What If Andrew Yang Was Right? • Hacker News Board

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#461

Post by 93po » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

kuzimoto wrote: post #98

93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

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...

If you renounce your US citizenship you still owe income tax for a decade. They can leave if they want, I don't really want billionaires running our country

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#462

Post by 93po » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

endisukaj wrote: post #204

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...

Do you have any source or proof that the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of taxes compared to the rest of us?

Percentages and dollar amounts don't matter. A low income person paying taxes hinders their ability to buy food and housing and clothing. A billionaire paying taxes means they have 6 megayachts instead of 7. It's apples and oranges.

It is unethical to allow billionaires to thrive while people die from poverty.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#463

Post by godelski » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

listenallyall wrote: post #450

digitaltrees wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your view of people's buying patterns is not accurate. I own a home care agency with 500 employees that live on low income (the government sets the Medicaid reimbursement rate so we have no ability to raise wages). NO ONE is buying a new car, let alone every 36 months. Half our employees don't own a smart phone. We pay $10hr, in rural North Carolina, so lots of people live on even less. Please research this issue and…

By definition, you're the one with a narrow perspective -- your employees are all low-income workers in a rural town. The parent never said NOBODY is poor -- in fact, he specifically acknowledged that there are poor people. His claim was that he doubted that 78% of the American population is. Additionally, many (many, not ALL) who technically are "poor", still find money to purchase expensive electronics.

1) It doesn't matter if you're rich and living paycheck to paycheck. This is argument actually supports the idea that UBI won't cause inflation because clearly there is still inefficiencies in market capture if people are rich AND living paycheck to paycheck. (like I said above, inflation doesn't really happen when you don't have full market capture).

2) Selection bias is a thing. While there are rich Americans living paycheck to paycheck, most of the people in this situation are not rich.

3) I'm not sure I'd consider a smartphone an expensive electronic. You can get one for under $100 and a plan that is 4) I also wouldn't call a cell phone a luxury item in today's society. Even a smart phone. You can't get a job without a phone number, which now usually means texting included. A smart phone just means you have a single device that can also get you on the internet. Again, we're talking about a purchase that is well under $1k, has high utility, and is being held onto for years.

Sure, this isn't poor like poor in Africa, but does that really matter? We don't live in Africa. We live in a rich society, I'd like to live in a wealthy society. One where our poorest can get shelter and food. If our definition of poor becomes having constant access to housing, food, health care, and are able to do so on 40hrs/wk, and nothing more, I'd call that a success. But we're clearly not there yet. If we have that, I don't care if someone has a trillion dollars and can buy rocket ships because we're in a post scarcity society (maybe not world, but society).

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#464

Post by digitaltrees » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

listenallyall wrote: post #450

digitaltrees wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your view of people's buying patterns is not accurate. I own a home care agency with 500 employees that live on low income (the government sets the Medicaid reimbursement rate so we have no ability to raise wages). NO ONE is buying a new car, let alone every 36 months. Half our employees don't own a smart phone. We pay $10hr, in rural North Carolina, so lots of people live on even less. Please research this issue and…

By definition, you're the one with a narrow perspective -- your employees are all low-income workers in a rural town. The parent never said NOBODY is poor -- in fact, he specifically acknowledged that there are poor people. His claim was that he doubted that 78% of the American population is. Additionally, many (many, not ALL) who technically are "poor", still find money to purchase expensive electronics.

Except that my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate. Its the sample size that matters.

I also gave recommendations for a much broader sample size in the book that spans multiple industries and geographies.

Finally, I posited a specific theory as to why 78% of Americans are living pay check to pay check...the basic social mechanisms of survival, Health, Education and Housing, have risen at a rate far exceeding inflation and have actually exceeded average income levels. These rises are due to governmental policy and not some failing of individual citizen consumers.

I would argue that if a person can't afford basics like Health, Education and Housing, the are poor. In fact, they report feeling poor; their bodies and minds exhibit the stress and anxiety of being poor. We can and should create companies and governmental policies to work to reduce this reality, rather than blaming people for their condition.

If we as a society determine that it is necessary to have a car or cell phone to contribute in a productive manner we should ensure that as many people as possible have the tools to be productive. That's just a rational policy to boost GDP, the tax base, the total size of the Market for goods and services, and trade with other countries. You know, capitalism.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#465

Post by bnjms » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #429

bnjms wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am obviously not addressing whether it's true or saying the argument must be wrong. I'm pointing out there's some circular reasoning here that's unexamined in most online discussions about UBI. I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should hav…

>I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should have less inequality though even if we did that would put us in the similar position as with UBI where costs rebalance. I wasn't making anything like that argument. I was saying that, if you don't a…

Hey, you're right :) I was talking past you because I didn't realize you were the OP that prompted my thought. Also I was thinking about a more general trend in points and not yours specifically. You've got a great point about land too. I'm in Texas so I hadn't considered some places don't have a land tax because while it has it's challenges (disagreements between state and citizen on land value) it's kind of backwards not to have one.

