Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 99 posts

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#11

Post by aninhumer »

jnbiche wrote: post #3

Where true basic income differs from this experiment by Canada is that true basic income should be for every adult, regardless of income, race, marital status, sexuality, etc. Not just for poor people, as with Mincome in this Canadian town. A few arguments for: 1) It becomes a defacto emergency lifeline when a ostensibly middle class person loses their job or suffers an extremely expensive illness. In the US, it can…

>this means that disability should be eliminated if this passes

That depends whether you think the point of disability benefit is to allow disabled people to survive, or to allow them have a comparable quality of life to an able bodied person.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#12

Post by knodi123 »

lkbm wrote: post #4
mchanson wrote: post #2

Hope we start experimenting with this in the US also. Maybe at a state level.

There's the Permanent Fund Dividend in Alaska, though it only hit $3269 its peak year, and that was with a bump from a budget surplus.

yeah, but that one was neither designed as a social safety net, nor is it big enough to function as one. It's neat, but it's so small that it's basically apples and oranges.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#14

Post by ad_hominem »

Zikes wrote: post #7
mchanson wrote: post #2

Hope we start experimenting with this in the US also. Maybe at a state level.

It would have to be in an extremely liberal area. Socialism is still a four letter word in the US, and this is the epitome of socialist initiatives.

It seems like reducing socialism to me. Instead of the gov't hand-picking (centrally planning) benefactors of tax dollars, e.g. defense contractors or oil/ag subsidies, it's being returned to the people (and all the people - not just some according to their need or whatever).

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#15

Post by raisedbyninjas »

I don't understand the notion regarding feedback from participants in the experiment. Evelyn Forget said that opinions from respondents may skew positive because those with negative experiences would be less likely to reach out to her. I was under the impression that consumers with negative experiences provide feedback far more often than satisfied consumers. Has that been debunked or am I missing some factor?

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#16

Post by bradleyjg »

aninhumer wrote: post #11
jnbiche wrote: post #3

Where true basic income differs from this experiment by Canada is that true basic income should be for every adult, regardless of income, race, marital status, sexuality, etc. Not just for poor people, as with Mincome in this Canadian town. A few arguments for: 1) It becomes a defacto emergency lifeline when a ostensibly middle class person loses their job or suffers an extremely expensive illness. In the US, it can…

>this means that disability should be eliminated if this passes That depends whether you think the point of disability benefit is to allow disabled people to survive, or to allow them have a comparable quality of life to an able bodied person.

Which able bodied person? The idea behind some of our middle class social programs seems to be more in the nature of a climbing harness than a safety net. Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#17

Post by GauntletWizard »

ergothus wrote: post #6
intopieces wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this idea a lot, but what would stop goods/housing from rising in price to meet the influx of free money?

That was my initial response when I first heard this concept a few years ago, and the answer is somewhat surprising (Note: I'm not an economist, so please someone correct me if I get anything wrong here): 3 things can alter those prices: A change in supply, a change in demand, or general inflation/deflation. The supply doesn't inherently change in this plan, nor does demand (*assuming everyone is getting these goods…

If you think inflation's only source is 'printing money', you may not be qualified to speak on economic issues. Liquidity, the monetary supply, and the cost of exchange are quite a bit more complex than that, and far more prone to being manipulated and falling over, as both the Housing Crisis and Libor Scandal taught us.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#18

Post by eastbayjake »

Zikes wrote: post #7
mchanson wrote: post #2

Hope we start experimenting with this in the US also. Maybe at a state level.

It would have to be in an extremely liberal area. Socialism is still a four letter word in the US, and this is the epitome of socialist initiatives.

Actually I think a red state like Mississippi could be the proving ground. The argument from right-leaning groups like the Cato Institute is that BI would replace existing social welfare programs (SNAP, SSDI, HUD, etc.) and reduce the incentive for special interest groups to lobby for special programs and transfers. Everyone gets a check for the same amount, if you're wealthy then you owe more in taxes than your check is worth.

Those programs can get really costly in states with low economic growth and high poverty rates. The idea that we should just give poor people money instead of funding huge government programs (often with no metric for success beyond "number of people enrolled") would play well in many red states.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#19

Post by JonFish85 »

ad_hominem wrote: post #14
Zikes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have to be in an extremely liberal area. Socialism is still a four letter word in the US, and this is the epitome of socialist initiatives.

It seems like reducing socialism to me. Instead of the gov't hand-picking (centrally planning) benefactors of tax dollars, e.g. defense contractors or oil/ag subsidies, it's being returned to the people (and all the people - not just some according to their need or whatever).

It's probably an ever bigger problem than that. Regardless of liberal or conservative, if you want to raise taxes essentially across the board (which you'd have to do--even taking all of the wealth of "the 1%" would fund this project for maybe a year) you're going to have a really tough time convincing people that their taxes are going to be raised 500% or whatever it would end up being.

Just back-of-the envelope numbers, if 300 million Americans received $30k/yr, that's $9 trillion dollars per year that has to come from someplace. My guess would be that the majority of people would end up handing that $30k right back in the form of taxes. And at that point, it becomes an exercise in the government giving people money, then having to get it back via taxes, so then what is the point? Is it easier to give 10 people $10 or to give 100 people $10, then take $900 of it back?

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#20

Post by aninhumer »

bradleyjg wrote: post #16
aninhumer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this means that disability should be eliminated if this passes That depends whether you think the point of disability benefit is to allow disabled people to survive, or to allow them have a comparable quality of life to an able bodied person.

Which able bodied person? The idea behind some of our middle class social programs seems to be more in the nature of a climbing harness than a safety net. Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?

>Which able bodied person?

That can be debated, but I'd argue for somewhere around the median.

>Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?

I'm not sure what you mean? I'm just suggesting we might want a supplementary income for disabled people, since they don't have the option to supplement their basic income with a job.

Post reply on HN