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

301–310 of 761 posts

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#301

Post by bryanlarsen »

tsotha wrote: post #220
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.

>Because you don't live in a vacuum. Our society makes it possible so that you can earn a living. This argument doesn't hold water for me. Society makes it possible for everyone to earn a living, so people who aren't doing it should start.

except for kids, seniors, the mentally ill, the physically disabled, et cetera.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#302

Post by stormbrew »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #291
stormbrew wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Huh? Nobody's suggesting a 100% rate. Every dollar you earn increases your income with a negative income tax, it just doesn't increase it by a full dollar. It might be 90 cents. Still a fairly strong incentive to work.

Fair enough, but at the lowest income levels every cent counts. I don't see any benefit in it. It seems like people prefer it because of a similar misunderstanding about the alternative (that the basic income isn't taxed for people who earn significantly more, thus its price tag is exactly N people * N dollars).

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#303

Post by stonith »

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…

Isn't excluding criminals likely to reduce what is often touted as a positive effect of BI: reducing crime by giving people what they need to survive?

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#304

Post by rdl »

It would be fun to start this with an epsilon per year per person basic income (maybe global, and higher ones per nation or other group). Add to it as you wish.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#305

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

Land may exist in reasonably fixed quality, but real estate in the relevant sense (e.g., housing units) do not exist "in fixed quantity", and more money chasing them around causes more of them to be available, just like most goods. You'd expect some increase in market clearing price, sure, but also an increase in units of housing "sold" in the market (including rentals). Which is rather the point.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#306

Post by demoncore »

I just spent a year living in South Western France which is the most socialist part of France. (I'm a US citizen based here most of the time and I'm a CEO).

If you want to see the result of wealth redistribution, go check it out yourself. You'll meet young men and women in the prime of their lives who spend their entire day in a coffee shop and later a bar, sipping a beverage discussing art, culture, poetry, how business - all business exploits the proletariat, and how government owes them even more than the roughly $25K per year they get for doing nothing. Then go talk to the entrepreneurs in the same district and learn where those wages originate and what it costs business both in taxes and their ability to find and retain staff.

I can assure you that the restful classes are alive and well and are waiting for this idea to take root and flower into contempt for innovation, entrepreneurship and hard work with a massive drain on those who do contribute.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#307

Post by orthecreedence »

tsotha wrote: post #220
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.

>Because you don't live in a vacuum. Our society makes it possible so that you can earn a living. This argument doesn't hold water for me. Society makes it possible for everyone to earn a living, so people who aren't doing it should start.

> so people who aren't doing it should start

But they won't. It's safe to say that lazy people are good at being lazy and will find a way to be lazy no matter what system they're in.

Pretending we can build a system that eradicates laziness in an exercise in futility. It's better to accept the fact that a fixed percentage of people are only going to take while most others give (and take), and stop wasting the enormous overhead trying to figure out which is which.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#308

Post by wycx »

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…

There are many effective ways to limit real estate speculation and thus price inflation. Land taxes, un-restrictive planning regimes, capital gains taxes on real estate sales, strong tenant protection laws, loan to value and loan to disposable income ratios, margin calls on mortgages for investment properties.

Society has to make a fundamental choice about whether they want shelter to be primarily shelter or primarily an asset for speculation.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#309

Post by conanbatt »

conanbatt wrote: post #83
whyme wrote: post #48

Obviously this is not a new idea... Twenty years ago I sat around with college mates, in Canada, listing the merits of the "Guaranteed Income" and quite frankly I still support the idea today. If you took all the salaries, property and operations cost associated with distributing old age security, welfare, disability, unemployment wages etc etc, it would probably pay for much of the cost associated with the Guarantee…

I agree with this sentiment, and money is without a doubt a huge obstacle in properly reassigning and redistributing resources. It allows hoarding more than any other asset, being so abstract and thats a fundamental flaw in its mechanics.

Negative karma? how come

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#310

Post by mistermann »

damonpace wrote: post #296
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…

This basic premise(MVP) exists on American Indian reservations, quasi-sovereign states. The BIA and the Tribe distributes an equal share of funds from either the government or gaming to each tribal member. As long as you can prove you are a tribe member, you get the funds. Feel free to visit any of these reservations and see the kind of lives they live. I grew up surrounded by them in Arizona and went to school with…

I suspect that situation has more variables involved than simply a minimum basic income.
Post reply on HN