Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#401

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:42 PM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #281

chiph wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly suspect that the Basic Income Guarantee would receive increases in excess of the rate of inflation, as politicians use it to buy votes. I think the $10k/yr figure that was quoted is unrealistic - that would cover food expenses with not much left over for housing costs. Even in a low-cost part of the nation, they'd have to perform work of some kind to earn more.

I think the $10k/year proposal was per person, not per household. Although that begs the question, at what age should the benefit start? $10k/year is $833/month. $500/month rent and $333/month (about $11/day) for food is pretty basic subsistence for a single person. Yes, you'd have to work if you wanted anything more than basic nutrition and shelter, or wanted to live in a high-cost urban center, but the idea here is…

[deleted]

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#402

Post by Tichy » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:43 PM UTC

zxcdw wrote: post #313

I don't understand how people oppose unconditional basic income without also opposing the fact that automation decreases the amount of working hours available for a person(or in other words, the amount of jobs ), and thus decreases the amount of income per person, while maintaining productivity stable if not increasing it, thus making all sorts of goods cheaper. Someone enlighten me. These discussions always seem so…

The statement "people need to work 40 hours" is already obviously false. There are lots of people who don't need to work, because they already have more money than they could ever spend.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#403

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:43 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #387

talmand wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes he did. Your comment and jellicle's comment are not quite the same thing. Even then, you are painting some of the party's platform in a negative light without showing why exactly that is their platform to begin with nor why you consider them terrible ideas. Some of their reasons may be bad, but that doesn't mean all of their reasons are.

GOP Platform: "I've got mine, f * you."

Leftist Platform: "I'm taking yours, f* you."

Yeah, this line of discussion is going to get us far.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#404

Post by talmand » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:43 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #386

talmand wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes he did. Your comment and jellicle's comment are not quite the same thing. Even then, you are painting some of the party's platform in a negative light without showing why exactly that is their platform to begin with nor why you consider them terrible ideas. Some of their reasons may be bad, but that doesn't mean all of their reasons are.

He didn't say these policies were bad, just that they were consistent. They're only bad if you disagree with them.

No he didn't say they were bad, he was just agreeing with the person that said they were bad. But I think it's fair to say that the tone of the discussion implies these two people feel negativity towards the GOP's platform without stating why.

Disagreeing with someone's idea doesn't inherently make that idea bad. People who have the notion that another person's idea is bad solely because they disagree with them with no other evidence is simply a shallow person.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#405

Post by dannypgh » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:44 PM UTC

I think it would make a lot of sense to have a BI and to also double-down in R&D to improve all levels of understanding and capabilities in the fields of AI and robotics. The protestant work ethic is deeply engrained in this society, but perhaps now we should be thinking in terms of "how do we free as many people as possible for pursuits they haven't yet found" -- and investing heavily in removing jobs that the most hours are worked in.

The necessary investment in all levels and types of STEM would be huge, and the result would be tons of technology that can be used to replace current work. To prevent the technology from simply being used to make a very small number of people rich, vast amounts (if not all) of the research should be released as free & open source technology. I do admit however that FOSS is not a pancea to address concerns of excessive wealth concentration - and taxes will continue to play that role.

In a sense, the wealth created by the increases in automation will be captured back in the form of taxes, and use to fund additional investment in automation as well as a basic income to sustain all the residents of the society which decided that it was worthwhile to try to abolish work, instead of continuing to fetishize it as a moral obligation.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#406

Post by tsax » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:44 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #73

> "How would we pay for it? We could start by getting corporations to pay their taxes." I don't know why people keep harping on corporate taxes. If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. Taxing corporations doesn't produce magic money -- it's still taxing people in the end, but it's the consumers.…

You are only a quarter right (or whatever). The incidence of corporate taxation can fall on various entities including the consumers, the employees, and the shareholders. The better argument is that corporate taxation is double (or triple) taxation, as the corporate income gets distributed down to employees and shareholders, which then gets taxed again as personal income and capital gains.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#407

