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

The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 181 posts

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#151

Post by sudosysgen »

geysersam wrote: post #136
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re getting £1000 extra a month and I say your rent is now £1000 extra a month, you can’t and won’t say no. If you say no, I’ll just get someone else in who will give me their free money. As you’re competing with them for the same goods, you’ll have no choice but to pay the same. Meaning it’s made no difference for you as the primary costs in your life are limited by supply. For someone who owns their own house…

If that was really the case then all surplus would already be eaten by landlords and that clearly isn't the case. In some parts rents are absolutely very high but that's not everywhere. If rents increase more apartments will be built, reducing the ability of landlords to extract rent. But I agree that inflation is likely to increase if people get more money to spend. However, I think that would mainly be over a trans…

Not all of it, but real estate does very strongly correlate with income, and for lower income quintiles it can eat the surplus.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#152

Post by thewildginger »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #148
solardev wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't COVID in the US a large scale basic income experiment, with the stimulus checks?

(Not an American). Did those checks go to everyone? Or just people who were laid off?

Everyone

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#153

Post by joshuamorton »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #88
bee_rider wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is universal, as others have said. There’s also the concept of “guaranteed minimum income,” which, I believe, just tops you up to the minimum income amount if you make less. In comparison, guaranteed minimum income seems much more difficult to administer (means testing and all that), and it seems like it would incentivize bad habits, in the sense that if you make less than the threshold, why not just quit your jo…

If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day. If it’s given to everyone then taken away based on income, that’s just a stupider version of the current system. We already give people support based on need, so why would we get rid of that just to circle back? Just make the support better if the…

> If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day.

The usual idea is that you increase (progressive) taxes such that there is some income level at which you net zero, because you are taxed an additional amount equal to the UBI.

As the other person said, the key reasoning for UBI is that you avoid a lot of forms of means testing (which prevent eligible people from getting access to the resources) and administrative costs (in terms of reviewing eligibility requirements) which can make things less efficient.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#154

Post by isitmadeofglass »

mvdtnz wrote: post #97
jnwatson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central bank wouldn't just sit there and allow the money supply to increase unbounded. They'd turn their knobs so the money supply would remain more per less constant.

And by "turn their knobs" you mean "pull the one and only lever they have and cripple the economy with high interest rates". Universal incomes would be disastrous for economies.

[dead]

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#155

Post by jiggawatts »

klipt wrote: post #79
AaronM wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would giving everyone basic income below a certain income level immediately cause inflation to match it? Inflation doesnt track directly to minimum wage, which seems to be a very similar principal.

Consider that some resources are naturally or artificially constrained (housing, medical care, good schools). If everyone has more money, those things have almost limitless capacity to absorb the extra money in the form of higher rent, higher health costs, higher college fees. UBI can help somewhat to decrease inequality (same as welfare targeted only at the poor) but if the government prints and gives everyone a mil…

> government prints and gives everyone a million dollars

I think you might be conflating unrelated economic boogeymen.

UBI is not at all about the government "printing" money. It's a redistribution of taxes, such that the net government taxation income remains the same.

The total money supply remains constant.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#156

Post by taffronaut »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #94
thanhhaimai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U in UBI stands for Universal. Everyone gets the exact flat amount, unconditional. That means there is much less administrative cost (don't need to verify that people belong to certain income brackets for example). Overall, the theory is that it would reduce government wasteful administrative process, while being more effective at lifting people out of poverty. The experiments so far are positive.

It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim. Should we give everyone hip replacements rather than bothering with appointments and need? Think of all the administration saved! Just book everyone in! Except now you’ve spent a trillion on hip replacements, the people who actually needed them are getting less support and on a huge list, and you…

It's not inherently ridiculous. Administration is a non-zero cost. Anything below that cost is cheaper to give rather than administer.

Hip operations are a weird counter example to refute UBI. They're obviously not universally applicable and are more expensive in cost and resources than the administration overhead. That's leaving aside the ethical issues of giving people unnecessary surgery.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#157

Post by jiggawatts »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #94
thanhhaimai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U in UBI stands for Universal. Everyone gets the exact flat amount, unconditional. That means there is much less administrative cost (don't need to verify that people belong to certain income brackets for example). Overall, the theory is that it would reduce government wasteful administrative process, while being more effective at lifting people out of poverty. The experiments so far are positive.

