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

Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#111

Post by lazyant »

highCs wrote: post #32

A generous basic income funded by very high taxes would be self-defeating, as it would reintroduce the sort of distortions that many of its advocates hope to banish from the welfare system. Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger. Basically, if there is not enough jobs for everyone - the raison d'etre of the basic income - then at some point, some aren't going to do anything: that's the point. In othe…

> Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger.

I have zero problems with this (for some levels of "comfortably"), the alternative is filled with drugs and crime.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#113

Post by ThomPete »

akhatri_aus wrote: post #95
ThomPete wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating. Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO.

I think there is an opposing argument to the benefits you claim could be achieved. By having free income, there is less of an incentive to work, there is actually a large chance productivity would drop, not increase! Also, keep in mind you need funds to run the tax collection system to collect taxes to fund the basic income scheme. On a theoretical basis you may have a point but I don't see its that easy or possible…

There is'nt less incentive to work I dont know how you would conclude such a thing.

With unconditional basic income there is always an incentive to work since it will always benefit you even just for a day. You aren't going to live like a king on basic income, not even close.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#114

Post by task_queue »

tomcam wrote: post #37
feld wrote: post #7

Probably as expensive as giving the homeless free housing... which has repeatedly shown to be cheaper than not

If you believe that deeply in that idea, then turn it into a startup. Put your own money into it and I'm sure you'll see truly interesting results!

The intersection of Good/Needed Ideas and Ideas That Turn a Profit is slim.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#115

Post by ThomPete »

maxerickson wrote: post #100
ThomPete wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating. Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO.

Administrative costs aren't all that high: http://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-federa... http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html Making the spending a couple percent more effective doesn't really even start to pay for spending 10x. So administrative savings aren't actually all that important a consideration when it comes to a basic income (Put it this way: the programs at the first link could have…

Administration isn't all there is to controlling whether someone is getting the right benefits or not.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#116

Post by lukifer »

Madmallard wrote: post #112

How is basic income even feasible from an economic, realistic standpoint? It would have to be wealthy people taking the hit right? How else would it be possible?

Here is my high-level hypothesis, sans numbers: most workers produce far less real value than what they are paid. At one end you have many white-collar jobs that are glorified seat fillers, padding budgets for their departments. At the other end, you have blue-collar jobs whose value is artificially inflated by a minimum wage (or, wastefully shipping work overseas, and finished products back.)

In a UBI world (also assuming socialized medicine), neither minimum wage nor de facto salary+benefits would be necessary, and labor would be free to seek its true market value, as the competition becomes over status rather than survival. My hunch is that even if all work was taxed (flat or progressive) to pay for it, the actual purchasing power of the dollar would increase to offset it due a more efficient market. (It would also be offset by the elimination of means-testing and beauracracy in existing social programs, as well as enabling a great deal more education and entrepreneurship.)

Admittedly, the idea is abstract and hand-wavy. But it's worth considering.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#117

Post by douche »

akhatri_aus wrote: post #95
ThomPete wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating. Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO.

I think there is an opposing argument to the benefits you claim could be achieved. By having free income, there is less of an incentive to work, there is actually a large chance productivity would drop, not increase! Also, keep in mind you need funds to run the tax collection system to collect taxes to fund the basic income scheme. On a theoretical basis you may have a point but I don't see its that easy or possible…

I doubt that. If basic income was implemented as a straight, tax-free cash payment, which didn't contribute to income tax, and replaced current means-tested welfare benefits, I think that it would actually be a net win for everyone. If you work, it means extra money in your pocket, and your benefits don't get pulled out from under you if you go over the income limits. On the government side, administration gets much simpler - just mail out the checks to everybody. You could also drastically simplify the tax code.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#118

Post by laurencerowe »

nevinera wrote: post #19

2700 per month is 32.4k per year - that's awfully high for a basic income. I'm not surprised it's "too expensive".

Adjusting to GDP per capita gives a US equivalent of $20K/year. For the UK it adjusts to £10K/year, pretty much exactly the amount a single adult would get on job seeker's allowance plus housing benefit. (For pensioners and single parents with one child it goes up to about £15K/year.)

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#119

Post by ezzaf »

gergles wrote: post #91
raldi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

Speak only for yourself, please. I paid close to 50% of my income in income and payroll taxes last year. I live in the US and am not in the top marginal federal tax bracket. I feel I am taxed more than adequately when compared to other economies that provide a much greater service level for their citizens. The problems in the US are not on the supply side, they are on the demand (government spending) side, and simply…

Why isn't the statement that people on high incomes can afford to pay more tax generally true? Simply feeling that the tax you pay is adequate does not mean paying more would be unaffordable. Certainly you could more afford it than someone on an income of half or a quarter of yours.

The question of whether reducing funding of the military complex would be a better policy than tax increases is a valid one, but unrelated.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#120

Post by dllthomas »

Sodel wrote: post #28
chrisseaton wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough basic income level.' If everyone's income were increased, might not prices for things like housing go up as well, so some people could still be priced out?

I'd worry about the same thing. Government subsidy sure hasn't made education any less expensive. (Education and public housing aren't quite the same thing, I know, but I'd still want to see some active work to prevent the same outcome.)

There is a big difference between giving people money that can be used for anything, and giving them money they can only use for one thing.
Post reply on HN