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

Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 212 posts

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#141

Post by learc83 »

MCRed wrote: post #135
conanbatt wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing is decided mostly by supply and demand not by will. Your rent doesnt increase when you get a payraise and your landlord finds out about it. Food is a very competitive industry, and unless you are suggesting that to keep it balanced we need some people to not eat, its unlikely that people spending more money on food will raise food prices to a point where it is unattainable. I dont get this "prices go up" argu…

Yes, it's called demand. And inflation is an example of it, you increase the money supply, then there are more dollars chasing a given commodity-- more demand for that commodity per dollar, or looked at the other way, more supply of dollars relate to that commodity. If we paid for this basic income via inflation -- increasing the money supply-- the result is that, for instance, food would go up. Not so much that it i…

>If we paid for this basic income via inflation -- increasing the money supply

No one here is arguing that a basic income should be paid for through inflation.

There is a difference between inflation and income redistribution.

>but it will go up a bit more than the net effect of the basic income, wiping it out

Yes, if we paid for it by inflation, but the argument is to pay for through some kind of income/wealth redistribution. Food should have basically the same effect, and you'll note that they haven't driven up the price of food a bit more than their net effect.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#142

Post by tinco »

alkonaut wrote: post #136
tinco wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I really like the idea of minimum income, elkanjos point has to be addressed. Just yesterday there was an article about trailer parks ownership. They will simply increase rent to what their clientele can afford. In the end you'll still be filling the deep pockets. Perhaps instead of providing minimum income or in addition to minimum income government should just compete in basic needs market. I.e. government…

> They will simply increase rent to what their clientele can afford I may be crazy but wouldn't one of the ideas of basic income be that, for example, more people would afford to not live in freaking trailer parks ? Depending on how it was funded, there should be less demand for large houses and more demand for small houses and apartments, meaning more such housing should be built (thereby reducing the demand for tra…

If anything it would increase the demand for trailer parks. The average rent of a trailer now if I read that article right is $400-$500, that's already half of your basic income. The income of someone who lives there is also around $1000/mo, so the only thing that would change is that there'd be more of them, so demand would increase and the rent would go up.

I can't tell you why trailer parks are a thing in the U.S. In The Netherlands poor people simply live in apartment complexes. Though those are equally depressing. I can't remember ever seeing a serious apartment complex in the U.S. though. Only downtown with rich people in them. Perhaps I'm biased and have only seen richer parts.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#143

Post by MCRed »

learc83 wrote: post #141
MCRed wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's called demand. And inflation is an example of it, you increase the money supply, then there are more dollars chasing a given commodity-- more demand for that commodity per dollar, or looked at the other way, more supply of dollars relate to that commodity. If we paid for this basic income via inflation -- increasing the money supply-- the result is that, for instance, food would go up. Not so much that it i…

>If we paid for this basic income via inflation -- increasing the money supply No one here is arguing that a basic income should be paid for through inflation. There is a difference between inflation and income redistribution. >but it will go up a bit more than the net effect of the basic income, wiping it out Yes, if we paid for it by inflation, but the argument is to pay for through some kind of income/wealth redis…

Currently the government is spending via inflation far more than it takes in from taxes. So, if you want to add $3.6Trillion to the budget-- more than doubling it-- in order to give everyone in the USA $12k a year, it's going to have to come from somewhere.... and I don't think you can get that much by raising taxes. Since income from taxes is around $1.4T [1] you're talking about more than tripling those taxes.

For many people who are on a lower income that alone will wipe out much of the improvement from basic income.

And for people who have a lot more money, tripling income taxes will produce all kinds of consequences that lead to reduced tax income. (Laffer curve and all that.)

For instance, I would simply move to another country, form a corporation there, and earn all my income thru that corporation. And I'm not even rich, but I'm currently giving up %20 of my income-- you start taking %60 and I consider that slavery.

So, whether you intend to or not, you're talking about inflation... because you can't pass something like that size of a tax increase.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...

Edit- I see you edited. Yes, food stamps have driven up the price of food, this is one of the things that's making it hard for people to make ends meet-- food is too expensive, and even for poor people their taxes are too high, not just income but all the built in taxes that show up in the price of food, etc, because the companies have to pay taxes, they have to pay their employees more so their employees can pay taxes, etc.

Raising taxes raises prices too, because it raises costs for everybody.

