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

Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 294 posts

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#231

Post by UncleEntity »

danaris wrote: post #100
autoexec wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones I've known with kids all seem to have it far worse. If they were getting a $16k tax credit or whatever it must not have been making up for the other costs involved with raising children.

That graph is also showing an ideal situation—that is, you fully qualify for and fully receive all of the benefits listed. That means you have to also know that you qualify for them, apply for them, prove that you qualify, oh, nope, whoops, you missed one piece of proof there—that means you have to start all over. You have to apply for each one, prove that you qualify, jump through all the hoops, you start receiving…

In my cab driving days I hauled around a bunch of people to/from medical appointments and they talk on the phone a lot...

Some people are absolute experts at navigating the bureaucracy to the point I expect they know the rules better than the people that work at the various government agencies. It was quite impressive to be honest.

One example off the top of my head; this lady was talking on the phone with a friend (or whoever) explaining how their benefits would be impacted if they declared the father of the children resided in the household and how it was much better to just lie and claim to be a single mother.

No judgement from me as it was quite the education on governmental programs.

As an added bonus I also learned a bunch of methods on how to steal groceries from walmart since people are surprisingly candid on these things when they're just having a conversation with some random cab driver they probably won't ever see again.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#232

Post by temphypercube »

rhelz wrote: post #140
philomath_mn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Trust fund babies are far more rare than people making ~$50k - Trust fund babies will not qualify for much government assistance It is a net good for the economy and the individual if a person who is capable of making ~$50k does so within the workforce, rather than avoid improving their own life in order to qualify for assistance. This is not a moralization of the use of government assistance, it is a criticism of…

> It is a net good for the economy [for individuals to improve their lives] I agree. If you've just inherited $25 million, it would still be better for you and for society for you to get a job--even a job paying $50k a year if that is all you could get. But...are you going to be incentivized to do so? If you care about somebody not wanting to make $50k because they'd lose a $10k subsidy, how much MORE should you care…

Why would anyone with above-median ability to acquire resources stay in such a country

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#233

Post by gottorf »

advael wrote: post #214
Aerroon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with UBI isn't so much the politics, it's the feasibility of the cost. $12k a year over 300 million people is 80% of the US government's tax revenue. A negative income tax might work out a lot better on the numbers, but it won't help the people that need it the most (the ones that can't get a job). But hey, maybe it can work. The US has a deficit spending of $1.7 trillion in 2023, $1.4 in 2022, $2.7 in 20…

This is nonsensical for numerous reasons 1. The federal government doesn't have tax revenue. It issues a currency and then taxes go toward countering inflation. The notion that a currency-issuing government needs to "balance its budget" in its own currency is a political fiction. Also, policies that benefit people at the lower end of the income spectrum disproportionately actually move money around in the economy, wh…

> you could make considerably more "tax revenue" by funding the IRS

The US government expenditure as percentage of GDP is now over one-third, as opposed to the pre-WW1 long-term average in the single digits. Keep in mind that massive infrastructure projects like the Transcontinental Railroad were able to be built in those single-digit percent times, or that US educational spending per pupil has been going up year after year for decades yet student achievement flatlined, and of recent years been trending down. Clearly, more tax revenue is neither necessary nor sufficient for the public good.

> reversing some of the nakedly corrupt corporate tax breaks

No arguments from me there.

> fund drug research only to then allow the resulting breakthroughs to be patented by a private firm and then gouge people for treatment

Fundamental research and bringing a drug to market are markedly different areas that require very different skills and incentives. An organization that is good at one is not necessarily good at the other. And this isn't confined to drug research; an architect can draw up plans for a house, but a family cannot live in a plan. Foundations need to be poured, chalk lines snapped, lumber nailed together, and plumbing and wires laid, all in the context of a competitive marketplace.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#234

Post by stephenbez »

qazwsxedchac wrote: post #133

Marginal rate discontinuities in the UK income tax system [0] are driving highly undesirable (from the taxman's point of view) behaviour. The increase in marginal tax rate from £100K p.a. upwards has already led to: - doctors going part-time to keep their income below £100K, in the middle of a shortage of doctors across the health system - employees turning down promotions because with the combined effects of income…

If I understand the linked chart, there are discontinuities in the marginal tax rate, not the effective tax rate. So in that case yeah at certain levels the amount you owe on each additional dollar goes up, but that would not mean that making 105k is worse than 100k unless the marginal tax rate is greater than 100%.

This ignores stuff like losing childcare subsidies that is likely not included on the graph.

In the us you hear stories of people decreasing their income to be in a lower tax bracket and often it is due to them not understanding that the tax brackets are for marginal tax rates.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#235

Post by kaitai »

autoexec wrote: post #50
amanda99 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main feature of that image is "childcare" which seems to be a fixed subsidy of $16k (and "CHIP", ~$4k related to child health care). I don't know what the former means and how these are calculated, but if you don't have children, this graph would look a lot less exciting.

The ones I've known with kids all seem to have it far worse. If they were getting a $16k tax credit or whatever it must not have been making up for the other costs involved with raising children.

In my Midwestern area, infant care is ~$2000/month or more at a center and you get down to ~$1200 a month if you're at the right kind of center by age 4. So there are still some thousands to contribute to childcare even with $16k "off" and then that doesn't count diapers or clothes or formula (breastfeeding is great but you can't do it forever, some can't do it at all, and it is very hard to do on a practical level if you've got an hourly/service job).

