121–130 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much would that $10k grow in 18 years? Bank of America's "Platinum Honors" interest rate is 0.06%[1], and over 18 years of compounding interest that's only $10,108.55 unless I've messed up my math. [1] https://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/bank-account-interest...
Put them into a larger bucket together, a "kids 401K" type of thing.
Could not disagree more. This has been the ultimate motivator for all human accomplishment, as well as the evolutionary enhancement of all living things on the planet.
I'm very skeptical of basic income as commonly understood. The typical basic income program I've seen goes something like this: give every person in the country $10k to live on, no strings attached. [a] 1) As defined above, this is horribly inefficient and expensive. I, a software engineer in Silicon Valley, would receive this $10k. How does this benefit society? I already make over $100k; I don't need additional inc…
So you raise taxes. For the people who don't need the extra $10k... well, that's OK, because their taxes will go up by some amount. Possibly more than $10k, possibly less. It depends on how much they earn.
You do still have the problem of determining what the progressive tax looks like, but this is a simpler problem than administering a large number of social welfare programs, all with their own eligibility criteria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that number is misleading. I have a spouse and three children. Does that mean we all will get 10K/yr? I have had a different thought on this in the past; Every child born should have $10K put into an account in their name on the day they are born. It will gain interest and grow until they are 18, then they get the money. And as an adult after 21, they are taxed at some rate to pay back the initial 10K that will t…
I love your idea. It's like a perpetual motion machine of money.
Its kinda funny how people who have money live by the mantra "It takes money to make money, but once you have money, money makes itself"
Yet any time you talk about investing on the behalf of others/society -- everyone laughs it off as impossible.
If I am a participant in this subject and I am told that I will be receiving Basic Income for 5 years I might act differently compared to if I was told that I am entitled to Basic Income for the rest of my life. The observation bias alone might motivate people to do work and strive to achieve something with all of their time. Or, it might even cause them to lie about the things they're working on. It will be very int…
Yeah if it's 5 years i would be very worried about finding employment the day after and having a 5-year gap in my resume. Would the hiring manager care that I was working on my art?
I'm very skeptical of basic income as commonly understood. The typical basic income program I've seen goes something like this: give every person in the country $10k to live on, no strings attached. [a] 1) As defined above, this is horribly inefficient and expensive. I, a software engineer in Silicon Valley, would receive this $10k. How does this benefit society? I already make over $100k; I don't need additional inc…
Negative income taxes (linked in other comments) is similar to this idea.
$10,000 * US_POPULATION ~= $3.2T ~= The total annual tax revenue of the US federal government. Something to keep in mind when discussing this topic.
But that number is misleading. I have a spouse and three children. Does that mean we all will get 10K/yr? I have had a different thought on this in the past; Every child born should have $10K put into an account in their name on the day they are born. It will gain interest and grow until they are 18, then they get the money. And as an adult after 21, they are taxed at some rate to pay back the initial 10K that will t…
But what you are really saying is put aside $10k and grow it through investments. Then withdraw the gains only, and make the $10k a withdraw-but-pay-back option.
No gains :(!
I'm very skeptical of basic income as commonly understood. The typical basic income program I've seen goes something like this: give every person in the country $10k to live on, no strings attached. [a] 1) As defined above, this is horribly inefficient and expensive. I, a software engineer in Silicon Valley, would receive this $10k. How does this benefit society? I already make over $100k; I don't need additional inc…
1) You getting the $10k benefits society in that we don't add any administration on the front end - deposits go to everyone, and then the taxing back step is already being done (as you're already filing taxes). So cheaper administration cost overall than doing a means test or whatever.
2) A basic income has to be introduced with corresponding tax increases. For some people the basic income is a net positive (if you're currently poor, broadly). For others it's a wash (middle class, by whatever definition). For others (like you and me, most likely) taxes will go up to pay for the poor. But then there are all the savings basic income leads to - fewer administration costs, fewer costs of poverty (like homelessness and crime), etc.
3) Right, don't do that. Handle it through taxation at the back end.
What I want to know is whether Basic Income implemented with our current housing and laws about land ownership will just run afoul of the Henry George Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem IE, the aggregate value of public spending in an area tends to soak into the land value -- give everybody $X,000 a year and the landlords will dutifully raise annual rents by $X,000.
It also is being given people, not directly to the area, so if rents are raised in one area, people can move away from it. This isn't the case with infrastructure improvements such as road/rail/schools/electricity improvements.
The likely effect will be that cheap housing will increase in price, but it will be bounded by moderate housing (i.e. for those people who don't see a real terms change in their post-tax/benefits income).
The other point, is that that the sector most dramatically affected by this will be the homeless and unemployed.
An interesting question is to what extent the basic income should be linked to inflation and differential cost of living (e.g. should it be more for people who live in San Francisco as San Francisco is expensive, or should it be equal because we don't care where people live).