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

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#261

Post by SuoDuanDao »

frobozz wrote: post #223
pc2g4d wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should also have a voluntary charitable UBI. Encourage a culture where everybody contributes what they can to the fund, and then all donations are split equally among all citizens. That money won't be subject to the same political pressures; people who donate will feel good about themselves; and the bureaucracy needed to do this would be minimal.

You can't rely on voluntary donations to produce a stable income. A charity doing this would have to vary the amount paid out based on receipts. In hard times, donations and payments will reduce. This will reduce the effectiveness of a UBI in smoothing out recessions. It will also suffer a death spiral because every donor will know how much every recipient gets. If I put in 500 each month and get 200, then I'm going…

Well hang on, not necessarily. The donations could be to a sovereign wealth fund of some kind, so long as invested money produces a somewhat reliable income, it could be seen as an investment in the eventual utopia UBI fans envision happening once the fund's large enough. Not a terrible way to implement it privately if the state doesn't get around to it now I think of it.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#262

Post by claudeganon »

manigandham wrote: post #255
claudeganon wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet was created by governments, much of its technical infrastructure through open source projects, and I’m pretty sure most of those billionaire companies had at least some employees (many of whom I assume were also educated in public schools and state universities). So, yes, quite obviously, they made it on the “backs of society.”

We all pay taxes and benefit from "society". There's nothing special about it, and you too have the freedom to start your own company.

This presumes that societies are run and tax so as to provide equal benefits to all. This is disproven by, I dunno, the history of every society.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#263

Post by pas »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #246
Proziam wrote: post #88

My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…

I've seen realistic figures for my country on UBI and from what I've seen UBI at a realistic level does not seem to be affordable. It's insanely expensive. Moreover, without massive changes elsewhere in society, UBI would decrease social mobility and lead to a two-class society that keeps the poor even poorer than now. I'd rather see reasonable minimum wages, and higher taxes that are spent on universal health care,…

> Moreover, without massive changes elsewhere in society, UBI would decrease social mobility and lead to a two-class society that keeps the poor even poorer than now.

Could you elaborate on that a bit? How and why would it do that?

What's your opinion on Negative Income Tax?

> The current systems in most countries are horrible, because they are designed to punish people who are creative and try to make money on the side

Agreed. The number of people applying for some program while trying to hide some of their income would go down a lot if the eligibility and payout were gradual. Plus the truly heinous criminal cases would be still there to prosecute. (Eg. if someone sits on a pile of gold and lies about it on some application.)

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#264

Post by bumby »

wahern wrote: post #80
bumby wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it needs to be addressed, but my worry is that it’s complete conjecture. So many people were predicting massive inflation from quantitative easing but that never came to pass. To me, the scary thought is implementing UBI without a mechanism to reel it back if our model wasn’t right

QE added ~$3 trillion cumulatively to the money supply at its peak. And most of it sat on banks' balance sheets because in a $200+ trillion global financial asset market ($300+ trillion today), $3 trillion doesn't do much to change banks' incentive structure for making loans, it just propped up the existing incentive structures so the whole system didn't collapse. I can't fathom how adding $2+ trillion every year dir…

You made very good points and I think we probably agree on the need for both good entry and exit plans. The larger point I was trying to highlight is how much of each side is based on conjecture, not data driven evidence. Which makes good planning that much more necessary

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#265

Post by teyc »

I was trying to think of parallels with the programming world, and perhaps this analogy might make sense to some people.

Sometimes, the software we maintain accumulates so much tech debt that it becomes very difficult to make any headway. By setting aside some development time to address these issues, we enable developers to gain velocity again.

In a similar way, sometimes we see poor people make illogical economic choices, simply because of a cash crunch. When people are poor, they have too many competing priorities that require urgent attention, and they find themselves caught in a series of wicked choices. A Harvard study suggests that poverty causes 13 point drop in IQ.

The right level of UBI may actually improve the way energy and capital is deployed. It also protects a lot of small employers from economic shocks by smoothing out the velocity of money.