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#236

Post by kaitai »

wizerdrobe wrote: post #148
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

16k wouldn't cover daycare in much of the US let alone food, clothes, etc.

What are you imagining the typical rate is in much of America. When we lived in the city we had a range of about 225 to 300 per week as of last year. Outside of the city we pay 160 per week. The real issue was the waiting list…

You are a lucky person. I just looked up my tax statements for 2022 and I paid $1341.67/month for an older kid (not infant). Waiting lists are atrocious and everywhere (and many places charge a $75-150 deposit for the waiting list alone); we got in fast because it was a new location. I am in the Midwest, not a coast.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#237

Post by rhelz »

temphypercube wrote: post #232
rhelz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a net good for the economy [for individuals to improve their lives] I agree. If you've just inherited $25 million, it would still be better for you and for society for you to get a job--even a job paying $50k a year if that is all you could get. But...are you going to be incentivized to do so? If you care about somebody not wanting to make $50k because they'd lose a $10k subsidy, how much MORE should you care…

Why would anyone with above-median ability to acquire resources stay in such a country

Why would anybody with above-median ability to acquire resources NOT want to live in a society where equal ability always means equal opportunity??

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#238

Post by edzillion »

gottorf wrote: post #168
lannisterstark wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily, I'm okay with people not working if they didn't want to. Most people would end up getting bored doing nothing after a few months and work with what they like to do anyway.

Devil's advocate: the longer you stay away from gainful employment, the more marketable skills you lose. (This is one of the arguments against a minimum wage; that it keeps low-skill and therefore low-pay labor from establishing a foothold in the labor marketplace that would enable them to up-skill over time.) So UBI would incentivize the creation of a permanently unemployable underclass. I'm OK with people not worki…

Point taken, Mr. Devil. I even agree, up to a point - and I think this might be a major issue in the immediate introduction of a UBI. The reason why is that the incentives will change but there will be many who have learned the system under different conditions and will not so easily adjust.

I've grown up amongst poverty and while I don't particularly like the term (as it tends to be deployed in aid of demagoguery), there really is a element of 'welfare culture' in effect, and having been on welfare myself (and treated like a prince because bizarrely the system was obviously classist: so Ed you're an out of work indie game dev and you're currently learning something called 'Nim'? "well that's just great then have some money". Go in there as a bricklayer and say you are looking but haven't found any work the past few weeks: here are 20 forms). I was always very impressed on the knowledge these working class labourers would have of the welfare system, because in their situation it really made a difference.

Their attidue was: (and who can blame them) fuck the govt they don't give a shit about me, the more I get / the more I can play the system, the better.

UBI from their perspective would be total victory. No more queuing no more forms or interviews, just free money for ever. But what then?

If the UBI was only sufficient for survival / dignity but not enough for luxury I think the psychological topology chances a lot and what could be previously described as 'getting one over on this enemy' now can only be described as your own failure.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#239

Post by albrewer »

amanda99 wrote: post #40
autoexec wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something seems very off with that image. I've known a lot of different people who were on welfare over the years, and not one of them had a standard of living anywhere close to what someone who nets $60,000 a year does. That said, there is absolutely a cliff where you could risk a loss just by taking in more money.

The main feature of that image is "childcare" which seems to be a fixed subsidy of $16k (and "CHIP", ~$4k related to child health care). I don't know what the former means and how these are calculated, but if you don't have children, this graph would look a lot less exciting.

CHIP -> Child Health Insurance Program.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#240

Post by dragonwriter »

gottorf wrote: post #168
lannisterstark wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily, I'm okay with people not working if they didn't want to. Most people would end up getting bored doing nothing after a few months and work with what they like to do anyway.

Devil's advocate: the longer you stay away from gainful employment, the more marketable skills you lose. (This is one of the arguments against a minimum wage; that it keeps low-skill and therefore low-pay labor from establishing a foothold in the labor marketplace that would enable them to up-skill over time.) So UBI would incentivize the creation of a permanently unemployable underclass. I'm OK with people not worki…

The devil doesn't need volunteer advocates, he can afford plenty paid. But you actually make the case for UBI as a replacement for means-tested welfare and its associated cliffs: “the longer you stay away from gainful employment, the more marketable skills you lose.”

That's one of the main points of UBI as a replacement for means-tested welfare [0]: eliminating the perverse incentives against maximizing outside work and for expending energy into working the system that exists with means-tested welfare that has complex eligibility rules and is rapidly cut with outside income. By making the clawback much slower and starting much higher up the income scale through the tax system, UBI, compared to the status quo, rewards gaining additional income in the labor (or other) market and learning skills other than navigating a welfare system.

There is a reason that UBI—under the name “negative income tax” because of the political valence of taxation on that corner of the political universe—was originally a right-libertarian proposal.

> I'm OK with people not working if they don't want to, too, as long as those people are OK with subsistence-level living standards

There's no plausible way a UBI provides anything substantially better than that any time in the near (likely, the lifespan of abyone now living) future, so that shouldn't be a problem.

[0] Perhaps even stronger if UBI is also seen as a (partial or full) replacement for the minimum wage, which could be justified because, unlike means-trsted welfare, it doesn't tail off with income and provides a basic support level for all—there is then no reason that employment must also serve that minimal support purpose, which makes it possible to offer employment whose marginal value to the employer is less than would minimally support an employee, but which would still be positive (and in some cases still have more long-term value to the employee because of experience that could contribute to more valuable future employment.)

Post reply on HN