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

Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 271 posts

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#221

Post by swalkergibson »

strlen wrote: post #213
swalkergibson wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

I don't think "pay enormous cost for a 20 year old firearm, get permission from the local law enforcement (which won't be granted to anyone in California who isn't a Hollywood producer), wait for the federal paper work for several months, pay additional fees" is "perfectly". Even prior to 1986 FOPA amendment, the number of people who actually owned such firearms was low -- but then again, they were only used in two c…

> [F]irst of all hand grenades, aren't technically arms if you use the definition of arms used when the constitution was written

This is the crux of the entire argument to me. The spirit of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to violently overthrow the federal government if they become too powerful, as a last-resort measure. The weapons that the colonists were fighting against were 3 rounds per minute muskets and single-shot cannons, not Apache attack helicopters. Is there a really a regulatory framework that could conceivably exist that would allow for ordinary, private citizens to overthrow the full might of the US military while protecting society from wanton gun violence?

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#222

Post by Domenic_S »

dragonwriter wrote: post #204
Domenic_S wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That isn't how pricing works. Your competitors would raise prices, not lower them.

Either way there are only like 3 players in the "basics" market anyway so we're closer to a monopoly as it is.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#223

Post by dragonwriter »

Domenic_S wrote: post #222
dragonwriter wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That isn't how pricing works. Your competitors would raise prices, not lower them. Either way there are only like 3 players in the "basics" market anyway so we're closer to a monopoly as it is.

> That isn't how pricing works.

Its how pricing works in a competitive market where even a loose approximation of rationality applies.

> Your competitors would raise prices, not lower them.

"Lower" relative to yours (or compared to incumbents, in the case of new entrants.)

> Either way there are only like 3 players in the "basics" market anyway so we're closer to a monopoly as it is.

To the extent that the absence of a competitive market in basics is a problem, its a problem independently of basic income and needs to be addressed whether or not a basic income is adopted.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#224

Post by jasonlfunk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #186
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…

> 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. Because, unlike current poverty support programs, where the having a benefit program that gives you $X and a job that gives you $X the most you can get is $X, with basic income, you can have the basic income of $X and the job of $X…

> Because, unlike current poverty support programs, where the having a benefit program that gives you $X and a job that gives you $X the most you can get is $X, with basic income, you can have the basic income of $X and the job of $X and have $2X.

This is the point that I didn't understand.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#225

Post by jasonlfunk »

21echoes wrote: post #131
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…

> 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. because, despite the myth of the lazy poor, most people enjoy being productive.

Being lazy isn't the only reason someone would quit working at Walmart. It might just suck to flip burgers for 8 hours a day. Needing to eat is a very good incentive to do things that you wouldn't normally do.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#226

Post by dragonwriter »

brockers wrote: post #215
dragonwriter wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wou…

> 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. Marginal impact is greater. Using the numbers I listed above your marginal tax rate at a income of $10k/year is NEGATIVE 100%, at an income of $100k/year it would be 0%, at $500k/year it would be 8%, at $1m/year it would be 9%... asymptotic increasing towards 10%. > ...t…

> Marginal impact is greater. Using the numbers I listed above your marginal tax rate at a income of $10k/year is NEGATIVE 100%

You seem to be trying to count the MBI both as tax-basis income and as negative tax when computing marginal rates. This is obviously improper, because you wouldn't consider positive taxes as part of the tax-basis income.

If you consider your MBI as negative tax and not income, then at $0 income (excluding, for the moment, negative pre-MBI income, which may or may not be possible, depending on how you define "income"), the total tax rate is negative infinity, but marginal tax rate is +10%, and at $100K the marginal rate is +10%, and at 500K the marginal rate it is +10%, and at $1 Trillion the marginal rate is +10%. Its perfectly flat.

If you consider it as tax-basis income but not negative tax, then there is no income below 10K, and from 10K on the marginal rate is still a flat 10%.

You can't count the inverse of the amount paid in tax as part of the taxed income to compute marginal rates.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#227

Post by dnautics »

swalkergibson wrote: post #207
dnautics wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What? The peak is around 1931 or 1932 and during the rest of the depression, it goes down.

Also, the article directly says

"The Depression years had very little crime."

Honestly, though those crime dynamics were probably more to do with prohibition than anything else, which goes to show that crime really is likely to be dependent on factors that have very little to do with economic prosperity.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#228

Post by EpicEng »

carbocation wrote: post #65
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…

From the optimist's view, think how many people whose lives are being spent working at Walmart or McDonald's who could instead be at home developing skills they are actually interested in (which school does a poor job of teaching), such as programming or sculpture, etc. Imagine the entrepreneurs who might feel freed to give business a chance, rather than feeling that they can't quit their day jobs? It would be a gran…

Because you can't better yourself while working part time at McDonald's or Wal-Mart? im self taught and I was working full time while teaching myself all things computer science in my spare time. Let's not pretend that all who are working menial jobs are oppressed and would flourish if we handed them money.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#229

Post by ahomescu1 »

pinaceae wrote: post #162
ctdonath wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oakland & Philly, for most practical purposes, ban carry of guns outright. Outside of official "gun-free zones", where armed citizens are legal, crime is very low.

so, in Vienna I can walk around unarmed, with zero risk of getting into a firefight and being hurt/killed. walk around as in drunk, with earbuds in, at 2am. in your gun-zones i need to carry concealed, know how to properly shoot and kill and have the risk of hurting/killing innocents. everyone loses in a real firefight. plus if i am drunk and carry stupid things happen. but the US model is clearly better. i need to a…

Proper policing lowers crime, not welfare. Many Eastern Europe countries have very generous welfare systems (for example, Romania's welfare is modeled somewhat on Sweden's), but we still have plenty of crime (you can get beaten/stabbed if walking through the wrong parts of town at night).

Even if the state gives you free money, you can always use some more. The solution to crime is an efficient and honest police force (or at least 2nd Amendment-style self defense), not more welfare.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#230

Post by consonants »

pinaceae wrote: post #162
ctdonath wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oakland & Philly, for most practical purposes, ban carry of guns outright. Outside of official "gun-free zones", where armed citizens are legal, crime is very low.

so, in Vienna I can walk around unarmed, with zero risk of getting into a firefight and being hurt/killed. walk around as in drunk, with earbuds in, at 2am. in your gun-zones i need to carry concealed, know how to properly shoot and kill and have the risk of hurting/killing innocents. everyone loses in a real firefight. plus if i am drunk and carry stupid things happen. but the US model is clearly better. i need to a…

Don't forget your armed private security personnel to keep watch when you can't.
Post reply on HN