Post by JonFish85 » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:50 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #149

crazygringo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but its pretty self-evident that the effect on actual prices is dependent on price elasticity of demand in the markets for particular products Of course, but there's still the "minimum profitability" that a business seeks to have. Suppose three firms compete to sell widget X, and consumers are willing to pay up to $10 for it, but the companies sell it at $5 due to competition (it costs $4 to make and distribute). T…

> "corporate taxes are ultimately passed onto people" I don't really get this argument. It's always made as if the taxes are applied in a vacuum where market forces no longer exist. If corporations are operating in a competitive market, they will seek cost advantages and continue to compete for market share. Raised taxes represent an additional expense (for the purposes of this discussion), much like raised energy pr…

Isn't it an easy solution though? Based on what you've said, companies have likely already done what they can to reduce expenses to what they consider an optimal place.

I'll try an example, although that might not be totally valid (I'm not really up on current tax laws). These are all made-up numbers and rates: Say you sell a widget for $100, and it costs you $70 to make. Your profit on that is $30, of which let's say you pay $5 in taxes, so let's say you walk away with $25 per widget.

If the government bumps up the taxes by a percentage that makes the tax be $6. As a corporate policy, the easiest way to keep the same returns to investors is to tack on another dollar to the price and sell it for $101. Profit is $31, pay $6 in taxes, still walk away with $25/widget.

Your competitors are in the same boat as you are, regardless of what the tax rate was/is. Theoretically, if they weren't stealing your business at the lower tax rate, they won't steal it any more or less at the higher tax rate.

Sure maybe you consider some other areas to cut costs, but haven't you done that already? I know it's a silly over-simplified example, but if I own a company and I don't want to give back my profit, I raise my prices to compensate, and so do all competitors. The people that lose are the customers.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#408

Post by talmand » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:51 PM UTC

zxcdw wrote: post #313

I don't understand how people oppose unconditional basic income without also opposing the fact that automation decreases the amount of working hours available for a person(or in other words, the amount of jobs ), and thus decreases the amount of income per person, while maintaining productivity stable if not increasing it, thus making all sorts of goods cheaper. Someone enlighten me. These discussions always seem so…

Not that I'm advocating, but the Fair Tax Plan (US) has a similar notion in terms of a rebate to cover the basic necessities.

But anytime you have a discussion about taking by force from one group to give to another, it gets complicated and heated rather quickly. Well, maybe that's different from culture to culture.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#409

Post by dorkrawk » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:52 PM UTC

What happens if I squander my basic income on something frivolous and I can't get a job? Wouldn't there still need to be social programs to prevent people who fuck up from just starving to death? How would a basic income coexist with current systems of debt?

Could this exist without VAST healthcare reform? What happens when people get (expensively) sick?

Who gets a basic income? Every citizen over 18? Every non dependent? Isn't a basic income for someone with 5 kids fundamentally different than a single person? Wouldn't a basic income even in the same state be vastly different (say Chicago vs Urbana in Illinois)?

This is certainly an interesting idea and I'm interested in people's thoughts on these and other details.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#410

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #256

gwright wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You started off with an interesting addition to the conversation, and I was hoping for a reference regarding the relationship between corporate taxes and the ultra-weathy, but instead I got a gratuitous, tired, over-used, boring, ad-hominem about Republicans that added nothing to conversation.

No he didn't. The national Republican Party is outspoken about raising taxes on lower income people, in "broadening the base". In the election-year expose of Romney's secret fundraising speeches, we learned about "the 49%" of Americans who don't pay taxes. Well, we didn't learn about it, it's a very common trope for conservative politicians. It's no secret that Republicans largely support "base broadening", as well a…

Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Taking half of earners' incomes with one hand and blocking ways to earn more with the other will NOT end well. I'm making a good buck, but at this rate of taxation I'm gonna have to resort to self-sufficiency homesteading with zero taxable income. Remember the goose & golden egg?

Totally not fair to present only the allegedly "bad" parts of a position without the good goals that necessitates it. Opening the paths to hiring more people is quite fairly coupled with telling the capable to stop sitting around collecting checks; if you're going to socialize health care payment, you'll need to stop giving companies reason to not have more than 49 employees.