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

261–270 of 271 posts

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#261

Post by yummyfajitas »

gruseom wrote: post #258
yummyfajitas wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Comments like this make it seem like you have a personal agenda behind all that math.

Have you considered the possibility that the data and math I cite is what caused me to have my "agenda"?

Incidentally, data: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#262

Post by lingoberry »

twoodfin wrote: post #211
lingoberry wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't basic income also increase the tax revenues from goods and services, and by creating more jobs because of the increased buying power of the poor? Especially since close to 100% of the basic income money will continue to circulate in the economy. Give Bill Gates a trillion dollars though and there's zero tax revenue on that.

Give Bill Gates a trillion dollars though and there's zero tax revenue on that. Obviously I'm not advocating giving $1T to Bill Gates, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding that gets repeated over and over again. Rich people do not keep their money under their mattresses. Much of it they keep in a variety of financial instruments, most commonly stocks and bonds. Sale of stock is how many companies finance their…

Good point.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#263

Post by rtpg »

sixothree wrote: post #206
rtpg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm assuming a magical world where the price of goods depends only on salary (if you actually look at a series where every aspect of the production chain gets hit by the same salary increase, then the price goes up the same amount anyways, irregardless of material costs).

Why do you think it would go up more?

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#264

Post by nimble »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #234
nimble wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income is a good idea but you have the rationale wrong. The right theory for a basic income should be that all people deserve a stake in the accumulated knowledge and technology of mankind, just as they deserve equal stake in the land and other natural resources. As general advancement accelerates and allows for greater production with less labor, a greater percentage of that wealth ought to be shared with ever…

> The right theory for a basic income should be that all people deserve a stake in the accumulated knowledge and technology of mankind, just as they deserve equal stake in the land and other natural resources. What is their contribution to knowledge and technology, so that they "deserve" a stake? What you're saying is that they deserve something for nothing.

Do you agree that everyone deserves a fair share of the natural resources of the earth?

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#265

Post by Roboprog »

streptomycin wrote: post #127
Roboprog wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one who caught the part about the regressive tax on the middle class ($25 - $50 K income range) to pay for the hand out??? Gotta love uncle Milty (Friedman) and his boys.

Probably. Friedman's negative income tax proposal was the opposite of regressive.

Quote:

It is important to point out that under Murray’s proposal, which is outlined fully in his book In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace The Welfare State, after someone’s total annual income reached $25,000 a 20 percent surtax tax would be imposed on “incremental earned income,” capped at $5,000 once someone earns $50,000 a year.

OK, not uncle Milty, some other libertarian. Still, a tax that stops at $50K is hard to call something other than regressive.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#266

Post by gruseom »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #261
gruseom wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this make it seem like you have a personal agenda behind all that math.

Have you considered the possibility that the data and math I cite is what caused me to have my "agenda"? Incidentally, data: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf

That triggers my skepticism. Math and data don't prompt one to say pejorative things. Emotion and ideology do.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#267

Post by yummyfajitas »

gruseom wrote: post #266
yummyfajitas wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the possibility that the data and math I cite is what caused me to have my "agenda"? Incidentally, data: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf

That triggers my skepticism. Math and data don't prompt one to say pejorative things. Emotion and ideology do.

I suspect you are referring to my use of the words "sit on their ass and eat mcdonald's all day"? Read Rayiner's post - the phrasing is his. He just uses it as reducto ad absurdum, which is not actually so absurd.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#268

Post by dragonwriter »

rwl wrote: post #255
dragonwriter wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the ACA model (even minus the subsidy aspect), which uses (1) purchase mandates, (2) minimum standards, and (3) state exchanges through which private insurance can be purchased. This applies most of the the large-purchaser effect of a social program, but isn't a traditional social benefit program (sure, the actual ACA, which has subsidies for some purchasers, includes a traditional social benefit program as…

> This applies most of the the large-purchaser effect of a social program... Does it, though? That's what I'm wondering. Is there any evidence that the model followed by the Affordable Care Act is not significantly more expensive per capita than a single-payer, "Medicare for all" kind of system?

