jinushaun »

mc32 wrote: post #66
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

What’s more is MA has many if the best public schools and Romneycare (at 3% uninsured, that’s the lowest amongst the 50 states) and its taxes aren’t higher than CA’s. CA somehow manages to waste a lot of money. SF has city budgets higher than some states and still says it needs more money.

I don’t think it’s necessarily waste. It’s cost of living. If city employees need to make 6 figures just to be able to afford living in the city, of courses taxes will be higher to compensate. High taxes with zero improvement in services.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#204

Post by searine »

infecto wrote: post #197
searine wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

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

And my argument is that you are undervaluing the cost of the benefits it provides.

Particularly in a cosmopolitan city, there are layers upon layers of infrastructure and society which need to be supported. Here you are standing on top of it all complaining about the breeze.

Paying your fair share is recognizing that you are in a position of privilege and giving back those who allow you to be there. The system depends on people like you to strengthen the ladder you used to climb up in life, not pull it up behind you.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#205

Post by SkyBelow »

the_gastropod wrote: post #151
SkyBelow wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a cost that the government has to provide you if they want to try you. Put another way, it is saying the government has the right to try someone only if they can provide a fair and speedy trial (with lawyers for those who can't afford one). If they cannot provide this, they cannot try you for a crime. Thus, by choosing to try someone, they consent to the payment required to provide these services. At least in t…

I think you're drawing a distinction where one does not exist. The government pays for these services with tax money (which you seem to be suggesting is "receiving someone's labor without their consent")

I think the distinction still exists, just in a slightly different form.

Let's take two alternative government. One that works by having volunteers and one that prints money to pay people.

Right to a speedy trial: Government 1 cannot charge you unless they have enough volunteers to guarantee a speedy trial. If there aren't enough volunteers, you still have this right by the government not charging you (even if you really deserve it). Government 2 cannot charge you unless they have printed enough money and found enough people willing to accept it as payment to guarantee you a speedy trial. If they can't find enough people willing to do this job, they can still provide this right by not charging you.

Right to health care: Government 1 cannot provide this right unless it has enough volunteers. If there aren't volunteers, then it cannot provide you the basic health care. Government 2 cannot provide you this right unless it has enough people willing to accept money to do so. If people aren't willing to, for what ever reason, you aren't going to get health care.

This is a fundamental difference between rights that say "The government cannot X unless they Y" (in some cases the Y exception may not exist at all) and that say "The government must Z".

Logistically you might be able to have the second kind of right functioning with a near 100% up time, due to how the sorts of people are recruited to do the work needed to provide that right, but it is still a fundamental difference from the first kind.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#206

Post by gremlinsinc »

the_gastropod wrote: post #145
alistairSH wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think GP's use of "less" meant "subtract", not that it would decrease the administrative costs of welfare programs. I don't think you can realistically (or ethically) get rid of welfare programs when introducing UBI. This is the issue I had with Andrew Yang's "Freedom Dividend" proposal, too. Some people are bad at managing money or have emergencies $12k won't cover. As a society, we cannot allow them to starve in…

I think, UBI is great, but I think you really need a guaranteed baseline -- for people on hard times. Which is to say it should be whatever the base poverty line is. I think about $32,000.

But at that rate it should definitely replace all other programs save medical.

I also think VAT plus land ownership tax should be where the bulk should come from. Possibly also a rent-holder's tax for foreign national-owned properties that might be 10%/year of value. It should be household based too. Like perhaps 2,000 for first adult, 1k per adult in house, 500 per child.

To be really ideal it needs to give people the freedom to 'choose' work as something to get 'more' reward. This would put supply of jobs above demand, and drive up wages too. Some would choose to focus on side projects, or art, science, studies, college, etc... Some might just play games all day, but who knows maybe they become e-sports athletes and earn thousands doing that.

I think also though, single payer should come before UBI, not after. I think that should be first since people are dying because of that. I'd like to see states start trying to implement that on their own, maybe it works out great and other states copy them.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#207

Post by thereisnospork »

dragonwriter wrote: post #202
thereisnospork wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that my earlier argument is simplistic in its presentation, (here I would treat 'construction costs' as to build and operate an apartment, amortized over lifetime and apartments in a building -- I understand I could have phrased that better but terseness is necessary lest every comment devolve into an essay) but is still correct in its assessment: CA rents are far in excess of any reasonable economic equilibr…

> CA rents are far in excess of any reasonable economic equilibrium, per 'amortized cost of providing the rental property, including land acquisition, construction, maintenance, etc.' Really? Show the numbers. I was under the impression that the Bay Area had a very high land ownership premium, that is, that land acquisition costs are very high compared to rents. Plus, real prices are usually out of line with economic…

>Even if that was true, regulatory permitted access largely effects rent through land acquisition costs, not independently of it, so it would explain why both land acquisition costs and rents were higher than they would otherwise be, but not why rents are higher than they would be expected to be given costs to landlords including land acquisition costs.

>>reasonable economic equilibrium

Sorry for the delayed reply:

Please see >reasonable in the above, there is nothing economically reasonable about the CA market distortion. Rents are higher than they would expected to be given costs not unjustifiably burdened by regulatory permitting. Which would be the (or at least a) reasonable standard for determining what rents should be at equilibrium which provides a basis for what rents should be in the real world and clearly indicates that rents in the real world are excessively high and not economically justified. I don't see where I've been unclear about this.

Post reply on HN