A universal income is not such a silly idea • Hacker News Board

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#241

Post by vasilipupkin » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

clarky07 wrote: post #117

I'm a conservative. One would probably assume I'd be against a universal basic income. In theory I am, but I actually think I find the basic income much more palatable than the current welfare state. At least with the basic income, there is never an incentive to not work. It makes it possible to not work, but it doesn't incentivize it. The current welfare systems make it such that if you start working you lose the we…

Yes, exactly. The only problem is, in practice, it's so hard to get rid of those things, that we may end up with basic income AND various forms of welfare and that would not be good

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#242

Post by agilebyte » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

lgieron wrote: post #219

agilebyte wrote: post #40

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.

In my region, there are a lot of able-bodied man in their forties and fifties who, thanks to the state policy, are already retired. The sad fact is that, due to a ton of free time that's suddenly appeared in their lives, a lot of them have become drunks. I fear that for every person doing something meaningful with the freedom given to them via basic income, there'll be 10 or 20 who become couch poatoes or worse, self…

If it were 1:10-20 then these people would have already voted in basic income platforms into government.

I also suspect that a lot of these guys have been trained for manual work that is, regardless of basic income, being moved overseas and automated. The work is going/gone.

Edit: Also, I would highly respect any manual labourer who would stay in their job even though they were sure of their income. I think that is a useful currency too.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#243

Post by salient » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:48 PM UTC

JTon wrote: post #80

salient wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would hate to be the person who earns just over that arbitrary 100k line.

Wouldn't be that much different than progress tax brackets, though. In that case, lowering the tax rate for you by 10 percent would basically mean receiving $10,000 more a year in "free money".

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#244

Post by czr80 » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:49 PM UTC

PaulJoslin wrote: post #64

lmm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This therefore means there is an incentive to go work. Yes and no. It's not an incentive to get a 10hr/week part-time job, for example, because you'd lose your benefits and so get paid less overall. Even making the transition can be difficult - most jobs won't pay you until the end of the month, but your benefits will be cut off at the start. How long does it take to save up a month's expenditures while on benefits…

1. I address this somewhere else. I agree this is broken, but this is not a problem with the benefit system - it's something to do with wages not rising accordingly with everything else. 2. Perhaps, although if they do something stupid with that money, they still need supporting - so you either let people go homeless / starve or help them (which creates a new layer of welfare) 3. I'm not saying twice the food would b…

The price of food will rise only if demand for food increases or supply falls, it won't change just because people have more money.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#245

Post by gaius » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:51 PM UTC

PaulJoslin wrote: post #25

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…

I like the idea of a basic income but it suffers from the flaw at the heart of democracy: "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury" -- Alexander Tytler. So say we have a minimum income guarantee that will cover a basic standard of living, and if you want luxuries, you have to work. Every election, that minimum will be ratcheted up, until it's completely unaffordable. This structural flaw needs to be fixed in some way before we can proceed.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#246

Post by dreamdu5t » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:55 PM UTC

None of the universal income proposals have any math to back them up. Simple napkin estimates show it's nowhere near affordable. "But people are rich!" is not an explanation. "We can draw on labor" is not an explanation. I want an explanation that actually demonstrates the affordability of such a thing. Not hand-waving about how we just aren't trying hard enough.

Can the people proposing a basic income please demonstrate how much they want to give and how much that costs? Then point out how they would fit it into the existing budget?

Also, please explain why prices would not react to a basic income? If $40,000 represents the price of doing nothing, other prices will change to respond to real not nominal costs. It doesn't seem like people proposing the basic income understand how prices are formed.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#247

Post by knewter » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:56 PM UTC

why don't we just give everyone $200,000/year. if this is a good idea, mine must be a great idea.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#248

Post by knewter » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:56 PM UTC

why don't we just give everyone $200,000/year. if this is a good idea, mine must be a great idea.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#249

Post by alextingle » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:56 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #190

JTon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hate to be the person who earns just over that arbitrary 100k line.

Happens in the UK. Every £2k over £100k and you lose £1k of your tax-free allowance. This means that you keep 38p of every £1 earned between £100k and £118k, before the tax rate relaxes back to a more sensible 40% after £118k (and then up to 50% at £150k).

Marginal taxation rates are even higher for the very poor: well over 90% in some cases.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#250

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 6:08 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #78

PaulJoslin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's correct Mike, it's not always the case (benefits being cut and working a job can provide you with a worse quality of life) - but I think that is more of a problem regarding the wages people are being paid in jobs, rather than the benefits system. For a long time inflation, house prices and general costs have beat basic wage increases - leaving many working for less money relatively than they would've got years…

> The system is broken, but the equality of pay and living standards is not to blame with the government, it's to blame with greedy corporations, share holders insisting they need to do anything for profit and wages being pinned down to the minimum they can be that the work force will stand for (to maximise profits). Let me ask you something... If you start a new business, and let's say you take out a huge loan to pa…

"Let me ask you something... If you start a new business, and let's say you take out a huge loan to pay your startup expenses, and you have a huge pool of qualified workers fighting to work for you for 10 dollars per hour, are you going to pay them any more? Knowing full well that that's a shitty wage, but that if you pay them any more you might go out of business and have a huge debt burden... Or do you pay them 20 dollars per hour out of generosity, and risk going bankrupt, with repercussions that could follow you for years?"

This calculus does not apply at all to the companies currently turning record profits. That's not to say that there's necessarily no important reason those companies should be choosing to keep their profits high as opposed to paying out higher salaries, but this manifestly isn't it.