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

281–290 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#281

Post by sub7 »

khafra wrote: post #271
sub7 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I don't know if you realize this, but beggars already exist. There are literally people standing by the road with signs asking for money. Presumably many of them can also vote. UBI just eliminates the physical and emotional toll of standing outside all d…

I grew up in India, I know beggars and begging better than most. I even helped one sell books on the road and now he has a bookstore and his kid is in college. I handout food all the time. But never, ever cash.

UBI will not solve begging, as much as you want it to. But giving people a clean room to stay in, good basic healthcare and a free education might.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#282

Post by kaibee »

_zg4q wrote: post #268
cycomanic wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. > Tha…

> So now they gets taxed twice?

I don't understand this argument. I've seen it so many times among a certain crowd of people, but I still don't get it. Yes, we, mere mortal humans have to form our systems of government using a patchwork of heuristics as we try to approach a more perfect system.

Sure, an omnipotent being that knew all outcomes in advance could set a perfect single-tax rate for each person's individual circumstance that only affected their income. Is this somehow more valid than trying to approximate this same outcome by taxing wealth as a correction on top of what income-tax and other taxes were supposed to accomplish?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#283

Post by DagAgren »

sub7 wrote: post #275
kevinwang wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's a big difference between money and money that can only be spent on a certain set of services. As far as I know welfare is still food stamps etc i.e. not cash.

People know what they need to spend their money on. Telling them what they can and can't do with it is both patronising and counter-productive. Let the person who is affected by the choices make the choices.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#284

Post by sub7 »

zentiggr wrote: post #270
sub7 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hour…

I really want capitalism to give you a wage to do all those things. I understand it's been cronified and monopoloies have fucked over a whole lot of people.

The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being born. We need to enforce fair markets, fair wages etc.

For those at the very bottom, I want dignity, a free education, and if still unsuccessful access to a low skill job that can pay basic bills.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#285

Post by sub7 »

DagAgren wrote: post #283
sub7 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between money and money that can only be spent on a certain set of services. As far as I know welfare is still food stamps etc i.e. not cash.

People know what they need to spend their money on. Telling them what they can and can't do with it is both patronising and counter-productive. Let the person who is affected by the choices make the choices.

Patronizing and counter productive is giving people money for nothing. It's telling people that they're useless.

You should read up on the beggar networks in India and the exploitation that occurs when you handout money for no work.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#286

Post by asdkhadsj »

clSTophEjUdRanu wrote: post #258
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…

I look at it from a selfish perspective. These "lowlifes" actually drag society down. It benefits me if they are helped.

Yup. I don't agree on the perspective but you're totally right. My wife works in a state with issues like this, and her very modest city (capitol, but not as big as SF or Seattle) has enough homeless people that all sorts of crime is on the rise. Restaurants were closing (before COVID..) because people wouldn't go to the restaurant anymore. There were literal camps in parking lots and the police did nothing.

I personally think it's a sad state of our society that we let this happen. These people are either in need of help, or mental help. This is not an acceptable way of living.

1. Give help to all those who simply need some help. 2. Give mental help to those who cannot see living in filth is not a healthy state of being. 3. Let the people who just want to live "free" go live in the woods and form a co-op or something.

I unfortunately see no reason why camping on the streets or next to interstates should not be strictly enforced. But to manage this, we need social programs for #1 and #2. These people aren't all criminals, we can't simply lock them up in jail/prisons. It would also exploit them to do so. We need human programs focused on helping people, and fast.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#287

Post by dls2016 »

allovernow wrote: post #65

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. The…

Some would argue quantitative easing is wealth redistribution (or directly leads too it). And many more believe we’ve reached the point where it’s useless, if not counterproductive.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#288

Post by jimmysacks »

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…

Its allowed to continue because some are mentally Ill and refuse to get treated (and we can't force them into treatment) and some make poor life decisions like having multiple children with no means to support them (you have the freedom to do this).

You can't just give money to someone mentally Ill or will just squander the money and continue to make bad decisions. We will still have just as much poverty and homelessness.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#289

Post by ubercow13 »

_zg4q wrote: post #268
cycomanic wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. > Tha…

>Taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral

Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? I think it is immoral not to do that, considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#290

Post by MrLeap »

jimmysacks wrote: post #288
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…

Its allowed to continue because some are mentally Ill and refuse to get treated (and we can't force them into treatment) and some make poor life decisions like having multiple children with no means to support them (you have the freedom to do this). You can't just give money to someone mentally Ill or will just squander the money and continue to make bad decisions. We will still have just as much poverty and homeless…

1000$ a month to every adult wouldn't reduce poverty and homelessness _at all_? Not a teeny tiny bit? Economics sure is unintuitive.
Post reply on HN