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

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

#611

Post by penguindev » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:41 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #420

wavefunction wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't, of course we could limit couples to replacement rate of birth, if that's 2.1 for couples or 1.05 for individuals, they could sell a fraction or all of their "right to reproduce" to people who want to have 3 or more kids.

Sure. China loves the One Child policy. No horrible side effects at all. Social engineering like this is fraught with huge risks.

And the real problem was they didn't adopt a two child policy a few doubles ago. (Basically the US is in the same position - we have the same landmass as china, but 1/4 of the population)

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

#612

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:46 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #93

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.…

> If anything, taxing corporations is regressive No, its not. > the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. It increases producer prices which shifts the supply curve to the right, but its pretty self-evident that the effect on actual prices is dependent on price elasticity of demand in the markets for particular products, and that price elasticity…

>But taxing high salaries is "regressive", just as much as taxing corporations, taxing consumers

I disagree here. For this to hold, executives would have to strive to keep their pay where it is. But this simply isn't realistic. Executive pay has exploded beyond belief in the last half century, it's completely unprecedented.

There is no reason to allow individuals to siphon off so much capital, and no benefit to it. Standard of living with $1B is no different than $10B (which is why after Steve Jobs hit $6B he stopped bothering with making any more money).

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

#613

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:49 PM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #179

unclebucknasty wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

> reduce costs elsewhere Like by hiring less employees.

Good thing we've got BI then, so we're no longer slaves to making any move at all because it might cost someone a shit minimum wage job.

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

#614

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:54 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #200

jellicle wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. Actually, the studies show that corporate taxes are essentially a proxy for the taxing the ultra-wealthy - a cut in the corporate tax rate is very similar to cutting the highest marginal income tax rate. After all, if corporate taxes truly fell on the po…

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.

You're the one going political here. What he stated is a well known fact about the Republicans whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

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

#615

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #410

criley2 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh please, trickle down has never worked and the Republicans have always known this [1].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=0

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

#616

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:59 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #600

ctdonath wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't "spread the wealth" if there isn't any. Printing more money doesn't make more wealth , it just diffuses it more. If I stop working, you can't tax my now-nonexistent income.

I don't believe there is correlation between a lessened burden on wealth producers and it being spread around. The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era. You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around. But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numb…

This isn't something you need to believe or not believe. The stats are in, decades of trickle down have not had the intended effect and various sources have shown this.

It's a pretty well supported fact that lessening the tax burden on the mega rich doesn't cause them to go opening businesses and it's surprising people ever believed such nonsense. Why would a rich person take a risk on a new business venture when the a fund can provide a steady, predictable return year after year with very little downside?

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

#617

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 5:01 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #489

toomuchtodo wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me be more specific: Who is blocking comprehensive reform of the banking sector (which arguably drove not only the US into a recession, but the world as a whole)? Republicans Draconian anti-abortion laws? Republics Raising student loan interest rates while keeping lending rates to banks near zero? Republicans Supporting egregious amounts of defense department spending (The US spends more on defense then the next…

If only these issues were as clear-cut as you seem to think they are. There is plenty of evidence that the risky loans associated with the home mortgage crisis were motivated by federal policies advocated by Democrats such as the implicit guarantees associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The student loan debacle is another example of unintended consequences of government loan subsidies and there is considerable…

The issues are pretty clear cut, the issue is you're getting bogged down by political party labels that have little meaning. If someone performs a bunch deregulation that's not a "left" position no matter what party they claim to be in.

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

#618

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 5:04 PM UTC

true_religion wrote: post #257

jellicle wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. Actually, the studies show that corporate taxes are essentially a proxy for the taxing the ultra-wealthy - a cut in the corporate tax rate is very similar to cutting the highest marginal income tax rate. After all, if corporate taxes truly fell on the po…

> After all, if corporate taxes truly fell on the poor, Republicans wouldn't be for cutting them. That kind of presupposes that Republicans are all about saving big business and not the poor. What if Republicans favor cutting corporate taxes because they are regressive, and their support of 'family' values means they want to protect the income and lifestyle of the poor to middle class families that make up the majori…

I can't imagine how anyone would imagine Republicans are anti-poor. It's not like they've spent decades demonizing them or anything [1].

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/weflare-queen

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

#619

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 5:07 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #307

absherwin wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the vast majority of wealth in this country in held in liquid assets or in real estate which is already taxed based on value, why do you suppose that a scheme to tax it would be more complex than the corporate tax system which employs on the order of ten thousand people and generates returns that are often thousands or even tens of thousands of pages and has been shown to be amenable to a wide variety of g…

> Given that the vast majority of wealth in this country in held in liquid assets or in real estate Source? > There will be some complicated edge cases but there will be relatively few and the ability to game them is less because wealth is a simpler concept than income. How is wealth a "simpler concept" than income. AFAICT, income is far simpler (and, in fact, involves a strict subset of the assessments necessary in…

Income is not simpler, as you can change around how people are compensated, which is exactly what's happened for the better part of a century at least [1]. But if you own a garage full of Ferraris, then you own a garage full of Ferraris. The only problem at that point would be foreign held wealth.

[1] One of the reasons the US got into the health care mess they have now was companies taking over the payment of health insurance instead of giving a salary increase. Workers liked this because it effectively meant they paid less taxes.

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

#620

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

comrade_ogilvy wrote: post #523

pjungwir wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What people would pay for it" is a controversial quantity Yep. A friend thinks we should have a "You bought it!" law for insurance companies that assess the value of your belongs to calculate a premium. Basically once they give you their assessment, you have to right to say, "You bought it!" and they have to take it off your hands at that price. Not that such a law could work in the real world, but it is pretty cl…

The incentives do not necessarily work well there. But I could imagine a "We The People Buy It" under a system of wealth taxes. That the gov't could choose to buy any asset for a modest premium over what the taxpayers asserts it was worth for purposes of taxes last year. Heck, maybe any citizen should be allowed in on that game? "Hmmm, you say your restaurant business is worth only $300k? It is your lucky day! I just…

OMG, that's brilliant! Now I just need a couple of hundred million and I could buy Walmart!