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

Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

demoshelsinki.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 182 posts

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#41

Post by misja111 »

nabla9 wrote: post #32
misja111 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UBI is just a redistribution scheme and aggregate income stays the same, how is UBI than different from the various 'social' countries in Europe such as e.g. Sweden and Finland? Those countries have progressive income taxes and social benefits for those without work. Isn't this the same as what UBI would look like if aggregate income would stay the same?

UBI removes high marginal tax rate from poor households. See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=23140692

I don't understand your assumption about a current high marginal tax rate for poor households. I would say that in a progressive tax system, the marginal tax rate decreases when one's income is lower.

In your other post you state that Finnish effective marginal tax rate for poor persons is more than 80%. Do you have a source for that?

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#42

Post by notahacker »

Ensorceled wrote: post #33
luckylion wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) less economic troubles and financial stress; 2) Higher confidence in future possibilities; 3) More self-determination and autonomy. Do we really need to test that though? It seems obvious that giving someone money without affecting their taxes, the price of goods etc would do this. The issue is that once you roll it out on the society level, it's not the same any more. It will affect their taxes and inflation. W…

Why do you say it seems obvious? The most persistent objections to UBI (or welfare or unemployment for that matter) is that they cause dependency and lazyiness; that they destroy the self-confidence and ambition of the receivers. Many still claim that it will make them financially worse off. Checkout the auto complete in DDG or Google for "welfare causes ...". Look at the arguments in the results. We can't even have…

The claim is that UBI could create a permanent dependent underclass, and evidence that a cohort of unemployed people receiving lots of money from the government self-reports greater happiness than a cohort of unemployed people receiving relatively little money from the government over the space of the year does absolutely nothing to address that.

It's rather secondary to the real objection to UBI: paying for it.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#43

Post by notahacker »

nabla9 wrote: post #30
the-dude wrote: post #21

In The Netherlands there has been a form of UBI for decades, for anyone who wants it or needs it. It is called 'bijstand', is about € 1k a month and you are eligible for all kinds of other discounts and support. Just request it at your municipality and make sure not to find work.

That's welfare. It's effects are not the same as UBI. Finland has welfare too. The special feature of schemes like UBI and NIT (Negative Income Tax) is that they remove the high effective marginal tax rate from poor people who work. The problem with conditional welfare payments is that they increase effective marginal tax rate for poor household. The rates are really high 70-100% depending on country and situation. F…

It is entirely possible to design welfare schemes with tapers which reduce marginal tax rate. The unique feature of UBI is that it is additionally designed to subsidise economic inactivity.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#44

Post by luckylion »

Ensorceled wrote: post #33
luckylion wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) less economic troubles and financial stress; 2) Higher confidence in future possibilities; 3) More self-determination and autonomy. Do we really need to test that though? It seems obvious that giving someone money without affecting their taxes, the price of goods etc would do this. The issue is that once you roll it out on the society level, it's not the same any more. It will affect their taxes and inflation. W…

Why do you say it seems obvious? The most persistent objections to UBI (or welfare or unemployment for that matter) is that they cause dependency and lazyiness; that they destroy the self-confidence and ambition of the receivers. Many still claim that it will make them financially worse off. Checkout the auto complete in DDG or Google for "welfare causes ...". Look at the arguments in the results. We can't even have…

> The most persistent objections to UBI (or welfare or unemployment for that matter) is that they cause dependency and lazyiness; that they destroy the self-confidence and ambition of the receivers.

And that's not conflicting with reporting less financial stress during an intervention. The self-reported consequences from eating some candy are very different from the consequences of using candy as a primary diet for long periods of time.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#45

Post by nabla9 »

misja111 wrote: post #41
nabla9 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI removes high marginal tax rate from poor households. See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=23140692

I don't understand your assumption about a current high marginal tax rate for poor households. I would say that in a progressive tax system, the marginal tax rate decreases when one's income is lower. In your other post you state that Finnish effective marginal tax rate for poor persons is more than 80%. Do you have a source for that?

Effective marginal tax rate, not marginal tax rate. EMTR is what how much you actually get when taxes and reduction of welfare with increasing income is taken into account.

>Do you have a source for that?

Yes. https://vatt.fi/documents/2956369/3012213/muistio_50.pdf

It's in Finnish, but if you go to page 13 there is a nice graph. x-axis is wage, EUR/month, y-axis is effective marginal income tax in year 2015 for single person household who pays rent 440 EUR/month. Effective marginal tax rate is the red dotted line.

In page 20 you can see even what single adult with a child can have. I was actually wrong, the effective marginal tax rate can spike above 11% in some cases.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#46

Post by Ensorceled »

luckylion wrote: post #44
Ensorceled wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it seems obvious? The most persistent objections to UBI (or welfare or unemployment for that matter) is that they cause dependency and lazyiness; that they destroy the self-confidence and ambition of the receivers. Many still claim that it will make them financially worse off. Checkout the auto complete in DDG or Google for "welfare causes ...". Look at the arguments in the results. We can't even have…

> The most persistent objections to UBI (or welfare or unemployment for that matter) is that they cause dependency and lazyiness; that they destroy the self-confidence and ambition of the receivers. And that's not conflicting with reporting less financial stress during an intervention. The self-reported consequences from eating some candy are very different from the consequences of using candy as a primary diet for l…

There are three claims that the comment I replied to said are obvious; two claims are constantly disputed and one is regularly disputed. None are, therefore, obvious.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#48

Post by Ensorceled »

notahacker wrote: post #42
Ensorceled wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it seems obvious? The most persistent objections to UBI (or welfare or unemployment for that matter) is that they cause dependency and lazyiness; that they destroy the self-confidence and ambition of the receivers. Many still claim that it will make them financially worse off. Checkout the auto complete in DDG or Google for "welfare causes ...". Look at the arguments in the results. We can't even have…

The claim is that UBI could create a permanent dependent underclass, and evidence that a cohort of unemployed people receiving lots of money from the government self-reports greater happiness than a cohort of unemployed people receiving relatively little money from the government over the space of the year does absolutely nothing to address that. It's rather secondary to the real objection to UBI: paying for it.

Quite consistently, at least in Canada and the US, welfare is claimed to cause dependency, lazyiness, and reduce the ambition of the receivers WHILE we are paying for it.

I'm saying BOTH that it's good for people AND that it's affordable are still in dispute and that the claims are clearly not obvious.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#49

Post by neilwilson »

moralsupply wrote: post #34

Where's the money for the UBI experiment coming from? There's no free lunch, folks...

It comes from spending the money.

If you don't understand that, then time to get the book and learn how the money system works

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07YM2K8F3

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#50

Post by nabla9 »

notahacker wrote: post #43
nabla9 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's welfare. It's effects are not the same as UBI. Finland has welfare too. The special feature of schemes like UBI and NIT (Negative Income Tax) is that they remove the high effective marginal tax rate from poor people who work. The problem with conditional welfare payments is that they increase effective marginal tax rate for poor household. The rates are really high 70-100% depending on country and situation. F…

It is entirely possible to design welfare schemes with tapers which reduce marginal tax rate. The unique feature of UBI is that it is additionally designed to subsidise economic inactivity.

It seems that you are confusing marginal tax rate and effective marginal tax rate.

UBI and NIT (Negative Income Tax) are designed to increase incentives. That's why free market economists like Friedman fiercely supported it.

Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Post reply on HN