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

Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 348 posts

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#301

Post by EdwinLarkin »

silverdrake11 wrote: post #217
EdwinLarkin wrote: post #91

I think UBI is a failed project from the beginning. We dont need UBI per se we need to provide basic utilities at fraction of the cost or for free. Housing should be free so should be food. We are incredibly efficient when it comes to building real estate or producing food. We can set a basic standard for quality of housing and food (you get seasonal fruits,veggies,bread,flour,chicken etc etc). You should be incentiv…

Producing food makes more sense. Certain types of food is very cheap. Housing and real estate though, it seems is much more expensive and difficult to provide.

Housing is actually very easy to do. And should be insanely cheap to do in the US. You could build entire cities from scratch while providing jobs.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#302

Post by rorykoehler »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #297
rorykoehler wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read his plan

If you can't even summarise how his plan would be affordable in this discussion then... I'll draw my conclusions. That's a good summary of UBI, actually: It's great, please let's not get bogged down on details like financing.

Read his plan. I won’t do it justice in a couple of sentences here

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#303

Post by slightwinder »

OneGuy123 wrote: post #4

Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later. Now the only question is: how to you phase in UBI while still rewarding extra productive people to keep creating/innovating? Some will say "those people will innovate out of love". This is not always the case, many people are good at what they do and create many awesome things but given the chance they would rather do some…

UBI is unrestricted income, which makes it so questionable and potential harmful. Regular wellfare with it's rules and conditions can still serve the same purpose, while being better for society on grand scale.

It's true that with more automation we need better wellfare-rules, especially more flexible ones. But no rules at all looks like a strong ignorance against the existing problems if people who are in demand of wellfare now.

There are many who need wellfare because they are simply unable to function on their own or who are not willing to be productive for whatever reason. On the other side there are also those who are good on their own and have the wish to be productive, just don't get the chance.

For the first ones UBI is bad, for the second ones UBI would be good. The question is how to filter them and figure out how to help them both without harming the other side.

Germany already has a system that works well in that regard, even though it's not perfect. But in germany the focus usually is on supporting the people to be useful again, so they cann support themself. Though the problem is this grinds a gear with both sides, creating many complains from certain people.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#304

Post by dane-pgp »

koonsolo wrote: post #257
dane-pgp wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a proposal for how it could be gradually implemented in the UK by simplifying the tax code: https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi-conclusion/ It seems to roughly involve the top 22% of earners having a tax bill that is up to 10% bigger than currently, while everyone in the bottom 78% of earners is unaffected or a net beneficiary.

Let me get this straight, the starting point is taxed like this, assuming the average wage in UK which seems to be 35k for a full-time job ( https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/articles/average-s... ) 35k makes net 12k (not taxed) + 18.4k (at 20% tax rate) = 30.4k net In the conclusion, everyone gets a "UBI" of 666 per month, which basically doesn't even cover rent ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/a…

> In the conclusion, everyone gets a "UBI" of 666 per month, which basically doesn't even cover rent

There are plenty of places in the UK where the average rent is below £500 pcm, or even £400:

https://nolettinggo.co.uk/blog/10-cheapest-places-to-rent-in...

It's not a requirement of a UBI that every citizen should be able to live wherever they want, but it is an assumption that most citizens would have some income other than the UBI, or already own their own home, so it's not like everyone in the country would flock to places with the cheapest rent.

> Looking at that graph at the end, I think there is some "creative graph-plotting" going on, unless I'm seriously mistaken in my calculation.

Your calculations make sense to me, and I think it is reasonable to be distrusting of an economic analysis that doesn't provide the raw data for its most crucial graph (even as a link to a CSV file). The data in the article it links to is more complete, but approaching things from a different angle:

https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi---the-realis...

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#305

Post by anemoiac »

missedthecue wrote: post #227
anemoiac wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, and where is the proof that it doesn't cause inflation[?] Assuming we could obtain reliable proof that UBI reduces productivity and/or increases inflation, that doesn't necessarily imply that it's an undesirable policy. The economy exists to serve humanity, not to maximize productivity or minimize inflation. It's certainly possible that a policy could…

The economy is not some ethereal beast that we must tame into doing our bidding. It is the way we measure production, consumption, and trade by humans. It cannot "serve" anyone. It is you and me and everyone else behaving in rational self interest.

Ok, then let’s abolish all laws regarding economic activity (including private property) and abandon any related social conventions. Apparently they’re superfluous.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#306

Post by yummypaint »

slightwinder wrote: post #303
OneGuy123 wrote: post #4

Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later. Now the only question is: how to you phase in UBI while still rewarding extra productive people to keep creating/innovating? Some will say "those people will innovate out of love". This is not always the case, many people are good at what they do and create many awesome things but given the chance they would rather do some…

UBI is unrestricted income, which makes it so questionable and potential harmful. Regular wellfare with it's rules and conditions can still serve the same purpose, while being better for society on grand scale. It's true that with more automation we need better wellfare-rules, especially more flexible ones. But no rules at all looks like a strong ignorance against the existing problems if people who are in demand of…

I think one of the strongest practical arguments in favor of UBI is that the beurocracy needed to decide who deserves to receive welfare is so cumbersome and inneficient that it's more cost effective to not have any restrictions at all. There is a whole subsystem of the courts dedicated purely to dealing with these conflicts. Resolutions are generally very slow and there's tons of overhead s because you have to pay lawyers. Just give every adult citizen a flat amount and you open up the possibility of reducing the size of government in the process of fighting income inequality. This seems like a compromise that could be feasible in the US, but UBI would have to be robust first.

