A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory • Hacker News Board

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#431

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #96

anticon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't mention the fact it's completely unworkable mathematically. In the UK I believe it'd cost £240 billion a year. Where the hell would anyone be able to find that money from? (Tackling tax avoidance from Starbucks isn't a credible answer). Just to put it in context, that's twice the entire NHS's budget, or 5 times our defence spending.

We wouldn't need money for most benefits any more (pensions, income support, etc) so that's about £120bn of the £240bn found immediately. You mention the NHS - we'd be able to spend a lot less on that if people didn't have poverty-induced health problems, so there's another £35bn (assuming a 30% reduction of the £110bn). It's not unreasonable to assume that the difference of £85bn would essentially pay for itself by…

> It's not unreasonable to assume that the difference of £85bn would essentially pay for itself by increasing the tax revenue from people spending their basic income.

If the idea is to give everybody money so that you can tax it more, you're engaging in economic waste. Without being able to increase productivity in other areas to cover the lost value, you will, hopefully slowly, but eventually trend towards zero, and a failure of the system overall.

Encouraging economic productivity in an environment in which nobody has to be productive may or may not be possible, I honestly haven't any idea, but its certainty doesn't seem terribly obvious to me.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#432

Post by err4nt » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

fchollet wrote: post #422

toong wrote: post #239

Are there any studies out there about the second order effects ? If everyone is getting BI, I'm expecting rent to go up. Like, waaaaaaay up. Up to the point where no one can live from BI anymore.

When people don't have to pick their housing based on the location of low-wage jobs (dense cities), I would expect the rent to go down due to better utilization of the total housing supply.

I don't think that's how rent is set right now. I believe people charge rent based on what people can bear to pay - so as long as another person with BI comes along willing to pay the higher rent, the landlord will sell to him instead!

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#433

Post by __z » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:16 PM UTC

noreasonw wrote: post #201

What about the following flavor of Basic Income: In order to reduce the amount of money needed to support the BI scheme, you are given a card to buy some standardized products: jeans, bread, soup, chairs, tables, beds, bikes, ubuntu and the like. The main point is that those products are cheaper to produce and distribute. You lose some of the power of money but since society is paying the bill I think you should acce…

I buy tables, bikes, and beds solely second hand (oftentimes from an individual not a store). If I had to buy new it would destroy the second hand market and encourage massive amounts of waste.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#434

Post by branchless » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:17 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #423

frogpelt wrote: post #362

The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should b…

[deleted]

> The monetary system is pretty well understood. Basic income just becomes another input for money to enter the system.

I'm no fan of basic income however basic income comes from tax. This is redistributive, but not expansionary.

You say it's well understood but you seem to think that central bank issued currency is the cause of inflation. Most "money" is created as credit from private banks (against land).

Again, basic income is not creating money. Read up on money creation, you will be surprised and then perhaps see how you are being fooled on much of how your entire world works with regard to democracy.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#435

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:18 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #180

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a government were to do that for everyone it seems pretty obvious that society will be better off - people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life rather than worrying about how to afford their rent." Looking at populations of people who have gone from being very poor to being very rich overnight does not support that statement. Most of the time the money is more of a curse than anythin…

The most galling implicit premise of all is that every proposal for basic income I've ever seen accepts that BI isn't practically feasible with open borders, and therefore nothing changes at all for the class of people who work the longest hours in the worst conditions (indeed their wage slavery becomes even more essential to ensuring future riders of the purple wage can still buy consumer goods) An argument for impl…

Arguing for suppressing the Western working classes on the basis that this will somehow help the working classes in the developing world doesn't make any sense. Labor is labor, around the world. You strengthen the working class in one place, and you've strengthened it everywhere. Pay a basic income in the West, and consumer spending can rise, aiding a rise in demand, leading to a tighter hiring market for developing-world employers who make the stuff, making labor actions for shorter hours and higher wages more successful.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#436

Post by branchless » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:20 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #33

One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job instead. If a government were to do t…

After swinging your hammer several times you hit the nail on the head with the final word.

We should have land value tax which will eliminate land hoarding, reduce rents and replace income tax. More incentive to work, less incentive to speculate.

You'll never get this in the UK/US as the last thing the elite want is a level playing field where you get to keep most of what you contribute.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#437

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:20 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #400

uhwhat wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

The problem is the intractable dispute about what things should go into which category. Empirically, there has been a strong historical tendency to move things into the "NEED" category that were traditionally in the "WANT" category. For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building code…

>For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems.

Yes, we rather do like preventing dysentery, bubonic plague, and flu epidemics. Public health is indeed a necessity rather than a luxury.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#438

Post by brobinson » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:22 PM UTC

Noelkd wrote: post #418

mcv wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care who owns them, as long as the value they produce is at least partially shared.

If you haven't read this[1] I think you might enjoy it. It covers the ideas you are talking about. I think it was featured on HN some time back. [1] http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

This is awesome. Thanks for linking it.

I've had dreams of doing this to an In-n-Out location. Every one I've been to has had all the employees doing every job like a scatterbrained beehive, and it takes 15-20 minutes to get your food.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#439

Post by Lawtonfogle » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:24 PM UTC

uhwhat wrote: post #225

Fuxy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wager there will be people who will take advantage of the system and use it as a opportunity to not work and laze around all day however those people will be the one who are not particularly productive in their work anyway. They might find something else to do they might not but that's OK it is an acceptable loss. On the other end companies which used to take advantage of the job market and the fact that ever…

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

Is physical intimacy (no, this doesn't mean sex, though that is one form) a want or a need? Consider the mortality rate of infants who receive no physical touch but have all their classical needs met compared to infants who are held and cared for.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#440

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 8:24 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #318

saalweachter wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, government bureaucracies in first-world aren't as inefficient as some people make a living claiming. In the US, administrative expenses for Social Security run less than 1% of the budget. Medicaid and Medicare run with similar margins. Compare this to private-sector insurance in the US, where 80-85% "medical loss ratios" (ie, the fraction of premiums paid out for medical care, as opposed to the fraction kept for…

Bear in mind that "administrative expenses" can mean one thing to ordinary people, and something quite different to a government-sponsored accountant. When Medicare/Medicaid pays $150 for the same type of crutch that sells in a local pharmacy for $15, that difference does not go into "administrative expenses". I might prefer the expense of a human employee driving to Walgreens, buying a crutch off the shelf, and deli…

The plural of anecdote is not data.