Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#201

Post by swalkergibson » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:44 PM UTC

strlen wrote: post #189

pinaceae wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gun ownership (illegal) in Brazil is crazy high, no ones gives a shit about legality. Switzerland? yes, you have an assault rifle. which you DO NOT CARRY while walking around. and, you have no ammo for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland you really think switzerland has low crime rates because people have empty assault rifles at home?

No, I don't think there are low crime rates for this reason. I have never implied this or stated this. In any case a comparison between Switzerland and US is bizarre -- there are far too many differences to idly (without multivariate analysis on data that is likely not even available) claim that any one variable explains lower crime rate in one vs. the other. [Edit: I previously included a longer rant here, but, I'll…

You are perfectly able to own an automatic rifle manufactured before 1986. The only thing preventing such ownership is simply that the number of rifles that fit this criteria is becoming less and less by the day, which means that the price for a weapon like this is high. Granted, this means that a member of the US armed forces cannot keep his M4.

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The key point here is "well regulated." Do you believe that any person, simply because they live in the United States, should be allowed to own a hand grenade? I personally think not. Is there really a difference between hand grenades and automatic rifles? Again, I personally think not.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#202

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:45 PM UTC

brockers wrote: post #94

The author is a little confused about the history of Libertarian thought on this issue. A minimum basic income (MBI) is NOT a social progressive concept first thought up by western social democrats but was originally a fundamental tenant of a flat tax system. Something Libertarian's have been arguing in favor of for a long time. The basic design is simple. You give every person a single dollar amount as a MBI and the…

> A tax rate that is perfectly progressive

No, its flat. A flat tax is not progressive. The point of a progressive tax system is that the marginal impact is greater at higher income levels.

> Increased income has no tax disincentives (your tax rate doesn't change because you move into a higher income.)

In a progressive income tax system where the top marginal rate is > Simplifies that tax code dramatically (which would also increase revenue.)

Only if the flat rate is set very high compared to the existing rates paid by most of the population.

> 4) Doesn't artificially encourage capital gains manipulation by large income holders.

If this includes taxing capital gains as income, then this is true, though many flat tax proposals I've seen haven't taken that step. I'd agree that that choice is desirable independently any other changes (and it really has nothing to do with flat vs. progressive taxes or basic income.)

> 5) Removes government manipulation of social policy by giving them ONLY two number to play with... MBI and tax rate!

To do this, government has to alter the definition of taxable income (as well as many other things.) This does not eliminate their ability to make similar decisions in the future, so it doesn't remove any levers. (And, of course, government intervenes in social policy through things other than direct benefit programs and tax policy, so even fixing those wouldn't have the effect described here.)

Generally, I find "autopilot" arguments of the form "once we get government to decide X, government won't be able to decide other things incompatible with X in the future" to be ludicrous.

> 6) Finally, it provides a real mechanism for everybody to feel the effects of tax rate changes.

I'm not sure this makes any sense. Everybody feels the effect of rate changes now, but the utility effect of rate changes is different depending on circumstances. In a flat tax system with MBI, the same thing is true.

> ALL of these effects without negatively affecting market freedom.

Define "market freedom".

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#203

Post by bananacurve » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:47 PM UTC

pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

"Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it."

Self reliance is not to be underestimated. The state and the individual are both empowered. Being reliant on the state should be a last resort not a goal, as Europe is discovering.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#204

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:47 PM UTC

Domenic_S wrote: post #190

gnaritas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone doesn't get more money, the money is just distributed differently. The rich would be paying in much more than they get back in basic income. This doesn't change the money supply, just the distribution.

Right, but cost of basics would increase. If you sell bread, and you know that everyone now has $xxK basic income, why would you not increase the price of bread?

> If you sell bread, and you know that everyone now has $xxK basic income, why would you not increase the price of bread?

If you are a monopoly, of course you would. That's called a monopoly rent -- and why, in a supply monopoly, the demand curve effectively sets prices.