Price increases come from many factors, including supply vs demand, but also cost of production. And all income and corporate taxes, as well as burdensome regulations, increase the cost of production.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#144

Post by MCRed »

vl wrote: post #134
SwellJoe wrote: post #62

If you'd told me ten years ago I would ever support a basic income, I would have laughed. My thought would have been, "People getting paid without doing anything? Absurd!" But, in the past few years I've thoroughly changed my mind on this, and a number of other fronts. I now fully support a basic income (though I think a debate needs to happen about how much that basic income ought to be and how it ought to be funded…

I supported guaranteed basic income as well, but then I read this article and it suggested to tax me more. I'm firmly in tax less, not more camp.

I lived outside the USA for 6 years. There's definitely a cost to doing so- for instance, not having Amazon or the inexpensive goods we often have. But that cost is less than a doubling of my taxes. A basic income as proposed in the article, as I understand it, would triple income taxes. (or have the same effect via inflation if they just print the money.)

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#145

Post by noonespecial »

learc83 wrote: post #141
MCRed wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's called demand. And inflation is an example of it, you increase the money supply, then there are more dollars chasing a given commodity-- more demand for that commodity per dollar, or looked at the other way, more supply of dollars relate to that commodity. If we paid for this basic income via inflation -- increasing the money supply-- the result is that, for instance, food would go up. Not so much that it i…

>If we paid for this basic income via inflation -- increasing the money supply No one here is arguing that a basic income should be paid for through inflation. There is a difference between inflation and income redistribution. >but it will go up a bit more than the net effect of the basic income, wiping it out Yes, if we paid for it by inflation, but the argument is to pay for through some kind of income/wealth redis…

>No one here is arguing that a basic income should be paid for through inflation.

Actually, I kind of am!

I suggest that we absurdly just give $1MM to everyone and ask what would happen to prices. They'd skyrocket of course. But what else would happen?

Consider an economy with just 2 people. One with a net worth of $7500 and the other with $10MM. Give them each $1MM. What happens to their wealth relative to each other? The less the first guy has, the more it does for him. (Even if its done simply by "printing money".)

"Give everyone a million bucks" doesn't seem so outrageous to me after all. Sounds like swinging a giant scythe at inequality if you ask me.

Its like a fine work of un-dodge-able flat tax and a social safety net all in one. This is why I like UBI.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#146

Post by MCRed »

SwellJoe wrote: post #140
tinco wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I really like the idea of minimum income, elkanjos point has to be addressed. Just yesterday there was an article about trailer parks ownership. They will simply increase rent to what their clientele can afford. In the end you'll still be filling the deep pockets. Perhaps instead of providing minimum income or in addition to minimum income government should just compete in basic needs market. I.e. government…

"Although I really like the idea of minimum income, elkanjos point has to be addressed. Just yesterday there was an article about trailer parks ownership. They will simply increase rent to what their clientele can afford." Actually, I think that's one of the arguments for a basic income. It will lift some of those people out of the class that is subject to the whims of slumlords and trailer park owners, decreasing de…

Why don't we just cut taxes for everyone who makes less than $50k a year? Cut them to zero for all of those people. At least federal taxes, but it would be nice if there was a moratorium or movement to do it for state taxes as well.

For someone making $50k a year, right now they are paying around $7.5k in federal taxes. That right there is close to the $12k the Basic Income would provide.

And this would be a lot easier and simple bill and thus hopefully less contentious-- just make the minimum exemption $50k. Could even be one line maybe.

I think this would be much more effective.... and I don't think that the basic income will replace all the other bureaucracy etc.

For instance, the welfare programs primary job is to hand out money, and it costs them $75 in administrative overhead to hand out $25! Do you think a new federal bureaucracy is going to be more efficient? IT might be a bit in the early years, but of course these things grow as people need to build fiefdoms for themselves etc. etc.

And can you imagine the howls from the federal employees unions if you try and get rid of the Welfare and other federal programs to be replaced with Basic income?

If you don't get rid of them then basic income is just going on top of them.

And if you don't eliminate taxes for poor people, then they're going to end up paying higher taxes too to pay for basic income.

That's the absurd thing right now-- people working part time and getting welfare are still paying taxes.

Since welfare loses %75 of those taxes, it would be much more efficient to just let them keep the money in the first place!

