A Guaranteed Income for Every American • Hacker News Board

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#271

Post by Pamar » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

mac01021 wrote: post #215

TACIXAT wrote: post #206

Kind of a meta comment, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the basic income movement was (for the most part) started and promoted by an intelligence agency. After reading about the literary magazines and abstract art that the CIA funded I started thinking what a current program would look like. I think it would look like how basic income is developing.

> After reading about the literary magazines and abstract art that the CIA funded ... Any links?

I suppose the op meant this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#272

Post by prawn » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 5:56 AM UTC

brador wrote: post #10

Roritharr wrote: post #3

Once again no answer to the main Question: What to do with people that blow their UBI by the 2nd of each month on SAAS Startups? Let them starve? Go without Shelter?

Pay out UBI daily? The technology exists, no reason not to do it that way. Also the only way to make a basic income work is through a land or land value tax. Else you get massive inflation.

I agree that paying daily would have benefits. Give someone with poor impulse control a lump sum, and it can disappear quickly (new TV, car, big night out, etc). The daily equivalent might resist that a little, though they could still be baited into loan arrangements.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#273

Post by prawn » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 6:07 AM UTC

brbsix wrote: post #22

dnautics wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this is bad because on the net it will make society less compassionate.

Less compassionate to those undeserving of it, sure. Isn't that a good thing? I'm not a fan of UBI but this aspect might turn out to be really beneficial in reversing the perverse incentives and dysgenic effects of current social benefits programs.

Who's undeserving though? Someone lazy, sure. But someone impaired through birth defect or accident or mental illness? How do you determine whether someone is lazy but claiming anxiety/depression, or actually suffering?

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#274

Post by skybrian » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 6:09 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #199

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…

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.

Many retirees choose to live in Florida because they no longer have a job and would rather live somewhere sunny with low expenses.

UBI would have a similar effect - maybe you still want to have a job, but you can choose to accept a somewhat lower paying job to live somewhere nice. It would also put less pressure on places like San Francisco.

Being less dependent on jobs is a good thing. We should allow this migration to happen naturally, rather than subsidizing people to stay where they are.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#275

Post by arebop » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 6:12 AM UTC

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…

Does it really matter if a billionaire stacks up billions in some Cayman account? If so, it is straightforward to use inflation to redistribute those digits.

What I care about is a billionaire who buys up all the land in my country. The land can't be hidden and is therefore easy to tax. I care about a billionaire who eats gold leaf ice cream sundaes while the children across town are malnourished, but it is easy to tax gold and food sales at restaurants and groceries.

The big problem historically with sales tax has been that it is regressive, but with basic income that doesn't matter any more. There's no problem I know about with land taxes except misguided concern for the elderly and corrupt loopholes. Why not stop even trying to tax financial abstractions and just address hoarding?

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#276

Post by prawn » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 6:45 AM UTC

jkelsey wrote: post #86

trbvm2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right-wingers are mostly absent from this conversation. The question at hand is "can we give people enough to amount to a comprehensive solution and thereby save administrative costs"? I don't think any libertarian minded individuals actually believe in tossing out all safety nets and most likely don't care to reduce taxes on the wealthy either, at least not as a goal in and of itself.

Yes they do. Read the article and read up on the article's author. It's quite literally based around eliminating the costs of the social programs and instead throwing everybody a flat $10K/year.

I don't think I've seen a proposal for a UBI equivalent that doesn't intend it to replace social programs and be funded by the money saved.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#277

Post by dllthomas » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 6:55 AM UTC

dgacmu wrote: post #152

gozur88 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a UBI scheme. That's just welfare.

It's all the same. Otherwise, you're going to increase taxes even more for people making more than the UBI to compensate. This is simply pushing numbers around on the page - either you're getting the UBI and paying it all back in taxes, or you're not getting the UBI and not paying it back in taxes.

> Otherwise, you're going to increase taxes even more for people making more than the UBI to compensate.

There are funding options other than income tax.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#278

Post by jboggan » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 7:04 AM UTC

. . .

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,

By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;

But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

. . .

[0] - http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#279

Post by iopq » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

arebop wrote: post #275

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…

Does it really matter if a billionaire stacks up billions in some Cayman account? If so, it is straightforward to use inflation to redistribute those digits. What I care about is a billionaire who buys up all the land in my country. The land can't be hidden and is therefore easy to tax. I care about a billionaire who eats gold leaf ice cream sundaes while the children across town are malnourished, but it is easy to t…

Returns on investment always beat inflation in the long run.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#280

Post by ptaipale » Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 7:20 AM UTC

avatarlite wrote: post #188

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…

The article's author also wrote a book advocating a universal basic income, “In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,” which was first published in 2006. In that book he allows that services for the disabled would need to be retained and could not be replaced with a UBI.

Of course. The problems of the disabled, the mentally ill and so forth are obvious, and the solution is obvious: don't remove all the social security besides UBI.

But that's also the downfall of UBI, because it means that most of the other transfers will remain a necessity, and the bureaucracy to distribute it will remain a necessity, and the whole issue of welfare dependency is back with us, and so is the constant discussion of what support and subsidy should be expanded.

(I'm looking at this from European angle where the welfare is often, though not always, stronger than in the US).