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

341–348 of 348 posts

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

#341

Post by verdverm »

rorykoehler wrote: post #340
verdverm wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm middle class, I find benefit in lower taxes for my company and family. When the government takes 50% of the money we earn and then is irresponsible with it, that is a problem.

Yes it is a problem but the solution isn’t tax cuts it’s better governance.

Citations? or opinions?

I believe that a more efficient govt would requires fewer funds, so both together would be most ideal.

If we could provide for all with lower taxes, would that be ok?

The problem I see today is the inability to have nuanced, fact based conversations about the issues

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

#342

Post by Viliam1234 »

kevinskii wrote: post #260
sdenton4 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about fairness at all: it's about poverty traps, and getting people out of them. With the learned understanding that if you give things to the poor, you also have to give them to the rich, because the rich are unable to look at any pie they can't have a slice of without wanting to destroy it.

Any UBI system that is funded through a free market economy will necessarily have the rich paying far more in taxes than they receive in basic income in return.

The important thing is to not have arbitrary levels of "rich", when the basic income disappears. That means, to avoid situations like "if I make an extra $1 now, I am no longer eligible for the welfare, and I will lose $100".

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

#343

Post by adamsea »

mamon wrote: post #165
mason55 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. Yes and on top of the obvious absurdity of this statement, there is a second level. As long as we punish things with fines they are effectively legal if you're rich enough.

Which kind of makes sense, because wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society. You contributed more, you can get away with more.

> wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society

Curious where that idea comes from - source? Haven't encountered it.

I know that many people _think_ that, or _feel_ that way, but I haven't read anything (philosophy, political philosophy, etc), that actually theorizes it _should_ be that way, or that it really _is_ that way.

Tim Berners-Lee -- how much money does he have, and what is his contribution to society?

Or, the classic kindergarten teacher vs NBA player, etc.

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

#344

Post by adamsea »

tom-_- wrote: post #88
adamsea wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But from an economics standpoint it’s not a complete plan ... I don't know much about the economics. Curious, how so? > UBI is largely about symbolic equality, the kindergarten-level fairness of everyone getting the same amount. That’s important because symbols of equality are important. IMHO, what you described is justice. Equality. Not kindergarten-level, or, rather, I guess it is, in the sense of it being fundam…

I believe what commenter is suggesting is that the notion of "fairness" provided by UBI is too simplistic and easily fails to uphold that principle under any amount of scrutiny. By simply asking the question "Who will pay for UBI and who will receive it", the degree to which it's "fair", "just", or "equal" becomes obviously nebulous

I didn't know UBI had anything to do with fair ... I thought it was a hopefully-pragmatic approach for creating a just and healthy society in our current era.

Whether it'll work or not, I know that's a larger question.

Also, I think it'd be more helpful if you would lead with what notion of fairness (why put it in quotes?) you yourself believe UBI represents.

Because it's possible that some people may agree with you, and others may not. And that would be a good starting point for discussion.

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

#345

Post by michannne »

GrinningFool wrote: post #49
michannne wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that even after a worldwide pandemic has proved that the majority of humans will prefer to act selfishly to maintain their own comfort level, you still somehow hold out hope that given literally free money, that the majority wouldn't also use this money selfishly to maintain their comfort level.

> find it interesting that even after a worldwide pandemic has proved that the majority of humans will prefer to act selfishly to maintain their own comfort level Has that been proven?

The majority of humans are indeed acting selfishly to maintain their own comfort level, yes. You can argue that they aren't, in which case I'd like to see the indication that either A) the majority of people are acting in the interest of others when they go about their daily business spreading the illness, or B) the majority of people are not preferring to maintain their comfort level.

It is proven for me as I can see both A and B are false.

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

#346

Post by RockIslandLine »

b112 wrote: post #333
RockIslandLine wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"You're definitely missing something, because private lenders are perfectly free to charge interest. ZIRP applies only to federal debt." As I understand it, the Canadian Federal debt is held through a variety of instruments, quite a lot of it domestically. EG, Royal Bank, TD Bank, etc. Whether it is bonds, or some other instrument, they all pay interest. That debt exists, is owed, and yet you're saying "Just don't pa…

"Whether it is bonds, or some other instrument, they all pay interest. That debt exists, is owed, and yet you're saying "Just don't pay that interest"?"

