How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness • Hacker News Board

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#251

Post by tracker1 » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 2:36 AM UTC

greedo wrote: post #178

ergothus wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately you'll find a good portion being spent on 20th century drugs, which suck immensely Leaving aside any evaluation of the quality of modern drugs... You raise my one concern about UBI. I'm fairly liberal, and particularly with the rise in automation, I see something like UBI becoming necessary. Unlike some conservatives, I have no real concern about people "mooching" or getting money they don't "deserve"…

There's no realistic (as in adding up mathematically) way that UBI will be cheaper than the social programs of today.

Agreed, though it may well be worth the trade off if we could eliminate huge layers of bureaucracy.. there are also a lot of ancillary programs and subsidies that this could be in place of. Reducing military expenditures would help a lot too.

I keep thinking as well that switching to a VAT/tariff/excise system that included money transfers would be beneficial... Even allow (re)patriation of funds without taxes, while funds leaving the country are taxed.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#252

Post by tracker1 » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

Domenic_S wrote: post #233

goodcanadian wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem particularly hard to me. You raise taxes slightly to claw back the UBI from people making significantly larger amounts of money. Actually, how I would implement it is as a refundable tax credit in place of the basic deduction. In other words, if you have no income you receive your full UBI. However, you are taxed on your first dollar of income (rather than getting a tax free threshold as you do today)…

You receive your full UBI for the year all at once at tax time? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Lets say you get $500/month to every adult citizen... and $100-300/month (varies by number/age of children) for every dependent child., for a family of four, that winds up being lets say $1500/month. For a year, that would be $18,000/year. The average U.S. income is $52k.. meaning that a flat tax rate of at least 40% would be needed to cover such a system, as well as what's left of the govt.

I might be persuaded to do that, if it meant that pretty much all social programs go away, and that a lot of laws, agencies, regulation, subsidies and even military spending were cut. With a target of cutting the federal budget by 70%. If course it feels like I have that much coming out of my paycheck already.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#253

Post by tracker1 » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 2:50 AM UTC

goodcanadian wrote: post #235

Domenic_S wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You receive your full UBI for the year all at once at tax time? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Details to be worked out. :) No, of course, I would not propose that. There are many ways to handle it that effectively amount to the same thing. The UBI could be paid out monthly or fortnightly or whatever seemed good with the tax situation otherwise being the same. Your employer would have to withhold a bit more tax to compensate, but the end result would be the same. The point is not to argue specific implementati…

Income tax would need to be 40-60% flat to cover such a system.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#254

Post by tracker1 » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 2:56 AM UTC

telchar wrote: post #191

rhizome wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way housing would suck up the entire UBI is if everyone were trapped in a California situation where new housing was impossible. Provided there are no location/COL adjustments.

I think providing location/COL adjustments would be a big mistake for a UBI system. Providing a flat rate encourages people to move to lower-COL places which would reduce the amount of economic activity tied up in rent. It seems to me that adjusting for COL would just reward those who choose to prop up rents and worsen the rent COL cycle.

Agreed.. the main benefit to such a system would be simple rules that apply to everyone, that you can't cheat (other than potentially non-citizens getting benefits). It there's any complexity, including COL, that makes it easier to cheat said system.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#255

Post by tracker1 » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 2:57 AM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #206

noonespecial wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every cent of UBI will be absorbed by housing cost I think you're wrong about that because UBI frees people to go and live anywhere . They won't be trapped in lousy housing one bus-ride from their McJob anymore. The only way housing would suck up the entire UBI is if everyone were trapped in a California situation where new housing was impossible.

I seriously doubt it. While I don't doubt it will aid in some mobility it will not be significant enough to let people simply pull up stakes and move. Plus with dual income families someone always gets the shaft when it comes to commutes. I think a more likely scenario is companies will pop up who cater to providing the needs of UBI dependents. Think about it, if UBI is enough to cover home and food then you could pa…

That assumes the homeless is a significant portion of the population.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#256

Post by goodcanadian » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 3:30 AM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #252

Domenic_S wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You receive your full UBI for the year all at once at tax time? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Lets say you get $500/month to every adult citizen... and $100-300/month (varies by number/age of children) for every dependent child., for a family of four, that winds up being lets say $1500/month. For a year, that would be $18,000/year. The average U.S. income is $52k.. meaning that a flat tax rate of at least 40% would be needed to cover such a system, as well as what's left of the govt. I might be persuaded to d…

Two things to keep in mind:

1) Even if the marginal tax rate is fairly high, your average income earner will be getting that $18000 back in UBI which makes the effective rate in your scenario more like 5%.

2) The majority of tax revenue comes from the highest earners. A quick google gave me this (from https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...):

The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).

In other words, I don't believe your math is a reasonable approximation of how the budget would work out. If everyone pays the same effective rate as today (including welfare and other social program recipients who can be treated as having a negative effective rate), nothing changes. Also, there is no need to presume a flat tax rate; the U.S. does not have a flat tax rate, now.

EDIT: Also the average household size in the U.S. is 2.53 people, not 4. A naive calculation would suggest that a household of 4 should therefore expect a mean income around $83K.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#257

Post by ergothus » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 4:11 AM UTC

ende wrote: post #243

ergothus wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure I follow...You're saying the govt should break up monopolies more (I agree), but without the govt we'd have fewer monopolies? So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention. It is simply too hard to be a well-informed consumer, and we consumers prioritize our short term convenience over societies (or even just our own)…

"So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention." Where do you get that idea from? Nearly every monopoly is the product of government bestowed privilege.

