Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#191

Post by SwellJoe » Thu, May 28, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

MCRed wrote: post #147

alkonaut wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will simply increase rent to what their clientele can afford I may be crazy but wouldn't one of the ideas of basic income be that, for example, more people would afford to not live in freaking trailer parks ? Depending on how it was funded, there should be less demand for large houses and more demand for small houses and apartments, meaning more such housing should be built (thereby reducing the demand for tra…

Do you think on $1,000 month people are getting out of the trailer parks? There aren't a lot of $500 a month apartments out there-- and if there are, they will disappear quick as everyone can now more easily afford them, so prices will go up. IT's not like prices would go up only on trailer parks.

Yes, the people who currently work, but live in trailer parks, would likely be lifted out of poverty and the necessity to live in a trailer park by an additional $1000/month per adult in the household. Would it lift all of the families in trailer parks out of poverty? Of course not. But, it would be a reasonably impressive start on the problem.

It's also worth recognizing the other impacts of a basic income. People who are currently trapped in their jobs and locations would find themselves with the ability to relocate for better opportunities or lower housing costs. The more money you have, the less of the poverty traps you fall prey to on a daily basis. So, remove the check cashing scams, the expensive credit scams, the rent-to-own scams, etc. from the lives of a huge swath of the population and you free a lot of them from being stuck in poverty. There's reasonably good research on this from various studies and pilot projects that simply give money to poor people and watched the results.

More money won't cure the problems of trailer parks and slumlords but it will give more people more options. And more options means competitive pressure begins to be effective. Markets work when people have options. Right now, the very poorest people in our communities have no options, and thus have no way to vote with their dollars.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#192

Post by cwkoss » Thu, May 28, 2015, 5:51 PM UTC

kalvin wrote: post #37

I think if you could see close-up how these systems work now, you'd be convinced that it's completely not worth the vast cost (in time, energy, money) to try and figure out who "deserves" each of the many, many special benefits/allowances/exemptions available (plus it's incredibly difficult for potential recipients to figure out what they're eligible for, plus it imposes those costs on the people who aren't eligible,…

Couldn't anyone just start a non-profit with an endowment like a college? All profits get proportionally distrubuted to each citizen, and anything unclaimed in reinvested to grow the pot further.

I think the toughest part of the MVP is the 'citizenship verification' or whatever method you use to make sure people don't collect more than once. Partnering with an identity theft protection company might be a good way to outsource authentication.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#193

Post by kamaal » Thu, May 28, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #188

kamaal wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Truthfully, all first world countries are gradually applying more and more welfare laws so there's no where to really escape to unless you want to live in say the Saychelles or Cyphrus or another tax-haven. I come from a country(India) where generations of some very smart people have left to come and stay in the US. Guess Why? For a lot of time, it was pointless to even start a business in India(Given taxes and reg…

"All due to welfare policies." Really, all due to welfare policies? It doesn't have anything to do with India's colonial history, corruption, inconsistency in the legal infrastructure for new business vs. old established business, etc.? (I'm genuinely asking. I am not at all an expert on India's business climate, but I know that most of my friends who have immigrated to the US from other places, including India, to s…

You need to ask why people ask for bribes. What happens when there are not enough opportunities/jobs/good-paying-jobs. Everybody tries to squeeze as much as they possibly can out whatever opportunity they can, any way they can. Because the perception is opportunities being scanty, and earning opportunities being rare, anybody would act at the same level of dishonesty.

In a society of abundance stealing/corruption rarely makes sense.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#194

Post by kamaal » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:01 PM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #187

kamaal wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Truthfully, all first world countries are gradually applying more and more welfare laws so there's no where to really escape to unless you want to live in say the Saychelles or Cyphrus or another tax-haven. I come from a country(India) where generations of some very smart people have left to come and stay in the US. Guess Why? For a lot of time, it was pointless to even start a business in India(Given taxes and reg…

What percentage of government revenue and GDP is being lost to Mandal, etc, versus the coal scam, the power scam in Delhi that Kejriwal tried to expose, the cell spectrum scam, etc, freebies to Reliance and Ambani?

Like I mentioned above, the root of corruption is lack of opportunities.

If there are things in abundance, the desperation that drives people to resort to corruption reduces.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#195

Post by c22 » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

akhatri_aus wrote: post #26

conanbatt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THe incentives work against crappy jobs and low paid work, otherwise working is extra money: that's a pretty big incentive. EVeryone that makes more than 1k dollars a month now would keep working to not see their income substantially diminish. Those that get abuse from work, and minimum wage might consider doing something else. Which is a step forward.