It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim. Should we give everyone hip replacements rather than bothering with appointments and need? Think of all the administration saved! Just book everyone in! Except now you’ve spent a trillion on hip replacements, the people who actually needed them are getting less support and on a huge list, and you…

> It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim.

Let's say there's three people, making $0, $10K, and $100K annually in pre-tax income.

The first person has to stand in line to get welfare. The second person has to prove that they deserve the tiny amount of of welfare they may be entitled to, chewing up the time of government bureaucrats in the process. The third person has to pay income taxes, deal with refunds, tax write-offs, etc...

All three people already involve the government, have to deal with paperwork, and this overall process generally costs non-zero money to implement.

Let's say these people pay $0, $0, and $30K in taxes, for $0, $10K, and $70K net income.

With UBI, the tax brackets are adjusted such that the person making $10K pays $5K in taxes, and the person making $100K pays $40K in taxes. These are just parameters (numbers) plugged into an existing mainframe.

The government now has an additional $15K of tax revenue.

Then everyone gets a "tax refund" of $5K, as-if they had a bunch of business expenses or whatever. Again, just a parameter in the tax dept mainframe!

Now the net incomes are: $5K, $10K, and $65K.

The beauty of this system is that no humans are involved. Nobody has to evaluate your assets, income, side-gigs, or whatever. Nobody has to care if you're "too rich" to get government assistance because everyone gets government assistance.

It's cheaper because it's just numbers plugged into a mainframe that already processes everyone's tax every year! No additional expense is required: no new department, no new staff, no new offices.

In fact, vast numbers of government drones can be made redundant, because... they're redundant now. Whatever they were getting paid before (a lot) can be added on top of the additional tax income. Billions, certainly, in most countries.

Instead of pushing paper around, they can now join the commercial workforce and hopefully be productive members of society instead of telling disabled people that they don't deserve help because they have a valuable painting on their wall they inherited from their grandmother.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#158

Post by _a_a_a_ »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #140
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read his links? At least he gave some, you didn't.

Ultra progressive media outlet says UBI is great, comment posts progressive outlet sources, upvoted on a site with progressive users. No, I’m not interested in playing that game. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out to others that the fanatics seriously think this is a known-quantity / settled science.

> Ultra progressive ... progressive users ... fanatics

You say more about yourself than anyone else.

> ... think this is a known-quantity / settled science.

I don't think anyone thinks it is settled. Personally I don't know and I very much want to, but comments like yours do not illuminate in the least. Actual facts would be welcome

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#159

Post by dagw »

jiggawatts wrote: post #155
klipt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that some resources are naturally or artificially constrained (housing, medical care, good schools). If everyone has more money, those things have almost limitless capacity to absorb the extra money in the form of higher rent, higher health costs, higher college fees. UBI can help somewhat to decrease inequality (same as welfare targeted only at the poor) but if the government prints and gives everyone a mil…

> government prints and gives everyone a million dollars I think you might be conflating unrelated economic boogeymen. UBI is not at all about the government "printing" money. It's a redistribution of taxes, such that the net government taxation income remains the same. The total money supply remains constant.

It's a redistribution of taxes

It's also a replacement for other forms of financial aid. Someone currently on unemployment or other benefits won't get UBI on top of his current benefits, but instead of. Most proponents of UBI also argue that this simplification of the benefits system will bring its own savings as you will have less administrative overhead that comes with means testing and dealing with multiple overlapping systems.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#160

Post by tharga8616 »

Ajay-p wrote: post #38
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the source of revenue make it not UBI?

Because Alaska is unique, AFAIK the only state in America that sells something. Everything else is income redistribution. The money has to come from somewhere . It's a very fine line, I agree, but the permanent fund only exists because the state can generate that income from something other than increased taxes, redistribution, or reducing spending some place else.

What if, instead of oil, the revenue came from solar energy? Or gains in automation, or land value taxes, or CO2 caps...

The point I think is that, it doesn't mind where it comes from, but debunks the main argument against, that "people don't work".

Post reply on HN