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

251–260 of 761 posts

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#251

Post by ekianjo »

marcosdumay wrote: post #216
ekianjo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? If disposable income increases for everyone, then there is an incentive to increase prices everywhere (including accommodation which is a significant part of monthly expenses), thus negating the positive effects of basic income. Then you know what would happen next... people…

Basic income means taxing people with income, and redistributing it to everybody. Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible?

> Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible?

The government could be printing money to make that possible, as well, instead of financing it through taxes only.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#252

Post by ahomescu1 »

hahainternet wrote: post #235
ahomescu1 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's an excessive over-simplification of my point. And to answer you: no, he doesn't become "worthless" to me (whatever that may mean), but I will stop paying him for his services.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#253

Post by FD3SA »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #149
rjtavares wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current mess is not only poorly implemented, it's based on false assumptions. We just need to stop pretending there's something wrong with people not being able to find a decent job, and stop punishing them.

You should also look at it from the other side: if I have a job that I work at 8-10 hours a day (and might not do if I didn't need the money), how am I "punishing" the other guy by not sharing the fruits of my labor with him for nothing in return? EDIT: To put it another way: if I'm a productive worker and have a job, I am "rewarded" by working for a boss (taking orders from him/her), and having to turn over 35-50% o…

The correct answer here is that you are not valuing your opportunity costs highly enough. If you are working 8-10 hours a day, you should be making an incredible surplus. People in ancient societies worked less, and managed to survive just fine. With the technology available today, you could be making millions of dollars of surplus value, if given the opportunity. All you would need is the time to experiment with your skill set, until you found a niche where your work generates a very large surplus.

Paradoxically, you would gain much more from a BI than someone who is currently living in poverty, because you would be free to extract the maximum potential from your hard work and talent.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#254

Post by JoshTriplett »

cbhl wrote: post #237
jiggy2011 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

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

There's a local "maximum" in the policy evolution process here, due to the difficulty of changing umpteen things at once. I always vote against any new policy proposal that says "we're going to add this tax and remove this other one" unless both happen in the same bill, because otherwise the removal tends to not happen. (For instance, "replacing" an income tax with a sales tax in two steps can easily fail at step 2 and end up with both.)

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#255

Post by dragonwriter »

tomphoolery wrote: post #64

Providing a basic income for all people, regardless of their merit to the society as a whole, is problematic. It's not enough to just hand over a couple hundred dollars to someone and say "have fun". We need to ensure everyone is getting the proper basic services, first. I'm talking about shelter, food, water, and a basis for living comfortably. We have the resources to do this, today. We just don't have the distribu…

There's some cases where basic services provided centrally at no cost make sense (though in many cases there is room for fairly endless debate over whether a basic services model or a basic income model where the services are purchased makes more sense.)

I think that you overstate the scope of things for which a basic services model is better; really, I think all of the things on your list are things where BI works better than basic services.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#256

Post by ekianjo »

jgj wrote: post #207
ekianjo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? If disposable income increases for everyone, then there is an incentive to increase prices everywhere (including accommodation which is a significant part of monthly expenses), thus negating the positive effects of basic income. Then you know what would happen next... people…

Free from wage slavery, citizens receiving basic income could spend time producing their own commodities. They could learn trades not to use in a career, but to reduce their dependency on others. I also think the premise that prices would rise and create a GBI death-spiral is far from guaranteed. With a GBI behind them, citizens could potentially be more likely to start their own businesses, increasing competition an…

> wage slavery

Having a wage, is by definition, not being treated like a slave. Plus, in most countries you get a wage AND you are free to look for jobs everywhere around you, and to get them. Unless you mean that the concept of having to do something to earn a living is actually akin to slavery, but I'd rather say it's common sense. Even from a personal standpoint, most people would not really feel good to be paid to do nothing. At least where I come from.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#257

Post by javajosh »

FD3SA wrote: post #180

Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society, which accounts for inherent human limitations and behaviors. Evolution is an extremely feckless game, and thus far we've been trapped by its whims, endlessly struggling in a free-for-all battle for survival. In order to transcend and escape our evolutionary origins, we will first and foremost need to understand ourselves. How we came to be, what behavi…

>...I believe humanity will transcend into a new golden age.

I was amused by my brain which, perhaps inevitably, read "golden age" with a distinct Alpha Centauri voice.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#258

Post by orthecreedence »

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…

> bureaucracy won't voluntarily reduce

I think that's one of the big ones. Bureaucracies tend to become living, breathing organisms who's sole purpose is to self-preserve and grow. A basic income in the US would threaten so many different agencies and organizations within (and without) the government, that the response would be fierce, assuming you could even get it anywhere near the government. With people's anti-communist attitude here, it's hard to get any ideas out there that don't fall in line with the current capitalist-imperialist system. Even if something isn't anywhere near communism, you get fox news calling it communism and in a few short minutes half the country hates it.

I think the only way this will ever happen in the US is if a bunch of other countries do it first, successfully. Then, after maybe 20 years, the US will implement a shittier, watered down version that accomplishes 1/10 of the original idea but with staggering overhead.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#259

Post by stormbrew »

MetricMike wrote: post #186
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?

Most implementations I've read lean towards it being similar to a negative tax (there are other possible implementations out there). So if you file $0 income, you get a $10,000 credit/refund. If you make $200,000 income, you pay $20,000 in taxes. So taxes on the top brackets pay for basic income on the lowest brackets, with the understanding that the impact isn't changing much for most people because we already have…

Negative income tax and basic income are best seen, imo, as separate concepts. Basic income is simply giving everyone the same amount of money and then probably taxing it as income in itself, with the base level personal exemption being at least the amount given out.

I'm of the opinion that a negative income tax is a bad idea simply because it really does create the situation where the next dollar you earn on the low end can make things worse for you (or at least not improve them). Why even bother working at a low level job if what they pay you just comes out of your stipend? This is a problem mentioned with the current programs as well, where getting a job can get you cut off from the things that were saving your life, even if the job pays shit.

Pure basic income, on the other hand, means that every dollar you earn increases your income.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#260

Post by javajosh »

AJ007 wrote: post #234
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…

>Felons/criminals, probably 3%

You imply that they shouldn't get BI. Perhaps, though, the incentive for criminality would be less with BI? Especially if good drugs (particularly pot) are legal and cheap.

Post reply on HN