Who would do those jobs? And who would pay for the tax revenue lost when the production those jobs create disappears to fund the BI going forward? Also, because you'll say people will work on better jobs and make more production how do you know they'll do this: If they have the income they need why would someone work and say not save it and spend it in a 3rd world country where everything is cheaper? Its so likely it…

It's possible that any jobs that no one would do under these conditions are jobs that are not necessary. If the jobs are necessary and still no one is willing to do them then they're probably currently vastly undervalued.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#196

Post by jmnicolas » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

zxyzzxxx wrote: post #59

jmnicolas wrote: post #47

In principle I like the idea, but : - the System (corporations / politicians) will never allow it - we're on a planet with limited resources and all economic theories fail to acknowledge that

The planet offers basically unlimited resources. Assuming the population stops growing, as it is predicted, and settles at some reasonable number, then only limit is the expiration date of the sun.

I read somewhere that the max number of sustainable human pop on earth is around one billion ...

And unlimited resources, you have to be ready to wait about 500 millions years to get oil to renew !

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#197

Post by learc83 » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #159

sampo wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The net income of people earning over, say $55k, would stay unchanged. No heavy taxing here.

Well, no you'd have $12k less. You may have earned $55k, but you would no longer have the initial $12k. So for doing nothing you have $12k, and for doing something you have $55k. Therefore, the value gained in doing something was only $43k even though you did $55k worth of work. That is a heavy tax?

That's a change in opportunity cost, not a tax. If you view anything that causes an increase in the opportunity cost of not working as a tax, you must believe that charities are actively taxing working people.

If a charity moves in and starts offering $1000 dollars worth of free food to anyone who makes below $20k a year, is that charity then taxing everyone who makes above that by $1000 per month?

Also if you do want to view an increase in opportunity cost as a tax increase, you have to look at the actual net increase. There are already benefits that low income people can get, food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit etc... that would go away under a basic income. To properly asses the net opportunity cost increase you have to look at the value difference between these benefits and $12k.

As to your talk about disincentivizing work, the tax curve is just that a curve--instead of the current cliff that many low income workers face. Right now there are situations where are a low income worker can actually make less money by working (or less money by working slightly more) due to current means tested assistance programs.

Replacing means tested assistance with a tax curve and a basic income would ensure that every dollar earned would increase your net income. Again this isn't always the case under our current system.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#198

Post by MCRed » Thu, May 28, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

jpindar wrote: post #162

MCRed wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't we just cut taxes for everyone who makes less than $50k a year? Cut them to zero for all of those people. At least federal taxes, but it would be nice if there was a moratorium or movement to do it for state taxes as well. For someone making $50k a year, right now they are paying around $7.5k in federal taxes. That right there is close to the $12k the Basic Income would provide. And this would be a lot easi…

You can't buy food with a piece of paper saying how much you didn't have to pay in taxes.

OMG, at this ant the other responses. Because you didn't have to pay it in taxes, you can buy food with the pieces of paper you... didn't pay in taxes!

Ok, I'm out. I think you guys don't care about the poor at all, you reject economics out of hand and are just pursuing an ideology. Good luck with that.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#199

Post by MCRed » Thu, May 28, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #155

MCRed wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived outside the USA for 6 years. There's definitely a cost to doing so- for instance, not having Amazon or the inexpensive goods we often have. But that cost is less than a doubling of my taxes. A basic income as proposed in the article, as I understand it, would triple income taxes. (or have the same effect via inflation if they just print the money.)

> * A basic income as proposed in the article, as I understand it, would triple income taxes.* You don't understand it.

Yes, I forgot about the magical money tree. You know, social security, "war on poverty" and all that counted on the magical money tree too. And you know what you got? More poverty?

When are you guys going to stop making the same mistake over and over again? There really is no excuse for it.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#200

Post by MCRed » Thu, May 28, 2015, 8:08 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #177

hwstar wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met.

That's palpably not true. We all get roads, police, fire, regulated utilities. Absolutely nobody is trying to wean us from those. It takes a change in thinking to accept the basic income. I'm afraid a generation will have to grow old and die before it gains traction, because of the ingrained thinking that 'full employment' is a good or useful societal goal.

You mean the generation that remembers what the USSR was like? I'm not being flippant, I'm being serious. The entire leftist political agenda, including Basic Income is basic marxism and the arguments for it are the same ones we had in over a century ago.

We've had a century of experimentation with it, from Fascism in germany ("to protect our farmers") to communism in Russia to socialism in the UK to all manner of variations in South America.

It hasn't worked.

Why is it leftists who are always going on as if they're the only ones who care about the poor, refuse to learn the lessons of history and economics?

History isn't a science, but economics is, and the reasons these things will fail are always pointed out-- as they were in this comment section-- and always ignored (as they were downvoted here on HN).

As a result more and more damage is done.

And when you see the damage the next generation of 20 year old leftists calls for socialism to fix the damage of socialism!

So yeah, when you're over 40 and you've been around the merry go round once you see what's going on.

OH, and by the way, one thing was constant- in all of these situations the people at the top profited. The politburo made out, and so that's why they support it.

It's how they exploit the poor.