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

471–480 of 761 posts

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#471

Post by cdash »

paulhauggis wrote: post #387
lilsunnybee wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if they were colluding with one another. Lower prices remain attractive to consumers even when they have extra cash to spend. Reasonably priced goods would still win out in volume of sales over unnecessarily high-priced goods.

"Only if they were colluding with one another" If everyone knows they can get basic income for doing nothing, the majority will not choose a job that pays less than or equal to the basic income. This means businesses will have to increase wages (and costs of goods and services). No colluding necessary..just economics.

You don't lose your basic income just because you get a job. Everyone gets it.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#472

Post by nnq »

One problem with BI is the potential future overpopulation problem making it unsustainable even for rich countries. The solution is quite simple though, but I don't guess people would accept it: if you have more than two children per family, you loose the BI (forever, for live, you are never eligible for it again, even if your children die).

A bigger one is the global context: the retoric in poorer countries could very easily get to "those rich smucks with their strong army and everything have so much money they can even pay the slackers who do nothing! while we are milked by their corporations and can't even afford clean water for all!" and then you know what happens next...

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#473

Post by orthecreedence »

nirnira wrote: post #450
orthecreedence wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you equating liberty to redistribution of wealth, or liberty to "I'M NOT PAYING MORE TAXES SO FREELOADERS CAN SIT AROUND WATCHING TV?" I don't see what you're trying to add.

Liberty means allowing people to make their own decisions about how they live and use their resources, as long as they're not infringing on the liberty of others. It's a universal concept, not just tied to your vilification of wealthy conservative people. Thanks for the nasty stereotype though.

> Thanks for the nasty stereotype though.

Sure, anytime.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#474

Post by bcheung »

api wrote: post #417
bcheung wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have heard of communism, right?

That's not why communism didn't work. Communism didn't work because they tried to micromanage every aspect of the economy. It was central planning that failed, not guaranteed minimums. A guaranteed minimum income without economic micromanagement or other central planning is what I'd like to see tried.

I lived in Russia for several years. Communism didn't work because people didn't have a strong incentive to work. They also lost sight of how to efficiently organize resources.

I can't tell you how many times I walked into a store and the clerk was reading a book and when I tried to ask a question they just ignored me or shrugged me off without bothering to even try to help. Sometimes they will flat out lie about whether they have something in stock to get you out of the store.

Another example, I can go to a market and there are 5 old ladies in a row all selling potatoes. I can't find any carrots or onions and so I have to walk another mile to a different market to get them. Instead, one of them could sell carrots at a premium so I don't have to walk so far, and another onions.

That's communism.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#475

Post by pgeorgi »

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…

some MVPs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome in Canada

http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/basic-income-schemes-28-... report on all kinds of experiments in Africa

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#476

Post by bcheung »

You can't have wealth without creating it through labor. You can see this when you isolate the abstractions society has and go to the core semantics.

Take a population of people. Stick them on a remote island. Then institute this measure. Where does this income come from? If you just print money, what is there to buy if nobody has produced it? If it is from taxation, then if you produce something and others just take it why would you bother producing when it is much easier just to take from others like everyone else?

I would argue, and history seems to show this. That a society prospers as a whole the more they reward hard work and allow the people to enjoy the fruits of their own labors.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#477

Post by ahomescu1 »

buzaga41 wrote: post #470
ahomescu1 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What box is that? I can't contradict or agree with you unless you're actually making an argument.

The discussion, and the topic, talks about a change that isn't so radical but that could improve things in society as a whole. But you're still talking in 'me' vs 'they' terms, and 'the criminals' and 'threats', mocking 'the unfortunate'... This is not a conversation for the 'what about me?' mindset. The whole of this discussion(also to the other replies) you're only talking about yourself, I don't want to talk basel…

Society is made of many individuals, you can't disconnect a discussion about society from one about individuals, including "me". If you make high-level society-wide decisions that trample on individuals' rights, that also has society-wide implications (even if it's just a minority of individuals). What you're proposing is a tyranny of the majority, where the opinion of a single individual is discounted "for the greater good".

On the other hand, I believe society is just a big group of individuals, so "what about me?" does matter (in fact, it's maybe the most important question in all of society).

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#478

Post by thehenster »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #468
dojomouse wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that the remaining $4trillion is lost. It's not. It goes to other people who will spend it on other things worth, in total, $4tril... even though some of them may need it less. The benefit they derive from the increased flexibility that $20k could easily exceed $20k by itself - you've probably seen the research on how people make bad decisions when they are financially unstable. And all that benefit i…

I don't understand. Can you provide a back of the envelope calculation to explain your thoughts? For a BI to be bad from the perspective you're talking about it has to actively make people less productive. You mean like a 10% reduction in work hours? https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...

It’s the redistribution that you’re missing.

300M * $20k does equal $6 trillion but it is returned to the tax payer who stumped up the $6 trillion.

The 50M who aren’t contributing tax represent an actual cost of $1 trillion. The remaining $5 trillion is redistributed.

250M people contribute $20k. 300M people receive $16.6k.

300M * $20k - $6 trillion == $0

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#479

Post by dredmorbius »

NoPiece wrote: post #300

Question for the liberals who support this. Would you honestly be willing to get rid of social security, welfare, unemployment, earned income tax credit, food stamps, student loans, pell grants, and all the other entitlement programs? If so, I might support it, even if it cost more, just to get rid of all the government social engineering.

NB: Social Security is arguably fairly close to how a basic income system might work:

• It's not means-tested. It's available to (nearly all) citizens. Exceptions include some workers classified under the Railroad Retirement Act, and the self-employed.

• It's funded from taxes assessed over your working life. Actually, BI would likely take this one step further, as there's an income cap to SSI contributions. Lifting that cap would make SSI more BI-like.

As to the rest of your points: with universal healthcare, you'd eliminate the need for means-tested medical assistance. With universal higher education, you'd eliminate PELL Grants (already pretty limited -- most college financial aid is now in the form of loans, with their own class of problems). BI would directly address the goals of welfare and food stamps, and EITC is effectively BI in limited dress.

I'd be open for programs which do address specific remaining needs: say, treating drug addiction as a public health, not a criminal, problem (though drugs trafficking might still fall under the latter in cases), and other programs addressing those with specific needs (health, disability, etc.). But yes, you'd be wiping out a large class of present means-tested programs.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#480

Post by dredmorbius »

yetanotherphd wrote: post #411

No, it's time for something proven: Australian style welfare. Maybe in 50 years time, it will be time for basic income. The problem with giving people free money, is it reduces the incentive to work. Australia, and other countries, have introduced systems with minimal requirements for receiving welfare: making an effort to find a job, based on simple objective criteria.

Links / details?
Post reply on HN