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

151–160 of 212 posts

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

#151

Post by jackgavigan »

jakozaur wrote: post #16

One of the better article on subject. It's affordable, though it implies new huge tax. Like tax on land. Though not sure if people would support that, once they saw the bill for their land. Changing status quo is hard. Though I would suggest that universal free healthcare is some form of basic income. Maybe let's do it first? Another less hardcore version is to expand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_cr…

Warren Buffet is a huge fan of the EITC: http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-than-raising-the-minimum-...

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

#152

Post by learc83 »

tinco wrote: post #142
alkonaut wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

Yeah, there are plenty of apartment complexes for lower income people.

Trailer parks are a thing mostly because they allow for more privacy than an apartment--no upstairs neighbors.

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

#153

Post by sampo »

jakozaur wrote: post #118
sampo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it implies new huge tax There are countries (especially Northern Europe) that already spend a large amount of money for unemployment and social benefits. In those countries the basic income could be implemented in a cost-neutral manner, just refactoring how the the sum of money equal to the present benefits, is allotted.

Yes, but in USA it wouldn't be possible. E.g. Total welfare spending in 2015 is $454.3 bln / 318 mln population ~= 1428 $/person/year. That's equivalent of basic income 119 $/month. Want to get to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 10 fold. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h... People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. Though I don't think it is a good…

Wow your math sucks.

First let's take only adults, so it's 230 million, not 318 million population.

And then, let's say for people who earn more than $30 000, or something like that, per year, we increase their taxes the amount equivalent to what basic income would increase their earnings. Now, I am unsure how to estimate the size of this population, because for some reason I easily find only US household income distributions, not distributions per people. But let's guess this removes 60% of the adult population.

So we are left with something like 90 million.

And now we do your calculation: $454.3 bln / 318 = $5000/person/year, or $420/month.

Want to get close to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 2-fold

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

#154

Post by DanBC »

sampo wrote: post #153
jakozaur wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in USA it wouldn't be possible. E.g. Total welfare spending in 2015 is $454.3 bln / 318 mln population ~= 1428 $/person/year. That's equivalent of basic income 119 $/month. Want to get to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 10 fold. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h... People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. Though I don't think it is a good…

Wow your math sucks. First let's take only adults, so it's 230 million, not 318 million population. And then, let's say for people who earn more than $30 000, or something like that, per year, we increase their taxes the amount equivalent to what basic income would increase their earnings. Now, I am unsure how to estimate the size of this population, because for some reason I easily find only US household income dist…

You didn't need the insult.

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

#155

Post by sampo »

MCRed wrote: post #144
vl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> * A basic income as proposed in the article, as I understand it, would triple income taxes.*

You don't understand it.

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

#156

Post by learc83 »

jakozaur wrote: post #118
sampo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it implies new huge tax There are countries (especially Northern Europe) that already spend a large amount of money for unemployment and social benefits. In those countries the basic income could be implemented in a cost-neutral manner, just refactoring how the the sum of money equal to the present benefits, is allotted.

Yes, but in USA it wouldn't be possible. E.g. Total welfare spending in 2015 is $454.3 bln / 318 mln population ~= 1428 $/person/year. That's equivalent of basic income 119 $/month. Want to get to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 10 fold. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h... People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. Though I don't think it is a good…

Most implementations would include an extra tax curve from no extra tax at $0 income up to $12k per year at say $55k.

The effect is that you need far less than population * $12k per year.

>People who get larger number use also pension or health care money.

I agree we shouldn't be using healthcare. But social security is almost a trillion per year, and it makes sense to phase it out. There's no reason for a forced pension contribution plan when everyone has a guaranteed income.

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

#157

Post by nightski »

learc83 wrote: post #156
jakozaur wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in USA it wouldn't be possible. E.g. Total welfare spending in 2015 is $454.3 bln / 318 mln population ~= 1428 $/person/year. That's equivalent of basic income 119 $/month. Want to get to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 10 fold. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h... People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. Though I don't think it is a good…

Most implementations would include an extra tax curve from no extra tax at $0 income up to $12k per year at say $55k. The effect is that you need far less than population * $12k per year. >People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. I agree we shouldn't be using healthcare. But social security is almost a trillion per year, and it makes sense to phase it out. There's no reason for a forced pen…

So not only are you giving people money, you are actively incentivizing them not to work by taxing them heavily for doing so. Interesting.

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

#158

Post by sampo »

nightski wrote: post #157
learc83 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most implementations would include an extra tax curve from no extra tax at $0 income up to $12k per year at say $55k. The effect is that you need far less than population * $12k per year. >People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. I agree we shouldn't be using healthcare. But social security is almost a trillion per year, and it makes sense to phase it out. There's no reason for a forced pen…

So not only are you giving people money, you are actively incentivizing them not to work by taxing them heavily for doing so. Interesting.

The net income of people earning over, say $55k, would stay unchanged. No heavy taxing here.

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

#159

Post by nightski »

sampo wrote: post #158
nightski wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So not only are you giving people money, you are actively incentivizing them not to work by taxing them heavily for doing so. Interesting.

The net income of people earning over, say $55k, would stay unchanged. No heavy taxing here.

Well, no you'd have $12k less. You may have earned $55k, but you would no longer have the initial $12k. So for doing nothing you have $12k, and for doing something you have $55k. Therefore, the value gained in doing something was only $43k even though you did $55k worth of work. That is a heavy tax?

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

#160

Post by chrisbennet »

MCRed wrote: post #131
SwellJoe wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ever heard of minimum wage? Yeah, that one did not work as expected either (and created massive unemployment when the threshold was set too high as well)." Citation needed. Your assertions do not match my understanding of the facts about the result of the minimum wage. (Though I would have agreed with you ten years ago, a better understanding of it has altered my opinion significantly.)

When you raise the minimum wage, you don't change any of the other aspects of the business affected by it. So, say you have 15 employees making $10 an hour to keep your company afloat. (Just to keep things simple ,this is about the logic of it.) Now the minimum wage goes up to $15. What are you going to do? You would be losing money with a %50 increase in your costs. Most likely what you will do is lay off 5 employee…

I don't disagree with your argument.

On the other hand... Currently, employers that pay a less than living wage are subsidized in effect - the government (tax payers) makes up the difference in the form of food stamps, healthcare, etc. Is it right that businesses should get subsidized labor?

Post reply on HN