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

It Is Time For Basic Income

hawkins.ventures

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 761 posts

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#231

Post by saraid216 »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #189

I have a proposal. Those who favor basic income should pick one or two recipients who are deserving of assistance, and open their own pockets and provide the money. The recipients will be glad and thankful, the donors will feel they have moved society toward utopia, and the rest of us can just get on with our lives without suffering the burdens that an additional entitlement would impose. I say this not to incite a f…

I do this. The main problem I've found is that the individuals are overly grateful and ashamed of having needed the assistance. It frays the friendship more than a little bit; it's not so much that it becomes the breaking point, but it weakens our ability to treat each other as equals, because, and this is the important point:

Because I know they needed the help, and they know I know. This makes a significant difference to how people interact. One of the nice things about basic income is that, if I were depending on it for my livelihood, I would not have to tell anyone.

I would be allowed to keep my dignity.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#232

Post by dragonwriter »

gizmo686 wrote: post #177
fishtoaster wrote: post #163

I haven't read much on BI, so I'm sure this has already been answered already, but: how do the numbers add up? The US poverty line for a single person is $11k. For simplicity, let's say BI gives everyone in the US $10k per year. Times 313.9 million, that's $3.1 trillion per year. The US government spent, overall, $3.45 trillion in 2013. How would we be able to afford basic income?

I can think of three sane approaches. First, BI does not necessarily need to be above the poverty line. We can also go to a progressive BI, which may better be describe as a negative income tax, where the poor get more than the rich. And we can increase taxes.

> We can also go to a progressive BI, which may better be describe as a negative income tax, where the poor get more than the rich.

That's called a "means-tested social benefit program", and is one of the thing BI advocates see it as replacing (we have plenty of those now) -- one of the main problems they see is that such programs create perverse incentives, since they reduce the marginal value of additional income to the poor, since the additional income reduces the benefit from the social benefit program. That perverse incentive is one of the things BI is proposed to cure.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#233

Post by ahomescu1 »

rjtavares wrote: post #192
ahomescu1 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are not, but society is an organism with more than you in it, and if he's thrown into the bin because he's can't make it in it the guy may think it's fair to take it from you... I already had a similar discussion on Slashdot recently. Taking other people's money by force is, IMHO, theft. My question then isn't why it would be OK for the guy, but why does theft become OK for society? Why are you arguing that ste…

People like you scare me. I can't even understand that point of view, and I don't think we can have a productive argument if we don't share a basic understanding of what a society is. Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

> Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

I'm not arguing that "taxes are theft". I'm arguing that giving money to poor people so they don't attack me is theft. buzaga was saying that if I/we don't "take care of the unfortunate", they'll decide to take our money/stuff by force. Sounds like a veiled threat to "give them money, or else..." That is theft, in my opinion.

I'm perfectly fine with taxes as long as they go to things that benefit everyone equally, including me (like roads, schools, police and courthouses).

EDIT: Also, please point out where I said (or implied) that "taxes are theft". You completely misread what I wrote, therefore I have to agree that we can't have a productive argument.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#234

Post by AJ007 »

fishtoaster wrote: post #163

I haven't read much on BI, so I'm sure this has already been answered already, but: how do the numbers add up? The US poverty line for a single person is $11k. For simplicity, let's say BI gives everyone in the US $10k per year. Times 313.9 million, that's $3.1 trillion per year. The US government spent, overall, $3.45 trillion in 2013. How would we be able to afford basic income?

Some adjustments:

People under 18, 25%

Felons/criminals, probably 3%

Removing social security, medicare, and most other government social welfare programs should remove a giant chunk of the federal budget. I think if you re-do these numbers that will appear a lot more affordable.

Proponents of BI say it can't exclude anyone. That is silly. Things we consider the most basic fundamental rights: voting, free speech, are restricted for large groups such as convicted felons. It would be reasonable that anyone who fails to conform with government rules of accepted social behavior should also be excluded from BI.

The more serious problem with BI is how the dollars flow toward prices. If you make a blanket distribution of money to a large group of money the end result may just be price inflation in the goods that exist in a limited quantity, most specifically real estate.

I think BI is a fairly poor idea. But, being realistic I am trying to imagine what it would look like in use. All I see is a tool for governments to control large segments of lower middle class citizens. That may well be the goal.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#235

Post by hahainternet »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #167
assface wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you don't live in a vacuum. Our society makes it possible so that you can earn a living. You're just paying back for having that opportunity to those that are less fortunate.

Those that are less fortunate aren't also the ones that make it possible for me to earn a living. Police, teachers, firemen, road workers and some others do all that, work hard at it, and I appreciate their contribution. They're not the ones we're talking about here.

As soon as a policeman gets fired, he becomes worthless to you?

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#236

Post by PeterisP »

mekael wrote: post #139
atom-morgan wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...that eliminates money all together You can't eliminate money. It's a natural creation of human interaction. Even prisoners have money.

If we can create , then we can destroy just as easily.

It's not enough to 'destroy' money, you'd have to prevent it from reappearing. Since it's easy for communities to create 'money', destroying it won't bring any freedom or radical change; just disruption.

It's just as with anarchy - you can destroy government, but you can't prevent "government"(s) from springing up to replace them, and usually worse than the ones before.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#237

Post by cbhl »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #175
kalvin wrote: post #164

I think if you could see close-up how these systems work now, you'd be convinced that it's completely not worth the cost in practice to try and figure out who "deserves" each of the many, many special benefits/allowances/exemptions available (plus it's incredibly difficult for potential recipients to figure out what they're eligible for, plus it imposes those costs on the people who aren't eligible, but end up having…

I'm not convinced that Basic income would necessarily deal with edge cases all that much better. A simple basic income implies that you provide everybody with the same minimum income and they cut back on public services etc to the minimum since in theory people can now buy what they want. But there are problems in that not everyone can live off the same amount of money. This is especially true with disabled or very i…

I suspect that if the US implemented basic income, people would still expect government-funding mandatory primary and high schools.

For the particular example of disabled or very ill people, universal government-sponsored health care might help, although that has its own side-effects that are perhaps undesirable. (I believe that people are more incentivized to do medical research in the US than in Canada, in part because Canada's nationalized health care encourages people to stick with existing, inexpensive treatments in most cases.)

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#238

Post by whyme »

pdonis wrote: post #181
whyme wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it matters which. We are potentially going to go from 7 billion people to 9 billion people. At the 7 billion mark we would need 5 planets worth of resources if everyone were to consume at the level Americans do, so where does that leave us is a few decades while the poorer nations are evolving at such a rapid pace? Ideally we get engineers and scientists to start with x amount of resources and x number…

At the 7 billion mark we would need 5 planets worth of resources if everyone were to consume at the level Americans do You're assuming that we are already making maximal use of all available resources. We aren't; we're not even close. The reason the "poorer nations" are poor is politics, not lack of resources.

What indication did I give you that leads you to believe I'm making that assumption?

I didn't make any claim to suggest why poor nations are poor, did I? I simply suggested that as poor nations evolve, their people will consume more.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#240

Post by cbhl »

adekok wrote: post #229

I'm reading the comments, and surprised at what's missing. What happened to the business approach? The US government is delivering a large number of products with wildly varying costs, efficiencies, and price points. e.g. unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. There is a proposal is to replace those products with only one. The new product fills (mostly) the same need as the existing ones. It will do so at less cost…

It's worth noting that Ontario spent a lot of money to introduce photo health ID, because of the fraud under the old system (including people who would border-hop to take advantage of OHIP while living primarily in the US).
Post reply on HN