I'm saying it's wrong to create federal bonds with an interest rate that is far different from zero.

The rules are different between currency issuers (nations with a fiat currency) and currency users (citizens, municipalities, provinces, nations on the gold standard).

Currency issuers have a unique ability to guarantee that you will hold an exact amount of the currency on a given date. No currency user can make that guarantee.

Because currency issuers can guarantee repayment on debt in their own currency, the repayment risk on the debt is strictly and exactly zero. Thus the interest rate on that debt should always be very close to zero if not exactly zero.

The fact that Canadian government debt pays high interest rates merely tells you that the government did things wrong in the past.

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

#347

Post by srveale »

b112 wrote: post #334
srveale wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - if you don't plan at all and just give everyone 2k per month, it's too expensive. In the strictest sense, UBI is impossible. In most versions of the plan I've seen, the cost is not as simple as (population over 18) * (monthly amount). If you're looking for a breakdown of the math, check this out: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachme...

srveale, the ENTIRE point of UBI, is: - universal - basic Basic costs met. Paid to EVERYONE. Part of the "cost saving measures" are "not using complex schemes to determine eligibility to programs". Further, if all you're wanting to do is guarantee a minimum income, that's not UBI! Not even remotely! It's simply a form of welfare, and shifting taxation under the guise of UBI. Further, the whole concept of "I'm on EI,…

You're arguing against a proposal which nobody in power is seriously advocating. Anyone whose done the same math as what's in your original post can come to the same conclusion that you have.

I've offered up a modified proposal, with links showing actual experts and politicians debating merits and drawbacks, including budgetary analysis. Because there isn't enough money for a naive UBI, we have to make compromises including increasing complexity and risk of fraud, but the general principle remains the same and the benefits are still there. And we already have fraud and complexity - these would be greatly reduced under the proposal, just not completely eliminated.

Based on comments like "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point," I can see that you haven't fully understood the structure of the proposal. There's no way that getting a job would net you less income.

I'm not invalidating anything. Please don't get caught up in semantics.

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

#348

Post by b112 »

RockIslandLine wrote: post #346
b112 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're definitely missing something, because private lenders are perfectly free to charge interest. ZIRP applies only to federal debt." As I understand it, the Canadian Federal debt is held through a variety of instruments, quite a lot of it domestically. EG, Royal Bank, TD Bank, etc. Whether it is bonds, or some other instrument, they all pay interest. That debt exists, is owed, and yet you're saying "Just don't pa…

"Whether it is bonds, or some other instrument, they all pay interest. That debt exists, is owed, and yet you're saying "Just don't pay that interest"?" I'm saying it's wrong to create federal bonds with an interest rate that is far different from zero. The rules are different between currency issuers (nations with a fiat currency) and currency users (citizens, municipalities, provinces, nations on the gold standard)…

Just saw this. Thanks for clarity/responding on your point.

Two things.

First? Interest also represents the reduction in value of the currency unit, over a period of time.

I keep a few thousand hidden around the house. In case of need. Yet, each year... even with 4%, 2%, whatever inflation, that $3000 is worth less. It has less value.

Interest exists for three reasons. Risk, as you talk about above, but also as profit for being nice enough to lend capital, and lastly to combat inflation.

Why would people park their money, and lose both value in that money due to inflationary pressures, AND, make 0% on that capital when they could literally park it many other places and make even double digits?

It seems odd to me, that you completely ignore the for-profit motive in money lending, and the inflation issues in lending. As if they simply do not exist. Even in down markets, historical a wise lender (like a massive bank, which tends to lend to a federal level goverment) makes more by parking that capital elsewhere.

In terms of the Canadian Government paying 'high interest rates', I merely stated that it pays 'market interest rates'.

Post reply on HN