Well, there's the large-purchaser effect when the purchased good is privately-offered health insurance, and the large purchaser effect when the purchased good is actually health care services. Aside from the effects of the non-discrimination requirements which shift costs from the older and less healthy to the young and healthy, the ACA model increases the number of people that can benefit from large-purchaser group rates on insurance -- its almost certainly less efficient than single-payer overall still (as, for that matter is Medicare, which hasn't been single payer for decades, due to Risk HMO / Part C / Medicare Advantage plans, which are actually make it very similar in model to the ACA except with a public option.)

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#269

Post by strlen »

ctdonath wrote: post #256
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…

You are perfectly able to own an automatic rifle manufactured before 1986. Owning nothing newer than a quarter-century old (most likely much older and significantly used), at about a 25x markup, and submitting to strict licensing & monitoring, IF you can find anything close to what you actually want amid dwindling supply in a market more akin to "great art" investment than home defense ... hardly "perfectly able". As…

Problem is that a 5.56 automatic rifle isn't going to be helpful when the enemy is also coming with 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39 automatic rifles (the choice of plutocracies), but in greater quantities and aided by helicopters, tanks, etc...

A bolt action or semi-auto 7.62x51 or .30-06 is a lot more useful -- especially if your goal isn't to assume the role (i.e., overthrow) whoever is coming from you but to get yourself, your family, and ideally your property away. (I've got a 5.56 semi-auto as well, but it's mostly for the purpose of being able to use cheaper and more readily available ammunition for recreational shooting and not bruising my shoulder after a range trip, while using a calibre that's still more fun/practical than .22lr)

As for taking money without your permission -- no matter how you look at it, it's going to happen (whether via income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on investment income, etc...). Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and company aren't exactly socialists: when they advocate these programs, their goals are to increase individual liberty and decrease state intervention in our lifetimes (rather than pine for a utopian anarcho-capitalist future). I'd rather that money go directly to the poor than to bureaucratic middlemen and rent-seeking corporations (most of the existing welfare programs) or middle classes who don't believe they (or perhaps their neighbours) are sufficiently competent to make their own retirement investments or choose the right health insurance plan for themselves (ACA, medicare, SS, etc...). I find the various paternalistic mandates (SS, ACA) to be more onerous than payments for the truly poor (some of whom as result of structural unemployment).

Replacing programs like SNAP and medicaid with a cash handout aren't going to increase existing tax rates, which seem to be the equilibrium as far as taxation goes -- higher taxes on the upper brackets (or on investment income) won't be accepted by the elites with political power, while increasing taxes in the lower brackets won't gather sufficient votes. They might actually decrease the tax rates by reducing bureaucracy.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#270

Post by notahacker »

dnautics wrote: post #251
notahacker wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technological progress is exactly why we have an inflationary money system. Those who invest their money in the technological progress, has a bigger pot of money to aim for so their expected ROI isn't, on average, negative after adjusting for risk and tranasction costs. The person who works to create it can push for a pay rise that keeps pace with inflation. The person that buries their money in a whole in the ground…

No. That may be a post hoc justification/apologetic for the status quo, but that is definitely not a historically correct model for why we have inflation. In the roman era, there was inflation caused by the cupidity of the emperor who debauched the gold coins by cutting them with silver. In the American revolution we had inflation because the colonies desperately needed to raise funds for the war effort and the Briti…

The reason we have inflation in developed countries today today has literally nothing to do with the historic phenomenon of monetary authorities debasing coinage to pay for stuff, and everything to do with an economic system where "money" in circulation is largely privately created credit, with monetary authorities intervening to maintain a target level of inflation. Central banks are not run by Roman Emperors, they are run by economists - who derive no benefit from inflating a currency - and one of the few things virtually all economists agree with is that inflation can be too high, but also too low. May I suggest their beliefs about the role of inflation in the current system are better understood by reading what they have to say, just as one would better understand Chinese foreign policy without focusing on "historically correct" reference to Genghis Khan, the Opium Wars or the Cultural Revolution.
Post reply on HN