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

UBI as a productivity dividend

scottsantens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 278 posts

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#261

Post by t0bia_s »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #257
t0bia_s wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why UBI from involuntary collected money of taxpayers, instead of lowering taxes? Whats the benefit of it and for whom?

Because lower income levels in the USA are so low that a substantial number of people do not even pay federal income tax at all. Consequently, "lowering taxes" does not deliver any money to those people. A tax credit would, but this is more or less semantically equivalent to an actual payment such as UBI.

There is much more than just income tax.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#262

Post by SoftTalker »

estearum wrote: post #101
SoftTalker wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument seems to be "that landlords are already charging the maximum that tenants are willing to pay for access to a given location and so cannot arbitrarily raise rents when a LVT is imposed." But, if the tenants now have more money in the form of UBI, then that argument doesn't hold.

No the argument is that the landlord will raise rents, but they will not keep them. The gain generated by UBI, by virtue of raising the value of the land underneath the unit , would be recouped by the LVT at tax time. UBI is passed from the tenants to the landlord in the form of higher prices, but is recouped by the LVT, which cannot be passed in reverse from the landlord back to the tenant.

I think that when most people hear "the landlord eats it" that does not imply that they raise rents but just pass the increase along to the tax authority and don't keep any of it for themselves. "The landlord eats it" implies that the landlord pays, accepts less profit, and the tenants pay the same as before.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#263

Post by zer00eyz »

sc68cal wrote: post #129
zer00eyz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions the actual solution No, they are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co . Changing the table stakes is what needs to happen: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation for a counter example. Unions just create an us vs them mentality. The fact that the NUMMI plant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI ) was not reproducible is a pretty strong indicator of that.

Imagine posting how unions are bad on a Saturday in your leisure time

Imagine not knowing that it was the actions of Henry Ford that increased pay, and pushed the 5 day work week before unions...

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#264

Post by estearum »

joe_the_user wrote: post #226
estearum wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if zoning etc didn't prevent you from doing that, the price of the land would just be far higher. High enough again to make it hardly profitable (if you're lucky) to do what you're allowed to do on that land. There are entire businesses that just buy lots, change their zoning, then sell them. It's all priced in.

You are confusing marginal price (or profit-equalization) theory with numerical limits on the level of housing unit production. If people were allowed to build as they wished, they'd build a lot of housing, much of the housing crisis would subside and then the profitability of building house would equalize with the profitability of other uses. But stable point would give a lot more people housing. It's like... Taxati…

> If people were allowed to build as they wished, they'd build a lot of housing

You seem to be under the impression that building housing isn't already a nearly-unprofitable venture. There's no room to for "them to build a lot of housing" – builders are already pulling back on more construction because we have too much. Not "too much" as in everyone is amply housed, but "too much" to be able to do it profitably despite the fact that we still have a shortage.

Cost of inputs is the problem, full stop.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#265

Post by estearum »

auggierose wrote: post #223
estearum wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes if you simply assert an upside down reality, this is a good solution. However, people actually move toward higher COL areas as their income permits them to. If more income meant people moved away from high COL areas, cities wouldn't exist. We'd have a flat distribution of people across approximately all land with ultra-low COL and ultra-low productivity everywhere.

You make a logical error here: UBI is independent from where you live. Normal income is not.

You make a logical error here: you are supposing I'm referring to the case of someone moving to a place in order to earn more. I am not. I am referring to the case of when people earn more, they end up choosing to live in more expensive places. Both scenarios are true, but only one is the one I'm pointing to because it's economically identical to UBI.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#266

Post by estearum »

SoftTalker wrote: post #262
estearum wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the argument is that the landlord will raise rents, but they will not keep them. The gain generated by UBI, by virtue of raising the value of the land underneath the unit , would be recouped by the LVT at tax time. UBI is passed from the tenants to the landlord in the form of higher prices, but is recouped by the LVT, which cannot be passed in reverse from the landlord back to the tenant.

I think that when most people hear "the landlord eats it" that does not imply that they raise rents but just pass the increase along to the tax authority and don't keep any of it for themselves. "The landlord eats it" implies that the landlord pays, accepts less profit, and the tenants pay the same as before.

"The landlord eats it" was referring to the tax. That fits with most people's conception of what it means for someone to eat the cost: they cannot bake it into higher prices and pass along the burden.

Separately you are talking about applying UBI. No one said the landlord eats anything as far as UBI.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#267

Post by marcosdumay »

randerson wrote: post #238
marcosdumay wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we are in a situation today where the real economy may send inflation out of control in some countries. As we were at the early days of covid (but not an year or two later). I don't know what relation you see between that and UBI.

I think UBI would have a similar effect just via increased demand instead of a decreased supply. When the poor and middle class are all getting supplemental income, and they're competing for the same rentals, the landlords will raise prices, and so on. Same for anything else in limited supply.

You think UBI would be a constant shock on the economy in a size similar to closing the Strait of Hormuz?

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#268

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

t0bia_s wrote: post #261
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because lower income levels in the USA are so low that a substantial number of people do not even pay federal income tax at all. Consequently, "lowering taxes" does not deliver any money to those people. A tax credit would, but this is more or less semantically equivalent to an actual payment such as UBI.

There is much more than just income tax.

At the federal level, in terms of general purpose taxation? Not really. Capital gains? Even less people pay that. Fuel taxes, aviation taxes etc. are not general purpose taxes.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#269

Post by nostrebored »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #46
shahmeern wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that line of reasoning has worked our particularly well for shelter.

Just because supply of shelter in certain locales has not kept up with demand for that specific locale, and/or is affected by numerous legalities regarding things like eviction and zoning codes and fire codes and animals, does not mean invalid the theory of higher prices incentivizing sellers to increase supply.

… why would incentivizing supply of staples be a good idea? If I make 2,000,000,000 more eggs you would expect that the vast majority of those would not be consumed, because people already consume staples at a near optimal rate. The sales of substitute goods would go down, but you’d almost certainly expect a rotating set of WICesque price fixing to combat the natural rise in price?

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#270

Post by LightBug1 »

estearum wrote: post #221
LightBug1 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just imply that landlords are incentivised to build housing for a growing population?! * scream laughs *

Landlords != developers You should take some time to understand this extremely basic distinction before forming such strong conclusions.

Maybe, but I had a good laugh at the implication, and now how you've stretched your reasoning, so I'm ok with it. Thanks.
Post reply on HN