Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by _ink_ » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #128

Most countries give so many tax rebates to low-income individuals it's essentially UBI. Welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, lowest taxable income level. The $1,400US/month Germany is proposing is less than their minimum wage of $11US.

Actually it is a little more than the minimum wage, when you consider taxes and social insurances. The 18,000€ minimum wage net you 13,600€ a year or 1,133€ a month.

The money from the UBI experiment is a gift and the recipients do not need to pay taxes on that. Not sure if they need to pay for the social insurances

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

#312

Post by balfirevic » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 2:38 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #300

balfirevic wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confused about how either UBI or negative income tax works. The most important difference is that negative income tax would do payouts once a year, and even that is not a hard requirement. Other differences are accounting differences and not practical differences in how much money people have available (as they can be made identical by tweaking the tax rates and tax brackets).

Of course both programs will guarantee a certain income, that’s the point after all. But UBI decreases motivation while also inflating the cost of goods and services so that they rise to meet the new money supply. NIT avoids both problems by scaling with income. It provides motivation without paying every one. More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power.

You are, frankly, just making stuff up. UBI proposals are not necessarily (nor usually) funded by creating new money supply.

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

#313

Post by thisisbrians » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 2:38 PM UTC

michannne wrote: post #293

thisisbrians wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free? That's not how it went. People find new ways to create value all the time, and yet every time we invent anything new people keep saying "all the jobs are going away." It has yet to happen in spite of the agricultural, industrial, and now tech revolutions.

"Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free?" How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc. Its not like agriculture was invented and suddenly anyone who wasnt farming was philosophizing, ther…

"How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc."

This is exactly my point.

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

#314

Post by RockIslandLine » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #275

RockIslandLine wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Right now, 8% of Federal Revenue pays just the interest on that debt. If interest rates go up, say in a year or two.. so goes up that payment." Canada has a fiat currency. Thus the Canadian government can set the interest rate on federal debt to zero. http://multiplier-effect.org/modern-money-theory-how-i-came-... Permanent ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) is probably a better policy since it reduces the compounding…

OK, read. I still don't see anything but, well, a lot of "this should" and "here's why". Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the for-profit motive for banks to lend, for absolutely no return? Further, where is the pressure to pay back debt, if there is no interest. When not just run up the debt forever? Just use the banks to create more and more cash, forever? And who cares about the effect on other parts of th…

"Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the for-profit motive for banks to lend, for absolutely no return?"

You're definitely missing something, because private lenders are perfectly free to charge interest. ZIRP applies only to federal debt.

"Yet, why would I, as a banker, lend to the government at all?"

Currency issuers never need to borrow. That is an incorrect statement of why Federal debt exists. Federal debt is a savings instrument, and as Europe and other negative interest rate debt has shown, there is still a market for savings instruments even at the zero lower bound.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-15/negative-...

"Negative-Yielding Debt Hits Record $16 Trillion on Curve Fright"

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

#315

Post by yummypaint » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

slightwinder wrote: post #307

yummypaint wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

If someone is having so much trouble that giving them money or monetary equivalents won't help, then the traditional american welfare apparatus won't be of much help either. It then becomes a question of what kind of living assistance those people need. If they receive nothing, then they end up in prison where we have to pay for them anyway. Most of these people aren't dangerous at all, but don't have anyone to help them, and can't afford mental health treatment. There is alot of overlap here with other endemic problems like our broken healthcare system.

The cost of incarceration in the us is over $30k/person/year, not including exorbitant and exploitative fees levied against inmates and their families for basic communication etc. Just providing housing and staff is much cheaper. The prison system in the US has also become a giant warehouse for these same mentally ill people, whose problems are generally exacerbated by an environment that isn't designed to help them.

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

#316

Post by manigandham » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 3:30 PM UTC

balfirevic wrote: post #312

manigandham wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course both programs will guarantee a certain income, that’s the point after all. But UBI decreases motivation while also inflating the cost of goods and services so that they rise to meet the new money supply. NIT avoids both problems by scaling with income. It provides motivation without paying every one. More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power.

You are, frankly, just making stuff up. UBI proposals are not necessarily (nor usually) funded by creating new money supply.

Perhaps that was the wrong wording, but giving everyone money would only inflate costs as they rise to meet the new income levels (whether that money is printed or redistributed). What else are you claiming is made up?

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

#317

Post by ksrm » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

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…

£35k is about £27.4k after tax. You have forgotten about national insurance.

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

#318

Post by Fargren » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

baconandeggs wrote: post #145

Fargren wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money). I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble abo…

> Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair. Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness. But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend…

I'll restate what I said: In a game of Monopoly, someone who starts with more money is not playing under the same rules. A game of Monopoly where one player starts with more money is not a fair game, even thought we all move 6 spaces forward when we roll a six. The same thing is true in life.

Perhaps I can put it another way: the existing laws are not the only rules that govern our laws. We all live under the same laws, but we don't all live under the same rules. For some people, it's a rule that if they quit their job they will quickly be homeless. For other people (whose only merit is to be born in the right place), there is not such rule. This is not fair.

My definition of fair is not perfect, but it looks to resolve the most egregious cases of unfairness I can think of.

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

#319

Post by thisisbrians » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #123

thisisbrians wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free? That's not how it went. People find new ways to create value all the time, and yet every time we invent anything new people keep saying "all the jobs are going away." It has yet to happen in spite of the agricultural, industrial, and now tech revolutions.

Which new way of creating value will be immune to automation?

Robots/AI can't even automate many of the existing ways. Examples abound, but: robots/AI can't replace carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, or couriers yet. In knowledge work, they're far from replacing engineers, designers, or authors. They can barely walk on two feet, struggle to open doors and climb stairs, and can't think originally. And we have a long, long ways to go before they can. I'm not worried about "automation" as long as I can clean a toilet and a robot can't.

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

#320

Post by oytis » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #69

missedthecue wrote: post #2

These studies don't really prove anything. Common arguments in favor of these studies - "They prove people don't quit work on UBI!" - No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing. "They prove people won't spend it on drugs, booze, and lotto tickets!" - No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program…

> What UBI skeptical people want to know is where is the proof that we can afford to tax ourselves to pay ourselves, where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, and where is the proof that it doesn't cause inflation. A 120 person 36 month trial program cannot answer any of these questions. There is no proof that would actually appease you. There is no way you could measure the effect on inflation wi…

What about introducing UBI in Iceland? Only 364K population, and they have their own currency :)