This is sort of along the same lines of the observation that just providing housing to homeless people is cheaper than incarcerating them, and provides better outcomes. Of course there is something about this that people instinctively don't like, and in practice the general population has shown it would rather spend more money to accomplish less in order to prevent someone else from getting something for free.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#307

Post by slightwinder »

yummypaint wrote: post #306
slightwinder wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is unrestricted income, which makes it so questionable and potential harmful. Regular wellfare with it's rules and conditions can still serve the same purpose, while being better for society on grand scale. It's true that with more automation we need better wellfare-rules, especially more flexible ones. But no rules at all looks like a strong ignorance against the existing problems if people who are in demand of…

I think one of the strongest practical arguments in favor of UBI is that the beurocracy needed to decide who deserves to receive welfare is so cumbersome and inneficient that it's more cost effective to not have any restrictions at all. There is a whole subsystem of the courts dedicated purely to dealing with these conflicts. Resolutions are generally very slow and there's tons of overhead s because you have to pay l…

Indeed, it's a valid argument for those who are proper adults and can handle their live. But it's an invalid argument for those who need support even on that level if living. Bureaucracy is more often build to give those support who need it, even if they don't think so, as they have different goals than society. It's major problem and basically unsolvable.

> This is sort of along the same lines of the observation that just providing housing to homeless people is cheaper than incarcerating them, and provides better outcomes.

Does it?

> Of course there is something about this that people instinctively don't like

It's not just instinct, it's often also experience and understanding things on a greater scale. At least in germany it seems many who work in social services and hotspots are against UBI simply because they see how bad certain people can't handle their live even with all that help given.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#308

Post by blaser-waffle »

ramblerman wrote: post #271
brazzy wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always saw the "also giving it to the rich" as much more about avoiding the bureaucratic overhead, social stigma and other associated downsides of trying to ensure that only the poor get it.

This, and also the removal of welfare. Since you lose welfare when you get a job often there is an opportunity cost decision, should I really work 40 hours a week to make a little more than welfare. with UBI the salary is always additional.

Aye to take it a step further: there is a professor at UCSD who pushes for UBI Libertarianism, for that reason. Don't add conditions or requirements, just mail everyone a check and ditch all of the bureaucracy, EBT, etc.

The problem is that it makes poverty traps smaller, but doesn't make them go away. Like, if Johnny Hobo isn't able to feed his kids and blows his welfare on smokes and 40s, UBI isn't going to magically make him a better father or better at spending his money, he's just going to buy better booze.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#309

Post by Sodman »

nodesocket wrote: post #244
Sodman wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moment I start giving money to you, I've lowered your status and made you a second class citizen. This is why the "Universal" part of UBI is important. Having everybody get it reduces the social stigma. (Also providing the bonus side-effect of reducing the admin overhead that comes with means testing)

But you are going to have outrage by people being upset that wealthy people are getting UBI, even though the UBI amount for wealthy people is inconsequential. This is exactly why the COVID-19 stimulus checks were only sent to people making less than $100k. The media will start writing posts and articles about X millionaire or X billionaire getting a UBI or stimulus check and outrage ensues.

> This is exactly why the COVID-19 stimulus checks were only sent to people making less than $100k.

I agree that this was why, but the end result was that many people fell through the cracks, largely due to situations changing for many since the 2018 tax return it was based on. People who earned 90k in 2018 and 120k in 2020 were eligible, where people earning 100k in 2018 and unemployed due to covid in 2020 were ineligible.

> ... X billionaire getting a UBI or stimulus check and outrage ensues.

If accidentally giving money to people who are "too wealthy" is really that big of a deal, it can always be taxed back at the end of the year. Anyone who earns over $X that received UBI has to pay it back in taxes or opt out themselves? It doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem, and it avoids the many pitfalls of means testing. I'd lean towards accidentally giving one of the ~600 billionaires in the U.S. a few thousand dollars over accidentally leaving tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans excluded.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#310

Post by jirdperson »

jirdperson wrote: post #265
vorpalhex wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor? They both likely have cars, homes and an iphone. Sure, your Hollywood actor is probably driving an exotic sports car and their iphone is diamond studded, but fundamentally, what does it matter? > housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair I agree in the general…

I agree that simply blaming the wealthy isn't the solution to these problems, but your perspective regarding the plight of the American poor seems a bit rosy to me. > We do provide housing for the poor Waiting lists for both subsidized housing and homeless shelters are overflowing in many places. Have you ever tried to obtain housing as a person with limited resources? > short term homelessness outcomes are actually…

EDIT: Correction/clarification - The average American grocery clerk makes $22,646/year, gross, which comes out to about $1,532/month after taxes.
Post reply on HN