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

A Guaranteed Income for Every American

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 387 posts

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#261

Post by fzeroracer »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #222
fzeroracer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. A CoL adjustment for San Francisco isn't the problem, but rather the fact that San Francisco costs so much to begin with.

> The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. That isn't a problem. You get a concentration of people collecting a basic income who move into a low cost area, then they have m…

This is far too simplistic, especially when you consider the issue of gentrification and the rise of housing costs associated with it. You ignore that this leads back to the same issue: Poor people are now living in a higher-cost area where their previously held job no longer suffices to live.

So now you force these poor people out of homes that they used to be able to afford into even poorer areas with worse job security. This is assuming that they're even able to acquire new jobs. And it would only get worse with automation.

A basic income that doesn't scale based off of CoL is one that's bound to fail in the face of automation.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#262

Post by jondubois »

I like the idea of UBI, but the problem with schemes to improve wealth equality is that usually the middle class ends up footing almost all of the bill.

If a rich person feels that their wealth is threatened, they can evade the negative consequences of the scheme (taxes) by relocating their head office to the Caymans. On the other hand, if a middle class family is negatively impacted by the scheme - They cannot evade it; they can't afford to move to another country because they rely on their jobs for income.

If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be made a criminal offence (with jail time).

Also, income (passive income in particular) should always be taxed based on the country of origin (from which the payment originated) instead of the complex network of case-by-case tax treaties that currently exist. A single, origin-based tax system would not have all the loopholes that a complex case-by-case system has. Any country that refuses to enter into the origin-based tax treaty should be kicked out of the UN and trade sanctions should be imposed.

In practice, a rich person is currently not bound by the laws of their own country; they are bound by the laws of the country whose laws are the most convenient for them - They can literally pick and choose how much tax they want to pay.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#263

Post by pkaye »

wildmusings wrote: post #186
fzeroracer wrote: post #164

I am all for Basic Income but the way the author wants to implement it would be a disaster. My mother is fully disabled and unable to work as a result of her stroke and she relies on Medicaid, Food Stamps and SSI to live. $13000 per person would be lower than what she gets right now and that's without considering the insurance issues. These changes would quite literally kill or leave homeless a large amount of Americ…

> If Basic Income is to work then it needs to be actually liveable and adjusted based upon the CoL in each area. There's a good argument to be made for a larger sum for the disabled who cannot work. But I'd be extremely opposed to any regional adjustments. If individual cities and states want to supplement the UBI, then that's up to them, but people moving out of high-cost areas and into low-cost ones is part of the…

Would people in high cost of living area paying higher income taxes which subsidize the lower cost areas be a massive ripoff to those in the high cost areas?

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#264

Post by pkaye »

ericd wrote: post #51
Tycho wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it might create even bigger disincentives that have a much more universal effect, which could be disasterous.

13k is still poverty level, I imagine most would not be fully content at that level.

That is why it is called basic income and not deluxe income. The goal is to put food on the table and a roof over your head.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#265

Post by fapjacks »

newjersey wrote: post #193
wildmusings wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Basic Income is to work then it needs to be actually liveable and adjusted based upon the CoL in each area. There's a good argument to be made for a larger sum for the disabled who cannot work. But I'd be extremely opposed to any regional adjustments. If individual cities and states want to supplement the UBI, then that's up to them, but people moving out of high-cost areas and into low-cost ones is part of the…

> There's a good argument to be made for a larger sum for the disabled who cannot work. But I'd be extremely opposed to any regional adjustments. If individual cities and states want to supplement the UBI, then that's up to them, but people moving out of high-cost areas and into low-cost ones is part of the natural ebb and flow that keeps the cost of living reasonable. And can you imagine what a CoL adjusted UBI for…

San Diego is nice, but Hawaii is about as expensive and pretty much nicer.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#266

Post by fapjacks »

adventured wrote: post #259
discardorama wrote: post #250

> A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. Unfortunately, I have 2 problems with this: 1. Of the people that I see in SF who could use UBI, almost none of them seem the type who would clean up their acts with UBI. They have serious mental issues, and money means only 1 thing to them: a means to chemical substances. So what do you do…