If you aren't a monopoly, you won't because competitors (either existing or new entrants) will undercut your prices until the prices are dropped to the economic cost of production.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#205

Post by rayiner » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:53 PM UTC

swalkergibson wrote: post #183

rayiner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but you gloss over one point. Any society will have its haves and have nots, but those will not be the same group of people across societies. In the U.S., the "haves" are pencil neck geeks. In Somalia, they're strongmen. Government creates this cocoon that allows the geeks to thrive. When there is government, and the concomitant law and order, having a good eye for investments is a trait that can make s…

That is correct, but strongmen in your example exist exclusively to extract money (the ultimate common denominator in almost all societies) from weaker people/tribes. That is my position. Without government, you are obligated to pay your own private security force, driving on your own private roads, paying for your own private healthcare. My position is that you would probably pay a similar percentage of your income…

I understand, but my point is that without government, you wouldn't have any money to pay for your own private security force. You'd be a peasant, serving some strongman. It's not like Mark Zuckerberg would just hire a private security force and drive on private roads. He wouldn't be wealthy to begin with, because he would have nothing valuable to offer in a such a society.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#206

Post by sixothree » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #179

jasonlfunk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the pessimistic point of view, why would anyone choose to work a crappy job at Walmart or McDonalds when the government would give them the same money without having to do anything. Walmart and McDonalds (and everyone else) would therefore either go out of business or raise their wages. Raising their wages would increase the price of their goods. Increasing prices of goods would increase the cost of living which…

The inflationary cycle only exists if you don't do the math. If we take a universe where there are 3 people, one guy makes $100, another makes $300 a year, another makes $1000 a year. We'll assume that everyone spends all their money every year. Suddenly the gov't decides to give everyone basic income, a stipend of about $100 a year. Suddenly the bottom guy gets enough money to live and quits his job at Walmart. Walm…

> Suddenly the bottom guy gets enough money to live and quits his job at Walmart. Walmart finds out that people are willing to work for double the old salary though($200). So they multiply the price of goods by 2.

That is an extremely naive conclusion. Re-think your argument.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#207

Post by swalkergibson » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #194

swalkergibson wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> During the great depression in the US, crime rates went to an all-time low. Citation, please. The examples below suggest that this is not at all the case. http://www.ushistory.org/us/48e.asp http://depts.washington.edu/depress/crime_seattle_great_depr... http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?s=902192a69...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9723440... http://kondratiefflongwave.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ushom... OK, perhaps I was incorrect to say "all-time low", and should have said "trended towards a local minimum over the course of the depression"

The articles you cited refute your point.

> It was a period of booming economic prosperity, the roaring '20s, and very high crime

(emphasis mine)

The time period before the Great Depression != the time period during the Great Depression.

The chart provided suggests that there was a sharp increase in homicide rates beginning around 1920, then a slight upward trend toward 1929, and then another sharp increase through the 1930s, towards the beginning of WWII.

Do you have any other examples? I am really skeptical that crime rates went down on the whole during the least economically productive period in the history of the United States.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#208

Post by wehadfun » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:57 PM UTC

Domenic_S wrote: post #190

gnaritas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone doesn't get more money, the money is just distributed differently. The rich would be paying in much more than they get back in basic income. This doesn't change the money supply, just the distribution.

Right, but cost of basics would increase. If you sell bread, and you know that everyone now has $xxK basic income, why would you not increase the price of bread?

Because somebody else would just come along and sell bread at a regular cost.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#209

Post by rayiner » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 7:59 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #99

pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. Once you've established a "protection money" system, establishing their "right" to your money & property, they are now incentivized to demand - and take - more. Panem et circenses is the last stage of polite society; the cost eventually becomes unbearable as fewer work and more expect comfort & leisure for nothing…

You're thinking in terms of small-step deviations from our existing society. But that's not what happens without government and civil society. A couple of guns under the bed isn't going to keep the local warlord away. There are no local police, just strongmen.

You already pay for people not to kill you: you fund a government and a military to create civil order, without which you'd be a peasant serving a warlord. Once you create government, you have to pick some way to control it. Democracy seems the most fair, but there is as you point out an incentive for people to vote themselves material comforts.

There is of course alternatives to democracy. Plutocratic libertarianism underwritten by brutal authoritarianism (I.e. Hong Kong) seems to be popular among a certain set these days. I don't think these are fundamentally stable though. Eventually people will realize that they'd be better off under democracy.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#210

Post by jbattle » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 8:02 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #119

rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, of course not. But the idea that minimum income would cause everyone to just quit their jobs is predicated on the presumption that the poor are morally inferior. Thus, analogies to what middle and upper class people do once they reach a certain level of income are irrelevant, because those people are not morally inferior. You might see a middle class person leave his comfortable line engineer job to get an MBA or…

No, it's simply predicated on the idea of diminishing marginal utility. The only reason it's more of a potential problem for the poor than the rich is because a concave function has a negative second derivative. Seriously, make up any concave function and compute marginal utility before and after a basic income for the rich and poor alike. It's also a concern given that the poor already do sit on their ass and eat mc…

Your logic has you backwards.

Most of those who are either lazy or unable to find work are poor. Many who are unable to find work are in that situation through no fault of their own.