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

/r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

tracingwoodgrains.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 566 posts

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#491

Post by gremlinsinc »

spiderice wrote: post #379
arrosenberg wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideal way would be to pass a national Land Value Tax, and use the proceeds to fund UBI. The country has plenty of money, but it's all accumulating to landlords. An LVT is the most effective way to both moderate the excesses of the wealthy and continuously fund a social safety net. It would also let you eliminate most other forms of social safety and taxation, since Land/Natural Resources are the greatest stores o…

So if landlords now have to pay for everyone's UBI, why aren't the Landlords just going to raise rent to get that money right back?

It's the land VALUE, meaning things built on the land add value, say a skyscraper for example with offices... these would pay quite a bit more than say an un-utilized piece of land for sale in Utah without water rights.

Then there's land that doesn't have buildings but still has high value because of the resources (oil, natural gas, minerals, etc) that sit underneath.

I think this works swell, but we should maybe have a variable VAT too that makes it so even UBI recipients pay some taxes back on everything they purchase, etc...and I think the system should be pegged at making the amount doled out and taxes raised from land-owners equivalent to 3x rent, aka rent should account on average 1/3rd of the amount given out.

Could also simply have a program where everyone's given 1k, plus vouchers for rent upto a limit, plus foodstamps... could be foodstamps are usable to pay rent, to make it easier to manage, and whatever's left over is your food budget... then the extra 1k pays utilities, insurance, etc... of course there should be free healthcare and better education deal....

Personally I'd prefer usd moves to crypto and only allows 1 account per person with a 50 million dollar max-limit, basically making all income over a threshold taxed, so billionaires can't even exist...and redistributes to those who hodl less and spend more. but I'm a bit more radical in my thinking....

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#492

Post by s1artibartfast »

yk wrote: post #479
s1artibartfast wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge is who "designs" the job to make coal mining more enjoyable in a specialized economy. In Capitalism, you raise pay until there is incentive to do the work. In a communist command economy, some authority decides if more coal miners are needed and takes from some people to gives to coal workers until there are enough workers. In a cashless anarchists society, I guess you hope that someone invents somethin…

Presumably whoever thinks that it is important to mine coal.

So in the 3rd case, someone needs to provide food, shelter, and other needs for someone while they work on this tough coal problem. That means that others in society need to either 1) agree and recognize that it is a problem that needs to be solved and voluntarily support them or 2) Trust that whatever people choose to do with their time must be important for the greater good and support them in whatever they do.

I guess the Annaco-communist answer would be the latter.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#493

Post by kbelder »

the_snooze wrote: post #106
BitwiseFool wrote: post #40

This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. Like AntiWork, It seems to have been started by those who genuinely wanted to abolish the police. But as time went on people joined who instead wanted to reform the police by dramatically cutting back what they were meant to respond to. But the slogan stayed, and was very mislea…

>Defund the Police That slogan was straight up political malpractice. If you have to explain your position, then you're already losing. Something like "government accountability" or "serve the people" probably could have gotten wider support than "defund the police."

It's crazy.

"Defund the police!"

"Do you mean 'defund the police'?"

"Of course not!"

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#494

Post by Shorel »

wonderwonder wrote: post #328
quirino wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be solved by a Negative Income Tax [1]: > In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level; in other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Edit: I'm not economically literate enough to say I fully support this,…

So we are going to raise taxes on the middle class to give free money to people that choose not to work? Every single family would then do a calculation to see if its worth the second earner working or if they make more just staying home and getting a UBI. I would not be ok going to work to pay people that have decided that they are fine living on the UBI and don't want to work anymore. Seems like a pretty antagonist…

It seems to be what is happening in Argentina.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#495

Post by 3pt14159 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #478
3pt14159 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great comment. And of course you're aware that I largely agree with it. So with that proviso, all I will say in response is that I think it would be helpful to consider the opposing view point: If the goal is to elicit an emotional or political response that one desires through one's actions, why should perfect, literal truth be in the way of achieving those goals? My answer to that is that it destroys good…

Yea, agreed. In the distinction I was highlighting, the women I've dated were all operating in good faith, which is what made it possible for us to work together to overcome their temporary lapses of the ability to think clearly. I didn't see this as implying anything about their character or intelligence other than the fact that they weren't perfect. It felt like exactly the same thing as the lapses of compassion th…

I think the moment where she was capable of voicing what it was that she was doing was the moment where she should have known better. I'm still not sure if she just had a values difference from me or not, but with time to think about it, in retrospect I have higher standards now for this type of thing. But you're right that it does depend on whether or not language is just deployed in the heat of the moment or not. Even so, I think it betrays something deep seated when someone speaks falsehoods during an argument.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#496

Post by cherrycherry98 »

Wiseacre wrote: post #453
cherrycherry98 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, taxation does nothing but enable the government to work on projects it deems important in the name of helping the public. It's inefficient and obviously open to corruption. If we really think that it is unjust for money to be concentrated in the hands of the rich and should go to the public instead of their heirs or private interests, there should be an option of zeroing out one's bank account. That…

You've always been able to burn all your cash.

Not legally, and with a large enough balance not practically either.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#497

Post by wonderwonder »

Msw242 wrote: post #489
totony wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30248741

That says wiping out all social programs and raising taxes on those over 1m/yr in income would cover 15k/yr. It seems like 45tn in asset seizures would cover the additional 15k/yr for around 10 years. But I would be very worried about the impact on capital markets and company formation. I would immediately leave the US if this kind of seizure got through the House and looked like it might pass the Senate.

The stock market would go to zero as there would be no one capable of buying that stock and pretty much no demand either. People would know that their assets can be seized whenever the government wants. 401k's and retirement accounts would be wiped out. Pension funds would go bankrupt overnight. I feel like this is the scenario that so many overlook when they call for massive wealth taxes or the abolishment of the billionaire / millionaire class.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#498

Post by gruez »

relaxing wrote: post #476
nybble41 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions… … as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, veteran's benefits, WIC, Medicaid, SS Disability, and disaster relief. I'm sure those currently receiving these benefits will be thrilled to find out that they're being replaced by a flat UBI payment of $15k/yr (minus taxes) with no allowance for special cir…

It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.

I'm skeptical you can actually "avoid the bureaucracy" with UBI. At the end of the day there will still be people who need more aid than the standard UBI can provide (eg. people with mental/physical disabilities). We can't realistically let them fend for themselves, so you still need the bureaucracy to manage those people.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#499

Post by relaxing »

nybble41 wrote: post #490
relaxing wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.

Average Medicaid expenditures (per year) for persons with disabilities (age 0-64) was $19.7k in 2016[0]. It's probably higher by now. So by cutting Medicaid and replacing it with a flat $15k/year you're reducing benefits to persons with disabilities, on average, by almost $5k/year. Since that's an average, I'm sure there are some who will see much larger cuts and quite a few who will find themselves unable to afford…

UBI doesn’t mean every expenditure suddenly becomes out of pocket.

The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#500

Post by relaxing »

giantg2 wrote: post #480
relaxing wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.

"but it will be vastly preferable" To whom? The government, sure. The individuals using those programs, probably not. Healthcare costs alone would likely wipe that out (for the demographics using Medicare). Rent in many areas would eat more than half.

Rent is expensive in big cities? Wow, the poor are gonna be so pissed when they find out. /s

Affordable housing is a separate issue and point of concern no matter who is paying.

Post reply on HN