> Where will the jobs come from for them? That's a pretty weak criticism. Where are the jobs going to come from to employ the millions of people that used to be farmers (in 1875)? Where are the jobs going to come from to employ former delivery milkmen? Or what about the jobs for people that used to handle telephone call switching? The same place they've always come from: economic dynamism. The solar industry, as one…

This is so right on the money.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#267

Post by ScottBurson »

maxerickson wrote: post #200
chimeracoder wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's certainly the case around here that doctors are moving under the hospital umbrella. That's part of a trend that's a few decades old, and which has accelerated in the last 5-10 years. It's not a function of the number of physicians; physicians are selling their practices to hospitals because they can no longer sustain themselves in private practice. > I don't think the hospitals are forced to keep their prices…

From what I understand, they often have no idea what services cost . This is different than not having an internal price. And there shouldn't be external factors that prevent them from measuring it. Or are you saying that they are contractually bound to avoid tracking costs?

I don't know the answer to your question, but here's an interesting anecdote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4465845

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#268

Post by treebeard901 »

discardorama wrote: post #250

> A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. Unfortunately, I have 2 problems with this: 1. Of the people that I see in SF who could use UBI, almost none of them seem the type who would clean up their acts with UBI. They have serious mental issues, and money means only 1 thing to them: a means to chemical substances. So what do you do…

1. This sounds like a variation of the welfare argument that has been around forever. Just because some may abuse a system does not make the ideas for the system invalid. As globalization and automation advance you will see others who could benefit from it aside from the stereotypical homeless person. 2. If the premise for UBI is sound then many of the people you mention in the service sector will eventually be without jobs anyway. "Where will the jobs come from then?" is actually a great question to ask when considering the basis for implementing something like UBI.

In my opinion, the fundamental problem with UBI has to do with the perceived value of money. If everyone suddenly has $2,000 a month, that $2,000 will quickly have less purchasing power associated with it. On the other hand, if capital controls all of the means of production through automation, business will not have a market for their products as there will be no workers earning a salary to purchase the products. This is the biggest question for capitalism moving forward. I'm reminded of (the myth?) around Henry Ford and paying his workers more money. This may not have been done so his workers can afford a car, but by doubling the pay of his workers, the floor on wages in industrial Detroit followed. Whether or not it was his intention, the effect of workers having more money meant more sales. I feel like there is a lesson here for how we handle automation moving forward.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#269

Post by prawn »

aianus wrote: post #187
gizmo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is when you give the same subsidies to a healthy 22 year old who lives with his parents and a single mother of three, we're dealing with one of two situations: 1) the subsidies are sufficient for both groups to do OK. This is fine in theory, but taxes would have to go up by a lot to have the minimum take care of the needy with the largest expenses. The UBI would have to be closer to 25,000 USD. If it's poli…

Why should people be entitled to three children they can't afford rather than a beach bum lifestyle? If anything we should incentive the latter; at least it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Because not everyone chooses to have multiple children they can't afford. Maybe their breadwinner partner died. Maybe they were going to be pushing it with two kids, but the second pregnancy was twins. Or the first was triplets. Or they had great family support that allowed them to work a couple of days, but those people moved elsewhere.

I don't think people should be jumping into parenthood without knowing what it really entails (costs and brutal demands on your time) so I'm sympathetic to your angle, but reality plays out differently. And kids are the result of some pretty basic urges that are obviously difficult for many to deal with appropriately (think ahead, get/use contraceptives, actually abstain, whatever).

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#270

Post by prawn »

jondubois wrote: post #262

I like the idea of UBI, but the problem with schemes to improve wealth equality is that usually the middle class ends up footing almost all of the bill. If a rich person feels that their wealth is threatened, they can evade the negative consequences of the scheme (taxes) by relocating their head office to the Caymans. On the other hand, if a middle class family is negatively impacted by the scheme - They cannot evade…

Not even necessarily middle class. In Australia, many families who I'd consider middle class use family trusts, negative gearing and the like to minimise tax. The group just below that cops the worst of it, IMO.
Post reply on HN