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

A universal income is not such a silly idea

timharford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 337 posts

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#91

Post by rubinelli »

JTon wrote: post #80
salient wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, for this to work, everyone would have to receive that amount of money. Or at least say, everyone receiving under $100,000 a year in salary. Otherwise, you might feel cheated if you replace your $12,000 free money for a $20,000 job . You'd still have to receive the free money, so you'd then earn $32,000 a year.

I would hate to be the person who earns just over that arbitrary 100k line.

At some point, that $12,000 you would receive turns instead into $12,000 you deduct from your taxes, so it all works out. There isn't a sudden step.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#92

Post by drcube »

ck2 wrote: post #36
jamesaguilar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably a lot of the potential profit would be taxed to fund this basic income guarantee. In any case, it seems like your argument boils down to "Better not let poor people buy food, in case the price of food rises," which I think fails without significant deeper examination.

Nope, I say make sure poor people have that basic income. You don't have to give it to everyone. I live in a low income neighborhood - you can clearly see the difference in generational poverty and how help is needed. You also can fix the problem by making sure that corporations like Walmart do not rely on their employees getting foodstamps as part of their income as a business model. It is a very unlevel playing fie…

Means testing is a lot of bureaucracy for less effectiveness. Giving everyone a basic income eliminates those issues.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#93

Post by clarky07 »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #84
yummyfajitas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

120 million people at, say, -$1000 in net worth == big negative number. Anyone with $1 of net worth is wealthier than them.

It is ridiculous to suggest that someone with a dollar but no access to credit is weathier than someone who is able to borrow the cost of a house.

Actually, while I do see what you are saying, I don't think it's that ridiculous. If they have a house with lots of equity they aren't included in this. If you have a negative net worth you aren't doing that great. If you happen to lose your job (like lots of people have over the last few years) now you are in an even worse situation than the guy with a dollar. Now you have no money, and lots of debt.

Having debt ("able to borrow the cost of a house") does not mean you have a negative net worth. It just means you have debt. Having 30k in credit card debt on the other hand...

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#94

Post by brazzy »

ck2 wrote: post #36
jamesaguilar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably a lot of the potential profit would be taxed to fund this basic income guarantee. In any case, it seems like your argument boils down to "Better not let poor people buy food, in case the price of food rises," which I think fails without significant deeper examination.

Nope, I say make sure poor people have that basic income. You don't have to give it to everyone. I live in a low income neighborhood - you can clearly see the difference in generational poverty and how help is needed. You also can fix the problem by making sure that corporations like Walmart do not rely on their employees getting foodstamps as part of their income as a business model. It is a very unlevel playing fie…

> Nope, I say make sure poor people have that basic income. > You don't have to give it to everyone.

Then it's not a basic income. Giving it to everyone, period, is the defining characteristic of a basic income, and what makes it different than welfare.

Proponents believe it to be a superior model because it eliminates a lot of beaurocracy, bad incentives and paternalistic structures that communicate to poor people that they're inferior and might as well not even try to improve themselves.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#95

Post by tinco »

coldtea wrote: post #63
PaulJoslin wrote: post #25

The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…

> In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. Really? How that explains millions of homeless, poors eating in soul kitchens and/or with coupons, etc?

He's talking about a proper country, not the U.S.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#96

Post by lmm »

PaulJoslin wrote: post #64
lmm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This therefore means there is an incentive to go work. Yes and no. It's not an incentive to get a 10hr/week part-time job, for example, because you'd lose your benefits and so get paid less overall. Even making the transition can be difficult - most jobs won't pay you until the end of the month, but your benefits will be cut off at the start. How long does it take to save up a month's expenditures while on benefits…

1. I address this somewhere else. I agree this is broken, but this is not a problem with the benefit system - it's something to do with wages not rising accordingly with everything else. 2. Perhaps, although if they do something stupid with that money, they still need supporting - so you either let people go homeless / starve or help them (which creates a new layer of welfare) 3. I'm not saying twice the food would b…

> 2. Perhaps, although if they do something stupid with that money, they still need supporting - so you either let people go homeless / starve or help them (which creates a new layer of welfare)

Maybe. Even giving people food isn't reliable - some people will sell it for drugs. Sure, we'd probably still need some kind of emergency welfare system for those circumstances, but drastically reducing the size and complexity of the welfare system is a win, even if we don't eliminate it entirely.

> The goal posts will just be moved and the poverty line will be above the basic minimum everyone gets paid.

The point isn't to make the unemployed any better off than they are now. The point is to make the working poor better off, incentivize work more than it is presently, and reduce the overheads of the welfare system.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#97

Post by weddpros »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #33
PaulJoslin wrote: post #25

The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…

> If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifestyle) than staying at home not working. Except this isn't the case, since benefits are usually cut when you starting working. This means that you start work in an insecure job with no necessary increase in quality of life. With a guaranteed income, if you were to get a job, you'd have a guaranteed increase in your…

I often hear this argument, but it sounds wrong to me. Benefits are cut when you start working, and resumed when you stop again.

Did you consider the fact that salaries WILL be lowered to compensate for BI ?

If BI is 1000, that 1200 paying job will become a 200 paying job... I just can't see where's the incentive to work. Who wants a 200 paying job when you get paid 1000 for just breathing ?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#98

Post by throwaway9848 »

ck2 wrote: post #12

It's not a silly idea at all but I like to think of myself as progressive and I think it is a very bad idea in reality vs on paper. Just look at how college costs magically rise to the availability of loans and grants. What do you think is going to happen to food and rent prices once those supply chains figure out there is much more profit to be made? The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of…

Somehow this idea always comes from libertarian quarters, too(please, no 'no true scotsmen responses' replies about how nobody but a single mute hermit living on a mountaintop in South Dakota is a _real_ libertarian).

This seems like an incredibly market distorting policy. Social welfare programs provide hard floors on quality of life: you don't have food? food stamps. you don't have medical care? medicaid. Some people live longer than they financially planned? universal old-age poverty insurance (social security).

This has all the feel of letting the more financially/business-sophisticated citizens go hunting on one of those hunting ranches with borderline tame 'game'.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#99

Post by jawr »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #78
PaulJoslin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's correct Mike, it's not always the case (benefits being cut and working a job can provide you with a worse quality of life) - but I think that is more of a problem regarding the wages people are being paid in jobs, rather than the benefits system. For a long time inflation, house prices and general costs have beat basic wage increases - leaving many working for less money relatively than they would've got years…

> The system is broken, but the equality of pay and living standards is not to blame with the government, it's to blame with greedy corporations, share holders insisting they need to do anything for profit and wages being pinned down to the minimum they can be that the work force will stand for (to maximise profits). Let me ask you something... If you start a new business, and let's say you take out a huge loan to pa…

That's entirely understandable, but what about businesses where they have huge surpluses of cash and risk of bankruptcy is nominal?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#100

Post by agilebyte »

PaulJoslin wrote: post #75
ricardobeat wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So everyone that wants to live in London will need to have a job, just like they have today. It's a decent trade-off.

That is incorrect, London is not like that today. London is an extremely multi cultural city, with both rich and poor living side by side in the same boroughs. A lot of people argue that most of London's unique culture in places like Brixton came from the poor and that's what made London in a lot of ways great. If you say, everyone in London will need a job, then you are then moving the poor / unemployed on mass out…

Hmm, London still needs the services of those poor that you speak of. If people are willing to pay the exorbitant prices for having a home there, I don't see why they can't be prepared to pay more to get the basic services running.

The further London moves away from the UK, the more are cities like Brighton, Cambridge etc. looking more attractive. More attractive to people willing to live in a more mixed area too.

Post reply on HN