> Where do you get that idea from? Nearly every monopoly is the product of government bestowed privilege.

Hearst, US Steel, Microsoft, the various abusive powers across history.

I won't deny that the govt DOES provide monopolies. But absent govt intervention, as soon as someone gets ahead, it's easier to get ahead. "Oh, you want to carry my competitors product? Well, good luck staying in business without my products, or the products of anyone else that relies on me, because I will tell them I'll cut them off if they sell to you." or perhaps there's the carrot instead of the stick: "Oh, you want to buy from them? I'll undercut them by 20%. Sure, that's below cost, but they won't stay in business long with no customers, meanwhile I've got a good bankroll. I'll even buy up the wreck of their company afterward at bargain prices, and make up any difference later when I have no competition to restrict my prices."

Nearly every CURRENT monopoly is from the govt...because in most developed nations that's the only way to get a monopoly without getting hit by antitrust. I remember when Apple was in the toilet - Microsoft kept them afloat with a big stock buy. This wasn't done because MS had warm fuzzy feelings, it was done to maintain the appearance of competition. Were MS not afraid of the govt interfering, they'd have let Apply die, they'd have made (more) deals with OEMs that refused to license Windows to them if they installed Netscape, etc.

Or take Google - They are dancing around trying not to offend European regulators and have been for years. Absent any fear of govts, Google would have no reason not to fully tie their products and advertising. Compete with them and suddenly the engine that powers 60% of customer searches will either not have your products or drop them to page 10. Searches for reviews of your products will somehow highlight the negative reviews. Nearly impossible to prove any wrongdoing if it (1) isn't "wrong" in the legal sense and (2) there is no authority to dig up information.

I don't believe a mythical "informed consumer" will see behavior like that (first - how would they see it? It'd be they said/they said) and punish the abuser. Watch how boycotts against Amazon for their one-click patent fared, or against Blizzard for their treatment of bnetd. (hint: insignificant...and I say that as someone that did both) Or heck, look at how hospitals can successfully hide their prices and have a huge range. The average consumer values convenience far more than fairness.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#258

Post by ergothus » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 4:20 AM UTC

liber8 wrote: post #231

ergothus wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> try to imagine a world with no patent or copyright laws I'm not a big fan of the laws as we have them, but sure, i'll play along: > How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look? ...I'm not sure they'd look substantially different. LM would still only be in competition with a few others because of high barriers to entry. GE...I lack even passing knowledge to speculate. Disney would lose out on a lot of merchandi…

>> BUT my claim is that you have MORE monopolies in (certain) unregulated markets. I can very well be wrong...do you have any evidence to that point? Not to be too cheeky, but do you have any evidence to support your claim that we would have more monopolies without government intervention? If you look back through U.S. history, how many monopolies has the government actually broken up? Not many. And I don't think any…

> Not to be too cheeky, but do you have any evidence to support your claim that we would have more monopolies without government intervention?

I just posted elsewhere in these comments on that, but basically: Hearst, US Steel, Microsoft, plus lots of potential abuse that is prevented. (You're implying that tariffs supported the US Steel monopoly - I won't argue. But it didn't create the monopoly, and it didn't create the market abuse)

> And I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the threat of antitrust action by the government is what has limited the existence of monopolies.

I certainly will. I've watched Microsoft dance about (including funding Apple) when they were scared. Before them IBM did the dance. BSD exists because AT&T was prevented from selling UNIX directly. I see Google doing the dance, and Amazon is in the wings. Syngenta was going to merge with Monsanto, but didn't, and not because they suddenly thought it was a bad deal. Bayer and Monsanto are now looking to merge, and they are figuring out what businesses to spin off to avoid being stopped by monopoly concerns. You can go through the big mergers over the past 20 years (at least) and see how they've worked to avoid being hit with govt restrictions.

The govt even allows you to be a monopoly, all through your own market prowess...but prevents (or tries to) you from using that monopoly to spread into related areas. Absent that oversight completely free market capitalism would have ground innovation to a halt because the barriers to entry in most industries would be crippling. Investors wouldn't want to invest in competitors because it'd be a terrible risk rather than a basic risk.

> It seems self evident to me

Indeed, it is self evident to you. Not to everyone.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#259

Post by ergothus » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 4:22 AM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #245

ergothus wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and yet when there was mandatory drug testing it showed a drug use rate lower than the general population. How do you reconcile those contrasting data points? (honest question, not a troll)

Devils advocate: If you're getting paid to do drugs and watch movies, don't you think you can find someone's clean pee?

I used to work in Social Services. There are, without a doubt, people that abuse the system.

But you have a lot more confidence in their ability to be sneaky than I do. The average person is not very good at lying without getting caught. The average person that lacks any initiative or follow through is worse.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#260

Post by rlucas » Sat, Mar 18, 2017, 4:38 AM UTC

greedo wrote: post #178

ergothus wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately you'll find a good portion being spent on 20th century drugs, which suck immensely Leaving aside any evaluation of the quality of modern drugs... You raise my one concern about UBI. I'm fairly liberal, and particularly with the rise in automation, I see something like UBI becoming necessary. Unlike some conservatives, I have no real concern about people "mooching" or getting money they don't "deserve"…

There's no realistic (as in adding up mathematically) way that UBI will be cheaper than the social programs of today.

Suggested: Read Charles Murray's book on the topic. (yes, that Murray)

He pencils it out to something pretty close to 1:1, maybe something like 15% nominal spend increase, but with (theoretically) much greater utility for all concerned.