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

Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

openresearchlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#221

Post by ahazred8ta »

tivert wrote: post #101
bko wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…

> Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? > Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? Ultimately, the whole point of UBI is to head off political objections to automating away most jobs, so the tech barons can pursue the technology to do that unimpeded (at least until it's too late). "Minimum base level of support" is basically th…

Ditto the drab 'Modicum' welfare system of Disch's '334'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/334_(novel) (set in the 2020s, no less)

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#222

Post by Supermancho »

valicord wrote: post #219
DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work No. The reason you say that is because you're young and you believe what you've heard. You will soon cease to be the former and then presumably, likely, stop to do the latter. People want to work, they want to be useful. And yes, if I support you but threaten to stop supporting you as soon as you get to work for money—suddenly working for money looks…

> if I support you but threaten to stop supporting you as soon as you get to work for money—suddenly working for money looks less attractive So you agree that "the problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work"?

No, that's not "the problem". Framing dissatisfaction with existing solutions as if there is a singular problem is not constructive.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#223

Post by briHass »

jewayne wrote: post #188
ixwt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a podcast or video about this exact same issue in... Sweden? Some anecdata from people receiving welfare, but couldn't start a job or a business because if they received any money, they get nothing from welfare and wouldn't be able to support themselves. This resulted in people that were trying to start a business not get paid for their work (I believe one of the anecdata was a photographer) because doing s…

> Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" That's..that's not UBI, at all. UBI is universal . If there are any means tests whatsoever , that's not UBI.

UBI would never be truly 'universal'. If someone takes money from me and then gives some of it back, I don't consider that a free gift.

The only way the numbers would ever balance would be for most income earners to end up being taxed >100% of their UBI payment.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#224

Post by TeaBrain »

ixwt wrote: post #92
jimt1234 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in my college speech class, a woman gave a presentation basically supporting the "welfare today is a disincentive to work" myth, with emphasis on "today" (or current), while totally destroying the notion that welfare recipients don't "want" to work. She was a stay-at-home mom with 2 kids, her husband commit suicide after serving in Iraq and then being pushed out of the military (this was the 90s when the US mili…

There was a podcast or video about this exact same issue in... Sweden? Some anecdata from people receiving welfare, but couldn't start a job or a business because if they received any money, they get nothing from welfare and wouldn't be able to support themselves. This resulted in people that were trying to start a business not get paid for their work (I believe one of the anecdata was a photographer) because doing s…

>Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" concept.

This idea is called a negative income tax.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#225

Post by bankcust08385 »

UBI at this time is like topical ointment on a festering wound. Americans first need livable wages and single-payer healthcare that isn't Medicare, which is a Byzantine, confusing maze of dozens of coverage options largely outsourced to for-profit corporations.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#227

Post by karmajunkie »

briHass wrote: post #223
jewayne wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" That's..that's not UBI, at all. UBI is universal . If there are any means tests whatsoever , that's not UBI.

UBI would never be truly 'universal'. If someone takes money from me and then gives some of it back, I don't consider that a free gift. The only way the numbers would ever balance would be for most income earners to end up being taxed >100% of their UBI payment.

or for the ridiculously wealthy to be taxed at a very high rate. which is why they reject the notion of UBI so fervently.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#228

Post by fdr »

jimt1234 wrote: post #79
bko wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…

Back in my college speech class, a woman gave a presentation basically supporting the "welfare today is a disincentive to work" myth, with emphasis on "today" (or current), while totally destroying the notion that welfare recipients don't "want" to work. She was a stay-at-home mom with 2 kids, her husband commit suicide after serving in Iraq and then being pushed out of the military (this was the 90s when the US mili…

You are looking for the term "effective marginal tax rate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_marginal_tax_rate

To give a sense how much benefits code and tax code have in common, see this worksheet for SNAP eligibility, which resembles a second tax return: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility. You get to do something similar, again(!), for Medicaid.

The American benefits code is a patchwork of conflicting sensibilities of the electorate: the smallest possible tax, paternalism and suspicion against the poor, plus a few policy analysis trying to obtain the maximum poverty reduction within those constraints. The result is a thicket of means tested programs with extremely steep phase-outs and a lot of paperwork. The all-in EMTR for an American with income between 0-40K a year is chaotic beyond reason as a result as they roll up the income spectrum.

This person who gave the presentation is indeed in one of the worst cases for the code: a single parent with multiple children.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#229

Post by rvrs »

superfrank wrote: post #149
thesz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a progressive taxation, the gap between high and low income narrows. Low income people may not even notice a change in tax bracket, if any such thing happen, high income people will give back a substantial part of that additional income. I believe, up to 50+% in some US states. This may slightly change median, I think.

Is UBI a necessary part of progressive taxation? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like that same thing can be accomplished without UBI. Am I thinking about that wrong?

Can you do me a quick favor and Google what progressive taxation means?
Post reply on HN