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

371–380 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#371

Post by danaris »

strken wrote: post #125
danaris wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to structure taxes such that the UBI is extremely meaningful—it helps the people at the low end a lot, the people in the middle a little, and the people at the upper end end up paying more. But guess what? They weren't using that money anyway (except to make more money for themselves).

The people at the top don't have much money (as a percentage of their holdings), they have "wealth", where wealth means productive enterprises like e.g. toilet paper factories. The people at the bottom work in toilet paper factories and are given money which they use to buy toilet paper from the people at the top, and thus there is a productive equilibrium between the wiping masses and the owner of the means of wipin…

> When the people at the top make less money, they invest less money into new toilet paper R&D and new factories.

This (and its inverse, "when the people at the top make more money, they invest it so it does good for the whole economy") is the foundation of trickle-down economics.

It's been empirically proven not to work over the past 40 years.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#372

Post by monadic2 »

bavell wrote: post #104
monadic2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI still does not provide health care.

Right. It also doesn't address climate change. Or gay rights, regime-change wars, or gender discrimination. It just provides every American with increased economic freedom. It's a good thing my doctor accepts USD :)

> It's a good thing my doctor accepts USD :)

That $1000 check will only cover the ride to the hospital before tax.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#373

Post by SilasX »

bnjms wrote: post #369
SilasX wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The assumes financial excess. The reason for UBI is that there isn't excess. If 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, then that's not excess. If 63% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, that's not excess. But if the core problem is that everyone is bidding away all their financial slack on rent, then they will still take any such windfall and do the same with it, pushing themselves right ba…

This is what bothers me most about arguments against UBI. They seem to have baked into them an assumption that any reduction of inequality will be eaten by rents. Then it follows that the only thing is to balance concentrated private economic power with concentrated public economic power. But what I want to see is more people with more control for themselves not planned for them by a program or economic happenstance.…

So you're saying the argument must be wrong because it would imply things are hopeless? That's a textbook fallacy of appeal to consequences. You're not actually addressing whether it's true.

The point is that the UBI isn't going to fix things until you first fix the dynamic that's responsible for gobbling up all the economic slack, so that should be the priority.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#374

Post by jimmysacks »

JDiculous wrote: post #301
jimmysacks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you kidding me? We literally dump our mental health patients on the streets. [1] How many of the homeless in SF/NYC that you see have kids with them? The mental gymnastics people go through to justify homelessness and poverty is sickening. https://www.kqed.org/news/10737399/nevada-to-pay-san-francis...

You didn't read my post.

We should be forcing the mentally Ill into treatment, not giving them a choice to stay on the streets.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#375

Post by zenhack »

jnordwick wrote: post #178
zenhack wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? In absolute terms maybe (though there are some glaring exceptions -- Amazon famous literally pays $0 in taxes), but not relative to how much they make. > To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, I don't see any reason why taxing net worth is at all less sensible than income. If anything I think it makes more sense…

> Amazon famous literally pays $0 in taxes), but not relative to how much they make. because they took every penny and reinvested it and lost money for a long time because of such heavy investment. just a few months ago everybody was complaining about companies not investing enough and returning money to shareholders - there was even legislation floated to force more investment. companies cant win with people like yo…

I'm not really interested in judging Amazon; they're a for profit company, they're going to do what's best for their bottom line. And I'm sure they don't care what I think. This is more about the systemic issues with the tax code itself.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#376

Post by jimmysacks »

MrLeap wrote: post #290
jimmysacks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It might help for a short time, until inflation catches up and that $1000 wont go very far.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#377

Post by jimmysacks »

eckmLJE wrote: post #293
jimmysacks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just as much? Mental health crises are exacerbated by desperate conditions like not having a home. The two are linked and keeping someone with bipolar disorder who has just lost their job from ending up on the street in the first place would head off a lot of cases of individuals going off the deep end in the face of despair and nowhere to go.

Do you have proof that not having a home causes mental Illness and not the reverse?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#378

Post by jimmysacks »

akdor1154 wrote: post #296
jimmysacks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem to be suggesting that everyone stuck in poverty is there because they are mentally ill or are incapable of making good life choices... which is outrageously false.

I guess a third option is that they dont have the mental capacity?

I've lived on minimum wage for many years. It takes discipline to not buy booze, drugs, and electronics, and not have children that I know I can't afford.

I know many people that would be considered poor and they refuse to stop buying luxuries.

I would consider these poor life choices and the cause of a large percentage of poverty.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#379

Post by jimmysacks »

forkexec wrote: post #295
jimmysacks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shame on you. Your hateful and ignorant stereotypes are defective victim blaming and based on myths. The US has almost no mental healthcare system because JFK was assassinated before the transition to community-based residential treatment centers could be stood-up. Reagan destroyed what remained and condemned the mentally-unwell to neglect and misery.

I agree. My point is to force these people into state hospitals and get them help.

Shame on the liberals for getting rid of these facilities.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#380

Post by kuzimoto »

ubercow13 wrote: post #366
kuzimoto wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? The difference is taxes should be paying for public goods, to which everyone is equally entitled and able to use. Taking money from one person to give directly to another person is stealing, how is that not immoral? > considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens. It's impossible to…

Taxation is not stealing. In the ECHR for example your right to property is completely superseded by anything the government decides is in the best interest of society: >(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of i…

> No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest

As I mentioned, taxes for public goods makes sense. If they are just going directly to someone else's pocket then it's not exactly for the "public" at that point.

The ECHR is missing the freedom of speech, so I wouldn't look to that as a leader in individual rights.

Post reply on HN