Many readers are rightly concerned about the moral hazard introduced through redistribution of wealth. However, seen through the lens of tech debt and investment, UBI is relatively straight forward way of investing in the future.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#266

Post by danarmak »

mgkimsal wrote: post #259
zajio1am wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation? Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government.

> Changing your employer is much simpler than changing your government. Making changes at your place of employment is often impossible. We get direct chances to change our government every X years. And changing to a different employer often isn't that easy for many folks.

Changing your employment is individual and allows different offerings from different employers, matching the wants and needs of different people. Changing your government needs a majority consensus and at least some people will be in the minority who doesn't get what they want.

I don't think tying employment to healthcare is a good thing, but I don't think your argument gives a good reason, either.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#267

Post by kevinwang »

sub7 wrote: post #254
JDiculous wrote: post #242

One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery. UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong t…

Agreed that everyone deserves a basic standard of living as a human right but disagree that UBI is the path to that. Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no more work. It's the road to ruin. My suggestion is a set of hospitals, schools and housing that is super basic but sufficient to give people dignity a…

1. Everyone already has voting rights though, and those in poverty are already incentivized to seek welfare, so how would UBI "create" that?

2. How does your suggestion prevent that?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#268

Post by _zg4q »

cycomanic wrote: post #137
kuzimoto wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

That's actually the point of the wealth tax. The reason the pay a disproportionate amount is because the own a disproportionate amount. The current system is also a redistribution of wealth, just from the bottom to the top. That's what a wealth tax is supposed to change. Regarding the argument about companies, I'm sure the French king also employed a lot of people, we still got right of the system of absolutism.

I'm guessing the vast majority of "wealth" is in assets/stocks. That isn't money just sitting around. The value is only realized when those are selled off. They also would owe capital gains tax. So now they gets taxed twice?

> The current system is also a redistribution of wealth, just from the bottom to the top.

I think that capitalism/free markets has been the biggest driver in bringing people out of poverty.

> That's what a wealth tax is supposed to change.

This is also hugely immoral. Property is a fundamental human right. There is no "right" in having as much money as someone else. In the US at least, there is supposed to be equal protection of your rights. Taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral. Besides, wealthy people are also people that donate enormous amounts of money. Let them figure out how they want to give it away.

> Regarding the argument about companies, I'm sure the French king also employed a lot of people, we still got right of the system of absolutism.

You will have to provide me some more evidence on how these are connected.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#269

Post by kaibee »

scatters wrote: post #198
dnautics wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minimum wage doesn't grow with inflation because the point of inflation is to steal wealth from the working class: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...

Inflation is a tax on wealth, not on labor.

The prices of real things change in response to inflation. Inflation is only a tax on cash wealth.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#270

Post by zentiggr »

sub7 wrote: post #254
JDiculous wrote: post #242

One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery. UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong t…

Agreed that everyone deserves a basic standard of living as a human right but disagree that UBI is the path to that. Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no more work. It's the road to ruin. My suggestion is a set of hospitals, schools and housing that is super basic but sufficient to give people dignity a…

It's funny that you say a class of beggars would be created, when most UBI scenarios I've read about show that people tend to try to improve their situations in whichever way makes the most sense...

some who can finally afford basic water food and housing start seeking medical/psych help they couldn't afford.

Some get more schooling to improve their employment prospects.

Some buy a car to start saving themselves hours a week on public transportation and therefore have more time to live.

And a small percentage don't get it and squander it.

You see the policy turning into a UK-style dole... I think you don't see the enormous benefits that reaching the point of 'having enough' can provide.

I've recently started making more than I have in the rest of my life... and besides finally paying down our household debt, and accomplishing the cash-starved household repairs, I'm starting to look at volunteering and truly giving to charities _because I can_.

Just providing basic services doesn't give people the same options, the mobility to do with their lives what makes sense in their circumstances.

Post reply on HN