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

671–680 of 761 posts

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#671

Post by eanzenberg »

nkoren wrote: post #604
eanzenberg wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you decide the "50M who actually 'need' it" with vastly less overhead? There is a cost to run the IRS and determine (correctly) peoples income. Furthermore, a 4k tax on 250M of the U.S. could be crippling to a good chunk of them. If your true point is redistribution of wealth, our tax system already does that and can do it more. But that's a different discussion..

You don't decide. The point of Basic Income is that it's unconditional and universal. If somebody can prove they're a citizen, they get the BI, no need to determine their income. As for a $4k tax being "crippling to a good chunk of them" -- no, you misunderstand the nature of BI. If we're paying $20k worth of BI in this scenario, then the mean income should be about $40k (since a good level for BI -- in basically any…

No.

Explain why after spending 10 years in school my tax burden should increase by 30k (making it an effective 60% rate not counting 10% sales tax in CA) to give to able bodied people who choose not to get off their ass. I guarantee you society is better off letting me keep what I earned rather than giving it to a completely untested individual. I didn't work my ass off for you.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#672

Post by eanzenberg »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #588
eanzenberg wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. BI would not provide increases to science nor art. It would dilute them. I get enough emails as it is from whacko's who think they've upturned Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, or created some perpetual motion machine. If society valued these people's output they would be financially rewarded already. There's already incentives in present society, called capitalism and competition! There's a reason why only a tin…

But the reality is that we don't NEED everybody to work, or soon won't. The comforts of life will become a civil right. What then? Old Puritan work ethic becomes obsolete. Any thoughts on 'right behavior' in a post-work economy?

We're not anywhere close to this. For this to even happen we need everyone who can work, to work, right now. Implementing BI will delay your utopia.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#673

Post by jgalt212 »

drcode wrote: post #555
jgalt212 wrote: post #126

The real problem is all the tax loopholes that almost exclusively benefit the upper/upper end of the income spectrum. I am looking at you carried interest loophole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest And the low rate dividends are taxed at. Dividends should be deducted at the corporate level as a cost, and taxed at the shareholder level as regular income.

Hey! This thread isn't meant for ideas that are sane and would actually improve things. Please move on to another thread.

b/c making the tax code more fair/logical would not improve things? your comment does not make sense.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#674

Post by sliverstorm »

sp332 wrote: post #489
sliverstorm wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their people will consume more, but their GDP will go up as well.

There are more resources than just money. Metals are in high demand already, and the prices have increased faster than anyone's GDP.

GDP does not mean your country produced $3B money. Notice it stands for gross domestic product. It's just measured in dollars.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#675

Post by TaulantRamabaja »

jes5199 wrote: post #603
TaulantRamabaja wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

incomethax already mentioned that this is essentially supplemental insurance. Basic Income is needed because while productivity increases the ownership of these productivity increases are centralizing in the hands of a few. Through system-effects these centralization are leading to further rent seeking than could have happened before. To give an example. It is game theoretically highly likely that there can only be o…

While I agree with you that rent-seekers have more concentrated wealth than us merely overpaid people, I don't know how to voluntarily separate those people from their money.

Land and money are most likely more efficiently taxable than almost anything else. Land doesn't move and property rights toward land are anyway only virtual claims within some sort of state ledger/database. Money as we know it exists only exclusively in the banking system which ultimately depends on central banking and centralized databases which can be taxed through demurrage. Demurrage has strong theoretical and practical support (1). So does Land value tax (2). Both have very positive anti-inflationary second order effects.

Other monopolies which can easily be taxed are natural resource extraction businesses.

Taxing modern monopolies such as Facebook or IP/Patent based businesses is a lot more tricky.

However, once you tax money, land, and monopolies, there is no sense in VAT, income tax, corporate tax or any of the other net-negative taxes. Minimum wage, to some extend even pregnancy leave would become obsolete. Laws protecting workers from getting fired could become more lose. This combined with some sort of UBI would extremely streamline the entire state apparatus and cut out the potential for power grabs by politicians. It would make business a lot more dynamic.

