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

451–460 of 761 posts

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#451

Post by dojomouse »

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…

Basic income doesn't have to be all or nothing. You can supplement with targeted aid. Just should be able to get away with a lot less effort since you only need to cover the obvious extreme cases.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#452

Post by drawkbox »

stormbrew wrote: post #314
orthecreedence wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the type of attitude that hinders progress, and for no apparent reason. News flash: you're already rewarding people who sit around doing nothing with your tax dollars. GBI does the same, but at reduced overhead. Starting a business is hard. Starting a business while working full time is near impossible. It's not about laziness or incompetence. You just don't get the same business opportunities you do when wor…

> the country doesn't work like it did in the 50s. No, in the 50s (in the US) basically every working age man who survived fighting in the war had been given the opportunity to get a free education and probably even a discount mortgage[1] on a house while the government was building what might have been the biggest and most extensive road system[2] since the roman empire. And then was born one of the most productive…

We had a 20 year advantage after WWII though, we were one of the Allies on the winning side that took the least amount of damage. We were able to do these because everyone owed us money then and we just won the war. All of our competitor companies even on the Allies were battered and their industries took decades to rebuild on top of owing us lots of money.

So we had massive infusion from '45 to the mid-70's. Germany in fact just finished paying off the WW debt in 2010. After winning WWII we had a much different structure and trusted the government doing things, we couldn't do anything like that today with our divided team-based political climate that mimics the WWE.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#453

Post by nirnira »

tim333 wrote: post #90
belleruches wrote: post #28

I'm in favor of this. Do we have any examples where this has worked before?

You could argue the system in the UK provides similar payments and could be called a basic income system if you rebrand it. Basically the system comes out roughly as: Zero earned income. You get about £60-200 from the state per week so lets call this a £60 basic income. Typical unemployed. Annual income £12K. No tax and no subsidies. We could rebrand as £60/wk basic income = 3K/yr and and 25% tax on the 12K. Typical…

Sorry, you must have misread Belleruches' post. He asked for examples where this has worked.

Last I heard the UK was a depressed shithole with a stagnant economy. Hardly a glorious example of the success of such policies.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#455

Post by msellout »

bcheung wrote: post #442
msellout wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these magical ways to hedge against inflation that wealthy have access to and middle class don't? By definition, inflation equates to higher salaries for the middle class.

Commodities, stocks, options, derivatives, and real estate are the most common. But I think they aren't limited to the wealthy per say. The wealthy just know much more about them and have higher percentages of their net worth in these types of things. You can make money if the market goes up, you can make money if the market goes down, and you can make money if the market doesn't go anywhere.

Inflation means higher salaries, which is highly correlated with middle class net worth.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#456

Post by dragonwriter »

stcredzero wrote: post #386
dragonwriter wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? Yes, it would be expected to shift the demand curve somewhat, because you'd be redistributing income to people with a higher propensity to spend, increasing demand. > 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…

If you tie it to a dedicated revenue stream and set the benefit amount based on the revenue divided among the eligible population, you establish a control mechanism. How do you keep some demagogue from campaigning on abolishing this mechanism and just giving people more money?

> How do you keep some demagogue from campaigning on abolishing this mechanism and just giving people more money?

You don't. People can run with any platform they want.

Of course, pretty much this idea has been raised against even the idea of democratic government for centuries -- that if the masses could just vote for people to give them money, they would. Strangely, that doesn't seem to happen.

There'll be plenty of people that understand the problems with that idea and have self-interest in communicating those problems -- and they will be disproportionately the people with the resources to effectively sell the idea. Frankly, I'd be more worried about the system being eroded by people campaigning to limit the dedicated revenue stream than by abandoning limiting controls. (Not that I necessary think that method of control is necessary in the first place, just that its an available option.)

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#457

Post by nirnira »

api wrote: post #441
nirnira wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Communism didn't work because they tried to micromanage every aspect of the economy. No, sorry, you're completely wrong. Communism didn't work because it destroyed every incentive for industrious, honest labour, supplanting healthy competitive free-market economics with a landscape of scheming and parasitism as people scrambled to exploit one another. Communism failed (and will fail every single time another stupid…

I look forward to the day when this ideology goes the way of Communism.

Great, I look forward to the day when you read The Gulag Archipelago and a first-year economics textbook and realise that you're talking out your ass. Maybe throw in some Hayek while you're at it. Good luck!

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#458

Post by bcheung »

msellout wrote: post #455
bcheung wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commodities, stocks, options, derivatives, and real estate are the most common. But I think they aren't limited to the wealthy per say. The wealthy just know much more about them and have higher percentages of their net worth in these types of things. You can make money if the market goes up, you can make money if the market goes down, and you can make money if the market doesn't go anywhere.

Inflation means higher salaries, which is highly correlated with middle class net worth.

It's definitely correlated but not 1 to 1. Wealthy people will use leverage though. Effectively their r-value is > 1.0. With middle class it might be around 0.6. The middle class still loses some as their salaries do go up but not as fast. Also, you usually need to quit and go to another job. The wealthy have more control and options.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#459

Post by sans-serif »

stcredzero wrote: post #384
wozniacki wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us not delude ourselves into thinking any healthcare system is self-contained and self-sustaining, equipped to deal with all the needs of its citizenry. Most European nations ( and Canada, Australia & New Zealand ) are great at dispensing - what can be termed as - "subsistence medicine." Most ailments, procedures and surgeries are handled quite well, although - it has to be said - a tad frugally. ( It is not unco…

So let's charge these rich people coming over here for premium care a bit extra and redistribute subsistence care to those traditionally not covered.

This is so appalling. If your wife is in labor and needs to rush to the hospital, the cab driver ought to charge you outrageously because you're richer than him?

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#460

Post by ahlatimer »

stormbrew wrote: post #302
bryanlarsen wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Fair enough, but at the lowest income levels every cent counts. I don't see any benefit in it.

Isn't that directly contradicting the point you made earlier? If every cent counts at the lower level, then even earning 90 cents on the dollar extra is still plenty incentive to attempt to earn more.

Post reply on HN