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

The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

spectacle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 389 posts

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#111

Post by evanlivingston »

maxerickson wrote: post #71
evanlivingston wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, maybe we could just tax the 5 wealthiest men in the U.S. who own about half of the world's wealth?

Your numbers are wrong. The 5 wealthiest people in the US are well below $1 trillion and in just the US there are tens of trillions of dollars of wealth. Even if you did manage to tax all the wealth without destroying it, it'd only provide 10 or 20 years of basic income. Which is a lot , but it is hardly enough to make or break a BI as long term policy.

You're right. It looks like I misunderstood. The 5 wealthiest people own the same amount as the poorest 50% of the worlds population.

I think I'd be alright with UBI not being a long term policy if it meant radical wealth redistribution.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#112

Post by [deleted] »

nightski wrote: post #77
drb91 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.

Honestly if you are going to give me free money + tax the hell out of me for working hard and going above and beyond I'll just relax and play video games and work on personal projects on my monthly stipend.

[deleted]

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#113

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

babaganoosh89 wrote: post #11

Doing some back of the envelope math, US gov revenue is 3.31 trillion and the population size is 323.1 million. Which leaves about $10244 per capita to play with. How would a BI work, give people $7k per year and save 3k for military and basic services? Seems like BI would need big tax increases to become viable.

I thought the idea is that as you earn more from working / investments your UBI payment would be decreased, so that only those who earn below a particular threshold receive the full rate.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#114

Post by comicjk »

AmericanOP wrote: post #6

In ancient Rome there were a few honest reformers who felt bread subsidies (classical UBI) were deserved by the people. It was an economic argument (as is Sam's) since Roman conquest generated massive wealth that did not reach the masses who made it possible. It was an honest attempt at economic reform by a few forward thinking leaders. Within a generation the movement was captured by politicians who used its popular…

When you say "a city of a million people that ultimately collapsed", your portentous "ultimately" takes over 500 years to arrive! It might be "infamous", but it's not very quick about it.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#115

Post by stcredzero »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #47
stcredzero wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die. The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts…

>The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let…

By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.

Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common good. On the other hand, the historical record on politically forcing the wealthy to hand over their wealth also supports the notion of voluntarism. It's the society and culture which are the overarching influences. If we changed the culture such that trusts supporting intentional communities were the way the wealthy could have a meaningful impact and legacy, then we could conceivably house over half of the US in virtually free housing.

Arguably, living, thriving creative communities would be far more meaningful than plaques in a museum, park benches, and buildings on a college campus. (Colleges are over-funded and in a bubble as it is.)

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#116

Post by hyprCoin »

remarkEon wrote: post #60

There's two issues that I don't think have been adequately addressed, or that I missed, in the banter over this issue. 1) What would stop us from recreating the inefficient welfare state that already exists on top of this new one when some people inevitably blow their UBI on drugs/cheetos/whatever and don't have money for rent? It seems that for this to work we'd have to maintain some intestinal fortitude to say "no"…

My answers, maybe not the same as yours.

1) Let people make their own decisions and don't try to be their caretakers.

2) UBI should be universal. Ideally the impetus would not be on the US government or any other local government to implement it. Let's not conflate their responsibilities further, they are a large enough centralized point of failure.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#117

Post by dragonwriter »

Danihan wrote: post #14
babaganoosh89 wrote: post #11

Doing some back of the envelope math, US gov revenue is 3.31 trillion and the population size is 323.1 million. Which leaves about $10244 per capita to play with. How would a BI work, give people $7k per year and save 3k for military and basic services? Seems like BI would need big tax increases to become viable.

The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level. That's not enough to live on and it's practically a bonus for some members of this site. It's not enough to do anything with. Even upon receiving that, many people woul…

> $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level.

Hitting FPL is a good minimum for considering a UBI scheme “mature”, but 100% of the single-person-household FPL per capita is probably not the right starting point. If you target hitting 30% of the FPL in a two-person household—$2500/person-year—you’ll beat most state’s TANF benefits, which seems a good starting point; if you tie it to a funding stream that grows with the economy, you progressively improve the coverage letting you scale back and decommission existing benefit programs.

> Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block.

As long as people can find work, people working on top of even a mature UBI is central to it's point, and the big reason it is unconditional is to encourage this.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#118

Post by mrob »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

The question I’m interested in: How do we unlock maximum human potential? Last I checked, welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely subsist, not strive for greatness. Then he goes on to compare YC to basic income. Seriously? They take a share in your company and help you develop it. That isn't money for nothing. If he weren't a millionaire and the current president of YC, would we keep seeing articles…

Welfare discourages striving for greatness, because as soon as you show any sign of success it's taken away from you. The "universal" in UBI means it's paid to everybody, rich and poor. It lacks the weird breakpoints and perverse incentives of welfare. You are always better off working.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#119

Post by autokad »

Suncho wrote: post #106
remarkEon wrote: post #60

There's two issues that I don't think have been adequately addressed, or that I missed, in the banter over this issue. 1) What would stop us from recreating the inefficient welfare state that already exists on top of this new one when some people inevitably blow their UBI on drugs/cheetos/whatever and don't have money for rent? It seems that for this to work we'd have to maintain some intestinal fortitude to say "no"…

1. Why is it a problem for people to spend their money how they choose? If people buy drugs and cheetos or whatever, then isn't that their call? If people who need housing have the money to buy housing, but they're not buying buying housing, then I agree that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Do we see this in practice? Is there an epidemic of people who can afford homes but are choosing to suffer in homelessne…

> "Whichever country does this first will probably become the world's final superpower."

or Venezuela.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#120

Post by Suncho »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

The question I’m interested in: How do we unlock maximum human potential? Last I checked, welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely subsist, not strive for greatness. Then he goes on to compare YC to basic income. Seriously? They take a share in your company and help you develop it. That isn't money for nothing. If he weren't a millionaire and the current president of YC, would we keep seeing articles…

> The question I’m interested in: How do we unlock maximum human potential?

> Last I checked, welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely subsist, not strive for greatness.

It depends what you mean by "human potential." I agree with you that "human potential" is not the right way to frame what basic income unlocks. By giving people money to spend, it unlocks the economy's potential to produce wealth for the people. We won't produce wealth that people won't buy and basic income allows more people to buy more wealth.

It also gives people the freedom to choose how they spend their time. We have a lot of pointless jobs in the economy that really only exist as an excuse to provide people incomes. A basic income can allow us to eliminate those jobs. The people who aren't working at those useless jobs anymore are now free to do something useful with their time.

So in that sense, basic income does unlock human potential. But by boosting demand and by doing it in a way that flattens out the demand curve, it unlocks resources in general, not just labor.

> If he weren't a millionaire and the current president of YC, would we keep seeing articles about his vision on the front page of HN? I don't think so. I don't believe his arguments are that cogent or compelling.

I agree with you that his arguments could certainly be more compelling. But he's not wrong that basic income would be a good thing.

> If you take Sam Altman out of this article, would we discuss it at all? If the answer to that is no, then why are we discussing it?

I would certainly be discussing it. Maybe nobody would be listening to me. But I've been involved with basic income since 2011 and I think it's hugely important.

Post reply on HN