I'm not saying the argument fails because there is a circular loop. I am saying there is something more to the system and we shouldn't drop consideration for UBI based on the argument that inflation will gobble up all of the increase because that argument holds true equally if we improve equality to everyone gets a wage increase.

Which really makes your point even more important. Particularly the one about land having the strongest growth pressure.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#466

Post by kuzimoto » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

93po wrote: post #461

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...

If you renounce your US citizenship you still owe income tax for a decade. They can leave if they want, I don't really want billionaires running our country

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain and/or provide a source? I can't seem to find anything about this.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#467

Post by qqqwerty » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

typ wrote: post #218

qqqwerty wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My original comment could probably use an edit or two, but we are actually in agreement. Some context that was left out, inflation has been stubbornly low this past decade[1]. For many of us, this feels counterintuitive based on our experience with housing, education and healthcare. But as you pointed out, globalization and industrialization has resulted in downward pressure on prices of a wide array of goods. And wh…

I still don't think we can put out the fire by pouring more fuel. For instance, rents are proportionally related to the income of the population. How can we prevent the extra cash flow from being translated into higher rent/housing prices? If I have that extra cash, I would certainly 'leverage' it to expand my real estate portfolio :) That said, I don't object to UBI per se and I agree that the Fed's policy would lea…

I think you are looking at this from SF/SV centric point of view. The correct solution to the problem to high housing costs is to build more housing, not lower everyones income.

Here is another angle to look at the issue from. We have been relying on monetary stimulus for the last decade to keep the economy chugging along. The landlord class has been benefiting from that via cheaper interest rates. What if, instead of lowering rates, we did a UBI and in your proposed scenario, most of that money just results in high rents. Well, we would be roughly in the same spot we are in (stimulus largely benefiting landlords), but with the key difference that people who are really struggling (living in their car for example) can use that cash to get back on their feet. Also, because the money passes through multiple peoples hands before eventually getting sucked up by the wealthy, it will actually result in higher measured economic activity (because GDP is basically measure the velocity of money).

So I guess, that is what I don't understand. Our current policy is to just shovel money to the wealthy. They in turn just bid up the price of stocks, real estate, art, yachts, super bowl tickets, etc.. creating an inflationary bubble for rich people things. With a UBI, the working class gets first dibs on that stimulus, and every one up the chain will benefit (including small businesses, which also don't bet much benefit from monetary stimulus).

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#468

Post by listenallyall » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #464

listenallyall wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, you're the one with a narrow perspective -- your employees are all low-income workers in a rural town. The parent never said NOBODY is poor -- in fact, he specifically acknowledged that there are poor people. His claim was that he doubted that 78% of the American population is. Additionally, many (many, not ALL) who technically are "poor", still find money to purchase expensive electronics.

Except that my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate. Its the sample size that matters. I also gave recommendations for a much broader sample size in the book that spans multiple industries and geographies. Finally, I posited a specific theory as to why 78% of Americans are living pay check to pay check...the basic social mechanisms of survival, Health, Education and Hou…

> my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate

You stated 1/2 your employees don't own a smart phone. That is simply not representative of the general US adult population. Additionally, all your employees earn $10/hour. Again, not representative.

Again, nobody is arguing there aren't poor people in dire situations. supportlocal4h's argument was that godelski's stats were exaggerated.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#469

Post by listenallyall » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #463

listenallyall wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, you're the one with a narrow perspective -- your employees are all low-income workers in a rural town. The parent never said NOBODY is poor -- in fact, he specifically acknowledged that there are poor people. His claim was that he doubted that 78% of the American population is. Additionally, many (many, not ALL) who technically are "poor", still find money to purchase expensive electronics.

1) It doesn't matter if you're rich and living paycheck to paycheck. This is argument actually supports the idea that UBI won't cause inflation because clearly there is still inefficiencies in market capture if people are rich AND living paycheck to paycheck. (like I said above, inflation doesn't really happen when you don't have full market capture). 2) Selection bias is a thing. While there are rich Americans livin…

Take it up with supportlocal4h. I never even used the phrase "paycheck to paycheck." Nor did I specify "smartphone" when mentioning electronics.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#470

Post by pas » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 1:04 PM UTC

jonathanstrange wrote: post #456

pas wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither am I an expert, so disclaimers all around :) The problem of too low UBI seems the biggest practical one. And if we do it somehow needs-based, then it stop being universal, which is one of the supposed advantages - that it absolutely eliminates administrative costs/problems/etc. (But of course those are very fine straw men. Rationally none of those matter. Only that we somehow synthesize a long term (eg. susta…

This is rare on the Internet nowadays, but I totally agree with everything you say. I often annoy economists by pointing out that due to the diminishing marginal utility of money any transfer of money from the rich to the poor increases overall utility. They don't like that at all. :)

I thought mainstream economists are/were fully on board with that. :o