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

121–130 of 131 posts

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

#121

Post by Frondo »

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!

It's already being demonstrated in Utah. Giving the homeless an apartment and a case worker is not only more humane and the right thing to do, it's also a lot cheaper than leaving them alone (and then treating them when they show up in the ER, etc).

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

#122

Post by plurinshael »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #69
dsr_ wrote: post #38

Unvoiced assumption #1: working is good. Corollary: Not working is bad. Unvoiced assumption #2: anyone who wants a job can get one. We know that #2 is false. Coupling the assumptions together produces a group of people who are considered to be bad for reasons that are entirely beyond their control.

Well, I think assumption #1 (especially the corollary) is voiced, for instance, as follows: > Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger. But, I do think that sentiment is a root part of the resistance against BI. People have bought pretty heavily into the current status quo that says, "you eat what you kill". So, if you don't work you are an undeserving freeloader or loafer. Whereas, BI, for some, essen…

The capitalist status quo is all about "you eat what you kill," true. But in America, a huge majority is ostensibly Christian, especially in politics. And Jesus is all about grace, that you literally cannot earn the living truth, the light, the peace, the spirit, because they are given in grace. I wonder why it's such a radical suggestion to take that premise into material aspects of life.

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

#123

Post by unclebucknasty »

plurinshael wrote: post #122
unclebucknasty wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think assumption #1 (especially the corollary) is voiced, for instance, as follows: > Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger. But, I do think that sentiment is a root part of the resistance against BI. People have bought pretty heavily into the current status quo that says, "you eat what you kill". So, if you don't work you are an undeserving freeloader or loafer. Whereas, BI, for some, essen…

The capitalist status quo is all about "you eat what you kill," true. But in America, a huge majority is ostensibly Christian, especially in politics. And Jesus is all about grace, that you literally cannot earn the living truth, the light, the peace, the spirit, because they are given in grace. I wonder why it's such a radical suggestion to take that premise into material aspects of life.

I think there is a huge disconnect between professed Christian values and execution on many fronts, including this one.

I suppose that especially those who adhere to the Christian faith would anticipate this. In other words, the Christian teaching is that the very need for grace is brought about by humankind's utter inability to consistently adhere to Christian principles.

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

#124

Post by stegosaurus »

The whole discussion is ridiculous to me. All of the money filters back up to the capitalists anyway. Is that not mind-bendingly obvious?

If you are a recipient of the basic income, you spend it all. Every last dollar. You don't build net worth and take it out of the economy. (If more than a small hardcore crowd even can, it's been set too high).

In a country like the UK, that gets taxed at 50%+ (providing the tax authorities are actually doing their job and have not been deliberately underfunded). So half of it almost immediately goes back into the Government coffers.

I don't understand why people spend so much time doing arcane analyses whilst seemingly missing how the economy works at a very basic level.

Government spending can be a net drain in two broadly defined ways, as far as I can see. There may be others that I am missing.

1. Giving money to the rich directly who then hoard it. 2. Inefficient allocation of human talent or natural resources (e.g. if the government paid me 200k pa to chew pens, and I gave up my real job).

Spending on the poor really cannot cost money unless you have issues with collecting taxes.

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

#126

Post by EvenThisAcronym »

One thing that I think doesn't come up very often when discussing BI is the fact that many other laws will have to dramatically change to make the experiment successful. Just imagine the enormous increase in things like contribution to open source, creation of art and culture, etc. I don't believe that the current environment of hyper-strict IP and patent laws can continue if BI were to be implemented, as many more people would use their increased leisure time to create. Today we can already see conflicts between big IP companies and individual creators, and if BI is introduced it will get much worse.

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

#127

Post by stegosaurus »

The trick that governments all around the world pull is taxing those who are not wealthy.

Taxation should not be a 'membership cost' for society. It should be a fee levied on the very wealthy, not out of some sense of spite, but in order that the system continues to produce reasonable outcomes for everyone.

When you do that, then basic income can be argued for reasonably.

Right now, poor/working class people fall over themselves to come up with reasons why BI won't work because they don't want their tax burdens to rise.

Land and capital owners should pay tax. Those with zero net worth really shouldn't. Why?

Because taxation on labour is effectively stolen labour. Taxation on capital is simply an adjustment in living standards. The two are hugely different.

The idea that the rich would just go fugitive if wealth were taxed is a total fantasy. Knightsbridge exists as a real place. I can cycle down the road and pop a letter through a letterbox. It might become marginally less attractive with a 1% annual tax. It might be that the economic boom caused by redistribution results in it increasing in value anyway.

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

#128

Post by jeza »

richardbrevig wrote: post #108
jeza wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would hardly keep people without jobs out of poverty, which I read in another article is just over $20k.

A $20k poverty threshold is for a household of 3. For 1, it's a little under $12k. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm#thresholds

I find it hard to believe that someone could live off $12k. Then again I live in Australia where cost of living on the whole is fairly expensive. But given rent is a big component of cost of living I'd hazard a guess that this will vary quite significantly in different parts of the USA. Furthermore I'm sure there are many different ways to define the poverty line. Even if the basic cost of living is met, there are additional costs that one may have to bear before gaining employment, including education, appropriate clothing, transport and the additional costs of accommodation close to employment.

The argument for a basic income is that one should be able to live comfortably and not just cover bare essentials. This means that people shouldn't be living at the poverty line but well over it. This shouldn't be a disincentive to work because most people need to live their lives around some kind of structured activity. Though it does mean that if there is a shortage of jobs then the unemployed won't be left to rot and the option exists to do some meaningful volunteer work.

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

#130

Post by feld »

task_queue wrote: post #114
tomcam wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, this is the grim reality
Post reply on HN