Live data from Hacker News

A universal income is not such a silly idea

timharford.com

131–140 of 337 posts

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#131
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes? I'm not proposing anything by the way, just explaining that mincome isn't a proposal to print a bunch of new money. I think the idea is that it replaces current welfare programs.

Whom would you tax? It isn't possible that taxes would cover all of it.

That's absurd, of course people will work. Why does anyone work right now when there are already welfare programs?

By your logic there would be no sense in companies paying bonuses--if you already have a guaranteed salary why would you do anything more than the minimum?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#132
post #56
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifestyle) than staying at home not working. Except this isn't the case, since benefits are usually cut when you starting working. This means that you start work in an insecure job with no necessary increase in quality of life. With a guaranteed income, if you were to get a job, you'd have a guaranteed increase in your…

I agree, for this to work, everyone would have to receive that amount of money. Or at least say, everyone receiving under $100,000 a year in salary. Otherwise, you might feel cheated if you replace your $12,000 free money for a $20,000 job . You'd still have to receive the free money, so you'd then earn $32,000 a year.

$100k limit is completely unnecessary in a universal income. The whole point is that the basic income is fully "paid" through taxes at some point. If the universal income is $12k and someone is paying $14k in taxes total, the "true tax" to fund the state (apart from basic income) is $2k.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#133

The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…

> In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics...

Income support is about £71 week (25 and over, or lone parent). That's £307.66 PCM.

Assuming water, gas and electric are around £100/month, you now have £48/week.

If you have to pay the "spare" bedroom "tax (average £16) £32/week is now your budget for travel, food and clothing.

And this is not a contrived example! It's barely even survival with the changes that the Tories have implemented.

I wouldn't call £71/week being provided with the basics.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is not just about moving goalposts. What is different is that it frees you from the worry that you need to eat and have an abode. And the hope is that this comfort will make you engage in work you really want to do , rather then turn you into a couch potato.

The idea is nice, but if it causes widespread increases in costs / consumer goods / rent due to the reasons I mentioned, then the only places you may be able to just stay at home and work may not be the place you want to be. For example, I live in London and enjoy this city. I would love to be able to stay at home and work on my side projects in hope of making extra money, but given the outcome I believe from this, e…

>For example, I live in London and enjoy this city. I would love to be able to stay at home and work on my side projects in hope of making extra money, but given the outcome I believe from this, everyone who was to only accept the basic income amount would no longer be able to afford to live in London and would have to relocate to less desirable places in the country.

Some models call for a universal income which takes location inconsideration. The income would be higher in London, for example. That's a pretty controversial model, though.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#135
post #56
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifestyle) than staying at home not working. Except this isn't the case, since benefits are usually cut when you starting working. This means that you start work in an insecure job with no necessary increase in quality of life. With a guaranteed income, if you were to get a job, you'd have a guaranteed increase in your…

I agree, for this to work, everyone would have to receive that amount of money. Or at least say, everyone receiving under $100,000 a year in salary. Otherwise, you might feel cheated if you replace your $12,000 free money for a $20,000 job . You'd still have to receive the free money, so you'd then earn $32,000 a year.

The only way for it to be fair is for everyone to receive it. Naturally, there will be an inflection point where at some income level a person starts paying out more than they receive.

I once calculated, based on what amounts to a back-of-the-napkin calculation based on a flat tax, that the inflection point would be somewhere in the $60-70k range for Canada. The US would be a bit higher due to the greater income inequality.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#136
The UK benefits system has been built up over many years, over a range of different government departments, and covers many different needs and philosophies.

This means it's a horrific mess. For years it was not possible to know how much housing benefit you would get before you moved into a property. While I think there are flaws with the free market I can see that crippling it doesn't help at all.

It's really hard to work out if you're getting the correct benefits, or if you're getting too many. (We have a tax credit system. The credits lag real world payment information, and many people get caught with having to repay tax credits.)

There are other flaws. Someone getting voluntary work (improving their chances of getting full time paid employment) is penalised. Someone with MH illness who gets voluntary work as a step back into society gets penalised.

So, the different government departments have been streamlined a bit. The different benefits are being changed, and signals are being sent about acceptable use of the system.

I got a letter, to my name and address, with all my relevant information. It had a phone number. I called the number. They asked me security information, and confirmed my name and address. They sent me a form. I had to fill out the form and return it. That form is an assessment for an interview. I'll attend an interview, which is given by a doctor. That doctor doesn't do any diagnosis, they have a rigid check list which they assess the patient against. ("Can you walk 10 metres unaided?" "Can you stand for ten minutes without pain?"). The form is scored and sent to a decision maker. That is then returned to a bureaucrat, who awards one benefit, or another, or none.

The checklist is flawed - turn up with a dirty t-shirt because you're a lazy slob? You score points. Turn up with an ironed shirt and tie because your crippling OCD and anxiety won't allow you to leave the house otherwise? You lose points.

All of this bureaucracy is very expensive. The system is open to abuse from multiple parties - criminal gangs using dead people's names to claim benefits; people over claiming, or claiming while working, or claiming for something they're not eligible for.

Sweeping away all of this and replacing it with a relatively simple "Does this person exist? Are the eligible for the universal income?" would save so much money, and time, and stress. It would free people to do voluntary work, or small informal projects.

Then we just need a bonfire of the tax / duties system, and get something sane there.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#137
post #12

It's not a silly idea at all but I like to think of myself as progressive and I think it is a very bad idea in reality vs on paper. Just look at how college costs magically rise to the availability of loans and grants. What do you think is going to happen to food and rent prices once those supply chains figure out there is much more profit to be made? The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of…

Universal income can be cost neutral, that would mean that prices wouldn't increase on average.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#138
post #95
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. Really? How that explains millions of homeless, poors eating in soul kitchens and/or with coupons, etc?

He's talking about a proper country, not the U.S.

They mention income support, so I take that as the UK, where hundreds of thousands of people rely on foodbanks each year.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#139
post #6

In a country with it's own currency, wouldn't this just raise prices until finally the effect would be being back to step 1 but with huge inflation. I.e. I'm selling bread for $3. Now I get $1500 free money every month and I know you do too. I'm selling bread for $6 because I know everyone has extra money lying around and since I have extra money I don't really care if people buy less from me.

If you're successful at it you will then pay much higher taxes which will in turn fund higher basic income... More likely to happen is that your competitor will not also raise prices to $6 and you will soon yourself be relying on the basic income to live.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whom would you tax? It isn't possible that taxes would cover all of it.

That's absurd, of course people will work. Why does anyone work right now when there are already welfare programs? By your logic there would be no sense in companies paying bonuses--if you already have a guaranteed salary why would you do anything more than the minimum?

This is not welfare. This is giving money to every single person, and you cannot do that without negatively impacting the value of the currency. Reality sucks, but we still have to live in it.
Post reply on HN