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

321–330 of 337 posts

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#321

Post by tokenizer »

DanBC wrote: post #136

The UK benefits system has been built up over many years, over a range of different government departments, and covers many different needs and philosophies. This means it's a horrific mess. For years it was not possible to know how much housing benefit you would get before you moved into a property. While I think there are flaws with the free market I can see that crippling it doesn't help at all. It's really hard t…

> Sweeping away all of this and replacing it with a relatively simple "Does this person exist? Are the eligible for the universal income?" would save so much money, and time, and stress. It would free people to do voluntary work, or small informal projects.

Exactly. Some people just can't wrap their heads around what people want. Decent wages and free time.

To give people a certain minimum amount of wealth, we can just acknowledge that the best way to do social welfare is by utilizing efficient taxes and spreading that wealth equally amongst all, not because everybody needs it, but because it's ethical.

I'm in favour of the idea that it would still factor into your tax bracket. So making a UMI of $15,000 itself is meaningless at tax time, but working a part-time job and escalating that into the $40,000's should place you in that income.

This could mean that it ignores the wealthiest of us on a per year basis if we make more than $100,000 of so.

With the savings from those individuals and the elimination of our bureaucratic social system now, I truly think it should be attempted.

The real problem is the government firing those workers and saving that money. They would not like that.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#322

Post by weddpros »

chongli wrote: post #257
weddpros wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

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 ? You've got it backwards. The incentive is not to work, the incentive is for employers to offer market value for their wages. When people have the power to choose not to work, the market will have to adapt. If nobody wants a 200 payin…

"The incentive is not to work": I meant to contest that assertion made by previous commenter. Actually I really don't think there's any valid incentive.

"the incentive is for employers to offer market value for their wages" You might put pressure on employers, for sure -> more unemployment. Maybe wages will go north. Then inflation.. then BI will have to increase too.

It's the first time I read that BI might cause wages to increase. Most advocates say "it will not change anything for you" if you already have a job :-)

Lastly, keep in mind that workers ARE the ones who will support the cost of BI. Not employers, not the government... Only workers.

So you'd better not increase unemployment :-) or the cost of work will raise a lot

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#323

Post by hershel »

mercurial wrote: post #114
hershel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't it possible at least in theory to decrease this administrative costs using technology, But maybe it costs said much because there's no real push to do so and large resistance from the public sector ?

As illustrated by the regular failures of large IT government projects, regardless of the country: not necessarily.

Large part of big projects fail. This happens everywhere. But still many do succeed both in government and industry. Why not look at them as examples?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#324

Post by ewzimm »

dllthomas wrote: post #270
crucifiction wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You sound like a snopes advertisement. I believe the most generous glass bottle return is 10c, can return 5c, and that would be down at a recycling center. A six pack of crap beer is $5, meaning you would need to buy 50 bottles or 100 cans, pour them all out, take them to a recycling center and back (bus fair) and then buy some beer. I doubt this happens consistently at grocery stores.

In CA, that's basically the scenario. In MI, can deposit is 10c, and many grocery stores have returns in the back. The situation described still seems unlikely to be tremendously common, but is more feasible than your reasoning would suggest.

In MI, there are 10c deposits for cans and also larger deposits. There are $2.00 milk bottle deposits. Dumping is definitely not the best way to make money from food stamps, but I see it happen every week.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#325

Post by weddpros »

iamjustin wrote: post #207
weddpros wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Then employers would have to pay people more than an extra 200 dollars.

Or unemployment would raise sharply, taxes would raise sharply (to pay BI), then companies would relocate to a foreign country.

Or wages would raise, prices would raise (inflation), then BI would not anymore afford a minimal standard of living.

Or both: unemployment would raise, wages would raise, prices would raise, taxes would raise.. companies would go bankrupt or relocate, and most people on BI would be poor.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#326

Post by vasilipupkin »

lingoberry wrote: post #252
vasilipupkin wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is quite a bit of welfare benefits in the U.S. the complete lack of social security in the U.S. is a strawman. Now, it's probably true that the benefits are not as generous as elsewhere, but they are fairly extensive, and depending on the state you live in, are quite generous

You would only say that if you were born in the US. Your definition of "generous" is pretty laughable in most other developed countries.

an Illinois family of one mother and two children receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF; Medicaid, food stamps, Women, Infants and Children, or WIC; public housing; utility assistance; and free commodities (e.g., milk and cheese) would have a benefits package worth $19,442 per year. - See more at: http://illinoispolicy.org/the-work-vs-welfare-trade-off-in-i...

Now, I am not sure whether this is a high enough level of benefits or too high - but I don't think it's laughably low

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#327

Post by ewzimm »

atmosx wrote: post #161
mistermann wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People buy soda and milk with returnable bottles, walk outside, pour it out, return the bottles for cash, and buy a beer. This happens consistently at grocery stores. This is a perfect example of how all people do not in fact act in a responsible manner as many people would have us believe when discussing topics such as this. Some people simply are unwilling or unable to even semi-wisely manage the life of a human…

Okay, but you're talking as if this is the default behavior while it may very well not be. I'd like to see some numbers to back-up these claims as general behavior rather than " a friend of mine, saw a guy who's uncle was once in a grocery where a guy... "

I could show you POS records, but I'm not sure what that would prove. This us not what everyone does, but it was meant as an example of the kind of problems that arise from trying to control consumer behavior that go away if you just give cash. A more extreme example would be the economy of the former U.S.S.R., but I thought exchanging a two dollar milk bottle deposit for beer money was more relevant.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#328

Post by dllthomas »

ewzimm wrote: post #324
dllthomas wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In CA, that's basically the scenario. In MI, can deposit is 10c, and many grocery stores have returns in the back. The situation described still seems unlikely to be tremendously common, but is more feasible than your reasoning would suggest.

In MI, there are 10c deposits for cans and also larger deposits. There are $2.00 milk bottle deposits. Dumping is definitely not the best way to make money from food stamps, but I see it happen every week.

Interesting. Noted.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#329

Post by lmm »

gpvos wrote: post #258
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…

> lose your benefits An unconditional basic income should include enough money to pay health insurance yourself.

This is Britain, thankfully we have free healthcare already; "benefit" here is used to mean what the US call "welfare".

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#330

Post by mistermann »

atmosx wrote: post #161
mistermann wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People buy soda and milk with returnable bottles, walk outside, pour it out, return the bottles for cash, and buy a beer. This happens consistently at grocery stores. This is a perfect example of how all people do not in fact act in a responsible manner as many people would have us believe when discussing topics such as this. Some people simply are unwilling or unable to even semi-wisely manage the life of a human…

Okay, but you're talking as if this is the default behavior while it may very well not be. I'd like to see some numbers to back-up these claims as general behavior rather than " a friend of mine, saw a guy who's uncle was once in a grocery where a guy... "

Actually, I'm not talking as if it is the default behavior, and your comment to me is an excellent example of why these things are so difficult to solve in society. Not all people are rational actors whose behaviors are in their or societies best interest. This is a fact, and it is important to the solving of this problem in a practical manner.

But your interpretation of a reported instance of this behavior is that the person pointing it out is asserting that this is common/normal/default (which is incorrect), so (implicitly) this opinion (and any related) can therefore be ignored and removed from the discussion. However, that it is the default behavior isn't in fact being asserted, and it is you who is most incorrect in this small subset of the overall conversation.

In my opinion, that seemingly most participants on both sides of the issue are inclined to pick and choose their facts and have little interest in the genuine objective reality of the situation is one of the main reasons that we will never solve problem of this kind in a reasonably efficient manner.

Post reply on HN