Eliminate taxes on everyone making $50k or less and you have a program I can get behind. Give that 5 years and see if we still need to think about Basic Income.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#147

Post by MCRed »

alkonaut wrote: post #136
tinco wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I really like the idea of minimum income, elkanjos point has to be addressed. Just yesterday there was an article about trailer parks ownership. They will simply increase rent to what their clientele can afford. In the end you'll still be filling the deep pockets. Perhaps instead of providing minimum income or in addition to minimum income government should just compete in basic needs market. I.e. government…

> They will simply increase rent to what their clientele can afford I may be crazy but wouldn't one of the ideas of basic income be that, for example, more people would afford to not live in freaking trailer parks ? Depending on how it was funded, there should be less demand for large houses and more demand for small houses and apartments, meaning more such housing should be built (thereby reducing the demand for tra…

Do you think on $1,000 month people are getting out of the trailer parks? There aren't a lot of $500 a month apartments out there-- and if there are, they will disappear quick as everyone can now more easily afford them, so prices will go up.

IT's not like prices would go up only on trailer parks.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#148

Post by MCRed »

kalvin wrote: post #37

I think if you could see close-up how these systems work now, you'd be convinced that it's completely not worth the vast cost (in time, energy, money) 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,…

My MVP is to eliminate federal taxes on the first $50k a year in income.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#149

Post by bandrami »

spotman wrote: post #58
bandrami wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one had basic income why would they need to work? Why do you want people to work? Is there a stack of widgets going unmade that desperately needs to be made? Are we fighting a two-ocean war and I missed it? Right now half of the country is trying to work and there aren't enough jobs for them. It's 2015. What the hell was the point of the past century of technological improvement if we all still have to have jobs o…

Agreed. more and more jobs are being automated and going away. Both in big ways and smaller ones. Heck sometimes as a programmer I have bad feelings about making things more efficient for humans, thereby requiring less of them. In my career there has many projects that fit that description. This is a complex idea, not without a large amount of challenges. However as a citizen and programmer, I would rather see more t…

That's how I feel too. If there were a social dividend (which I think is a better term for a minimum income), then people would find a lot more useful things to do with their time than either the market or a government program could find.

I just completely don't buy the "people wouldn't work" thing. Yes, you'd probably have to pay some menial work more to motivate people to do it (or, even better, spur technological development to automate that), but that's a feature, not a bug.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#150

Post by learc83 »

MCRed wrote: post #143
learc83 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we paid for this basic income via inflation -- increasing the money supply No one here is arguing that a basic income should be paid for through inflation. There is a difference between inflation and income redistribution. >but it will go up a bit more than the net effect of the basic income, wiping it out Yes, if we paid for it by inflation, but the argument is to pay for through some kind of income/wealth redis…

Currently the government is spending via inflation far more than it takes in from taxes. So, if you want to add $3.6Trillion to the budget-- more than doubling it-- in order to give everyone in the USA $12k a year, it's going to have to come from somewhere.... and I don't think you can get that much by raising taxes. Since income from taxes is around $1.4T [1] you're talking about more than tripling those taxes. For…

>For many people who are on a lower income that alone will wipe out much of the improvement from basic income.

Every argument I've ever seen for a basic income calls for a tax curve so that you pay zero taxes and get $12k a year if you make no income. Then you pay more the higher you go up to a break even point somewhere around the median income of $55k.

> So, if you want to add $3.6Trillion to the budget

Again it's not going to be anywhere near that. Because of the tax curve, less than half of the country will get any extra money, and only a fairly small fraction would get the whole amount.

Then you have to take into consideration the programs it will replace--social security is almost a trillion a year by itself. Food stamps, cash aid, housing assistance and other programs to help the poor (not including medicaid) are another $500 billion. All of those programs would unnecessary.

You're not going to need to do anything close to tripling taxes.

>For instance, I would simply move to another country, form a corporation there, and earn all my income thru that corporation.

Again this won't triple your income tax. But ignoring that, what you're suggesting is not an option most people have. Also you can only exclude about $100k or so in foreign earned income, and if you want to renounce your citizenship, you have to pay the exit tax.

>Laffer curve and all that.

Yes, but you can find studies that put the optimal taxation rate anywhere from 35% all the way up to 75%.

> Yes, food stamps have driven up the price of food

You're argument wasn't that a basic income would drive up the cost of food, but that it would drive up the cost to the point that it would wipe out the effect of the basic income. If that logic was true, that giving cash payments to lower income people would drive up prices to the point that it had no net effect, then food stamps should have done the same--they have demonstrably not done so.

Post reply on HN