This scheme would also make business formation and entrepreneurship incredibly easy. Imagine 3 guys who have this great idea but can't just barricade themselves in a basement and built a product atm, with UBI they can. Once they have an actual company going they have easier access to capital because large capital holders have pressure to put it back into the economy and hold stocks rather than cash or land/property. Due to UBI more people have cash to actually buy their widget. The 3 founders could hire a lot easier because people can easily switch employers without the fear of red tape such as losing healthcare or some other nonsense. Hiring freelancers/consultants to help should also be a lot easier because there is going to be plenty of people out there who do it just for the projects and who don't have the pressure to get the next gig. Firing people would be easy because of the presumably easier employment laws. You might even be more competitive in the global marketplace because you just got rid of almost all taxes for the startup. You might only have to pay capital gains taxes on your stock gains, but you got a lot faster to that point without ANY risk. That's pretty much the wet dream of any VC, fast generation of companies, fast traction, access to further capital, easy hiring, super fast closure and multiples. Then the cycle begins again.

(1) http://www.lietaer.com/2010/03/the-worgl-experiment/ (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#676

Post by atom-morgan »

stcredzero wrote: post #383
PeterisP wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not enough to 'destroy' money, you'd have to prevent it from reappearing. If you can't get rid of drugs and prostitution, you won't be able to get rid of money.

History has shown that black markets are extremely resilient. Those two are great examples.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#677

Post by pdonis »

whyme wrote: post #669
pdonis wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how would you fix this problem?

How is not relevant. What's relevant is that society has to change to the point where it becomes possible and also a priority. I do believe, unfortunately[1], that the money system has to collapse first. 1. unfortunately in the sense that some hardship will follow suit.

How is not relevant.

In other words, you're punting. You say "society has to change" but you refuse to give any information about how it has to change. Other than saying you think the money system has to collapse first, which doesn't inspire confidence; to say that "some hardship will follow suit" is a massive understatement.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#678

Post by chongli »

fishy929 wrote: post #566
nkoren wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it would be cheaper to use a machine to build the bridge, give the money you save to the people, and then let them add value to society in some other way.

But the economy doesn't want them, or is unable to utilize them under present conditions. Eating what you have in front of you is still more filling than waiting (or letting someone wait) for that next, bigger meal. Of course, that also doesn't mean we shouldn't eliminate the incentives that contribute to inefficiencies being preferable. There are plenty of scenarios where people are employed to dig a proverbial hole…

But the economy doesn't want them, or is unable to utilize them under present conditions.

Capitalist corporations don't want/are unable to utilize them. Don't confuse them with the economy which is far more grandiose and inclusive than that. There are millions of ways for humans to create value for other people, most of which would be unprofitable for capitalist corporations to pursue.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#679

Post by whyme »

pdonis wrote: post #677
whyme wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is not relevant. What's relevant is that society has to change to the point where it becomes possible and also a priority. I do believe, unfortunately[1], that the money system has to collapse first. 1. unfortunately in the sense that some hardship will follow suit.

How is not relevant. In other words, you're punting. You say "society has to change" but you refuse to give any information about how it has to change. Other than saying you think the money system has to collapse first, which doesn't inspire confidence; to say that "some hardship will follow suit" is a massive understatement.

I don't see the how part as something worth getting into. It's also dependant on the technological advancements and makeup of society at the time change starts to happen.

It took centuries for the monetary systems to develop with many bumps a long the way. That will also need to happen in a resource managed economy.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#680

Post by pdonis »

whyme wrote: post #679
pdonis wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is not relevant. In other words, you're punting. You say "society has to change" but you refuse to give any information about how it has to change. Other than saying you think the money system has to collapse first, which doesn't inspire confidence; to say that "some hardship will follow suit" is a massive understatement.

I don't see the how part as something worth getting into. It's also dependant on the technological advancements and makeup of society at the time change starts to happen. It took centuries for the monetary systems to develop with many bumps a long the way. That will also need to happen in a resource managed economy.

I don't see the how part as something worth getting into.

In other words, you advocate a "resource managed economy" but you conveniently exempt yourself from having to explain how you are going to avoid having it suck the way the Soviet Union sucked. Pardon me for not getting all excited about society spending centuries in that quagmire. For all the problems our current money economies have, they are still way better than the Soviet Union.

Post reply on HN