India floats the idea of a universal basic income • Hacker News Board

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#21

Post by gizmo686 » Tue, Feb 07, 2017, 11:48 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #14

vkou wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alaska, a thoroughly red state has universal income. Likewise, it is not enough to live off.

Isn't that more like an oil dividend?

Does it matter?

Alaska found a source of income (oil), and chose to spend it by giving a no-strings-attached check to every (eligible [0]) Alaskan citizen; instead of any other thing the government could chose to spend money on.

As a side note, my understanding is that the payment is not a direct dividend of oil profits, but rather from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is funded principle from oil, but designed to be able to continue payments in perpetuity despite the eventual lack of oil income. As a result of this, payments are corralated with the general market which (from a macro-economic point of view) is probably the opposite of what we want from a basic income, which could double as a form of stimulus during economic downturn.

[0] It is not, however, means tested. Eligibility is based on being a permanent resident, and not having been convicted of a crime in the preceding year.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#22

Post by brilliantcode » Tue, Feb 07, 2017, 11:48 PM UTC

hsuresh wrote: post #19

brilliantcode wrote: post #15

I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. In country's with high poverty level where people don't possess the minimal quality of life, I highly doubt the spirit of basic income will even be recognized but seen more of a cash grab…

> I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. I actually think it is the opposite. UBI might work better precisely because corruption prevents other welfare schemes reaching the target population. At least in theory, the direct cash…

The bigger question is how they will fund this. India is know for the capital flight. Rich people aren't paying taxes in India so the government doesn't have much money to spend on social welfare. Unless I'm wrong here? I'm not too familiar with India so please excuse any cultural ignorances.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#23

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, Feb 07, 2017, 11:50 PM UTC

brilliantcode wrote: post #15

I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. In country's with high poverty level where people don't possess the minimal quality of life, I highly doubt the spirit of basic income will even be recognized but seen more of a cash grab…

They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption.

The explicitly stated purpose of UBI here is that it can be implemented via direct electronic transfers to the recipients. That's pretty easy to audit electronically, particularly with biometrics which India is implementing.

In contrast, something like the LPG subsidy (which involves the physical delivery of gas cylinders) is insanely hard to police. How can the central government ensure that cylinders don't go to people who don't need them, that they contain the appropriate amount of gas, etc? It's virtually impossible.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#24

Post by harigov » Tue, Feb 07, 2017, 11:53 PM UTC

brilliantcode wrote: post #22

hsuresh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. I actually think it is the opposite. UBI might work better precisely because corruption prevents other welfare schemes reaching the target population. At least in theory, the direct cash…

The bigger question is how they will fund this. India is know for the capital flight. Rich people aren't paying taxes in India so the government doesn't have much money to spend on social welfare. Unless I'm wrong here? I'm not too familiar with India so please excuse any cultural ignorances.

I wonder if the plan here is to create a market by creating consumers. If enough consumers are present and the govt requires companies to invest money in building industries in India, in order to serve those consumers, they can probably speed up development. Where do they get money? "Quantitative easing"

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#25

Post by geodel » Tue, Feb 07, 2017, 11:57 PM UTC

praneshp wrote: post #16

geodel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social stigma will be real difficult to attach there. In India a lot of people take pride in being called backward or lower caste so they can mooch off some or other government subsidy or reservation to jobs/education. As the article mentioned it is almost always better offs who game the system to their benefit.

I didn't downnvote you, and I think your point is very true. I wish people had found it less insulting so there could've been discussion. There are many that need help, and many that want a certificate calling themselves backward.

You are right. It is interesting point which does not sit well with normal understanding of self-respect, pride etc.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#26

Post by hsuresh » Tue, Feb 07, 2017, 11:59 PM UTC

brilliantcode wrote: post #22

hsuresh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. I actually think it is the opposite. UBI might work better precisely because corruption prevents other welfare schemes reaching the target population. At least in theory, the direct cash…

The bigger question is how they will fund this. India is know for the capital flight. Rich people aren't paying taxes in India so the government doesn't have much money to spend on social welfare. Unless I'm wrong here? I'm not too familiar with India so please excuse any cultural ignorances.

The argument for direct cash transfers (not really UBI, but a predecessor of sorts) was that, there are already millions being spent on subsidies and other welfare schemes, and only a small percentage of them actually reach the needy.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#27

Post by clock_tower » Tue, Feb 07, 2017, 11:59 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

adrenalinelol wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that wrapping it in social stigma would help w/the numbers, it'd set a very bad precedent for the idea of basic income in general.

Why? It seems like a great way to discourage people from consuming it unnecessarily while making sure no one actually suffers in dire poverty unnecessarily. In fact, this might be a good idea in general - sumptuary laws based on net payments to the government. Contributors to society would gain visible social status while those who are a net drain lose status but do not materially suffer. Of course, I doubt you could…

That's an interesting idea, but sumptuary laws have a history of being widely evaded and hard to enforce; I'd refer you to Fernand Braudel's Structures of Everyday Life, dealing with European life in the 1500s-1700s.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#28

Post by kiba » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 12:03 AM UTC

brilliantcode wrote: post #22

hsuresh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. I actually think it is the opposite. UBI might work better precisely because corruption prevents other welfare schemes reaching the target population. At least in theory, the direct cash…

The bigger question is how they will fund this. India is know for the capital flight. Rich people aren't paying taxes in India so the government doesn't have much money to spend on social welfare. Unless I'm wrong here? I'm not too familiar with India so please excuse any cultural ignorances.

They simply redirect funding from existing welfare scheme to this type of scheme, particularly the least enforced, most corrupt and inefficient scheme.

A UBI would be much easier to audit. Your problem might be identity theft or the creation of entirely fictitious person.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#29

Post by geodel » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 12:06 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #9

geodel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social stigma will be real difficult to attach there. In India a lot of people take pride in being called backward or lower caste so they can mooch off some or other government subsidy or reservation to jobs/education. As the article mentioned it is almost always better offs who game the system to their benefit.

No snark intended, but it seems India is the best place to test a basic income for both durability and uptake.

I would not disagree. It is just that financial wherewithal to have this implemented is not present in India. Also here is the experiment conducted in India for basic income[1]. Results were promising but it is too small a experiment to be conclusive.

1. http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t...

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#30

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 12:11 AM UTC

clock_tower wrote: post #27

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It seems like a great way to discourage people from consuming it unnecessarily while making sure no one actually suffers in dire poverty unnecessarily. In fact, this might be a good idea in general - sumptuary laws based on net payments to the government. Contributors to society would gain visible social status while those who are a net drain lose status but do not materially suffer. Of course, I doubt you could…

That's an interesting idea, but sumptuary laws have a history of being widely evaded and hard to enforce; I'd refer you to Fernand Braudel's Structures of Everyday Life , dealing with European life in the 1500s-1700s.

You are probably right about enforceability.

As a thought experiment one could imagine other enforceable variations, however - displaying on Facebook/Twitter/Tinder/etc whether you are a social benefactor or parasite, for example.