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

Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

greshm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#31

Post by tgv »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

> I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?".

That's what you feel. You've already introduced emotion, by using the highly subjective word "best", and the loaded phrase "our tax dollars."

> Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services,

And yet, there is more to UBI than savings. It's also proposed as a means to give people more freedom. Your choice to look at savings betrays an emotional attachment to economic value over all else. But that's not the same for everyone.

That said, I do not believe UBI can ever live up to its goals, and can actually create a worse society, even after initial success. That alone makes it subject to speculation and emotion. The effect of UBI simply isn't predictable. Economists can't even predict a moderate crisis when it's about to unfold, let alone the long term consequences of a radical system change.

UBI is hence a political choice, and one that's tied to personal expectations and hope.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#32

Post by mandmandam »

bsenftner wrote: post #25

Every opinion on UBI is short sighted, and does not understand the macroeconomic poison that is UBI. Our economy, all economies, have lowered ethics players operating at the top of each economy. UBI institutionalizes these low ethics players, as well as institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles. UBI is nothing less than the death of hope and the elimination of an…

As if current economic structures don’t already entrench powerful players? Lol.

CBI, as outlined in the paper, is funded through monetary contraction; meaning it does not introduce traditional taxation distortions or increase government control over industry.

If anything, UBI/CBI reduces dependence on hierarchical employment structures by providing individuals with a baseline income. This allows more freedom to reject exploitative labor conditions.

Historical evidence suggests that when people receive unconditional income (eg, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend), entrepreneurial activity and workforce participation generally increase.

> institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles

Poverty traps generally result from means-tested welfare programs, not unconditional income.

Many existing welfare programs disincentivize work because earning more means losing benefits. CBI is not means-tested, so earning more does not reduce benefits. If anything, it provides a safety net that makes risk-taking easier.

Pilot programs in Finland, Canada, and the U.S. show that UBI does not significantly reduce employment. In Kenya, cash transfers increased education rates and business activity among recipients, breaking generational poverty cycles.

If you want to declare things like "every opinion but mine is short sighted", it's generally best practice to demonstrate that you understand the relevant arguments and data.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#33

Post by throw0101b »

In Luke Martinelli published a paper about a (U)BI trilemma:

> As basic income (BI) has ascended the policy agenda, so proposals have come under increasing scrutiny for their affordability and adequacy for meeting need. One common objection to BI has been that it is impossible to design a scheme that simultaneously conforms to these two criteria. In this article, I develop a conceptual framework for analysing the trade-offs that afflict BI policy design. I suggest that while the idea of a policy dilemma between affordability and adequacy does indeed afflict 'full' BI schemes, it is possible to design an affordable and adequate 'partial' BI scheme. However, this comes at the cost of (at least partly) forfeiting some key advantages that motivate interest in BI in the first place, since these only arise as a consequence of the elimination of means testing and related conditionality from the welfare system. Thus, BI proponents face a three-way trade-off in policy design between affordability, adequacy, and securing the full advantages of BI as a radical simplification of existing welfare policy. The trilemma is illustrated with reference to original microsimulation evidence for the UK, which demonstrates that at most two of the three criteria can be achieved in a single scheme.

* https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/a-basic-in...

* PDF: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/196619819/...

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#34

Post by mgoetzke »

dwighttk wrote: post #24

In Alaska you have UBI and it comes from the state selling oil… where does the money come from for pie-in the-sky U BI?

Basically all industry, all commerce pays dividends/taxes and those get distributed.

People that use their money to invest (time or money) into good companies will profit more, people that use it for just consumption will remain low 'income'.

When companies succeed as a whole (eg move to all solar,robots,ai) all 'shareholders' will benefit. one of those will be the UBI program

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#35

Post by notepad0x90 »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #29
notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". There have been numerous pilot studies, e.g. those listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income . The problem is that opponents of UBI invariably point out that as only some people received it, and only for a limited time, that it wasn't universal, or…

> Its purpose is to ensure that everyone has their basic financial needs met, not to provide those particular government services.

The government is run by the people. If it increases cost to tax payers over all then the tax payers (people/voters) have every right to oppose this. Even social security alone (for elderly people who can't care for themselves) is untenable, the government has been borrowing from social security funds for decades. Many millennials are at risk of paying for SS their whole lives only to find it can't actually support them at their old age. UBI doesn't make sense at-cost.

The reasonable arguments I've heard state that homelessness, crime, medical cost and similar things will have reduced cost, in which case, sure, why not. But there are a long list of things that need funding long before UBI, if it is at-cost. Another good example is minimum wage, does it make sense to have such a low federal minimum wage and impose UBI on top of that?

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#36

Post by randallsquared »

6510 wrote: post #26
logicchains wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most western countries there are few state-run enterprises so there's little "government's money". There's taxpayer's money, and they care how it's spent.

Every time I think about that it strikes me as a dumb idea. Everything that cant be allowed to fail should be a government enterprise. I would go nuts with the concept, turn city hall into a museum, hotel, grandcafe, restaurant, cinema, casino, conference rooms, desks for rent, city tour guides, etc etc open 24/7. Live music if there are no council meetings on the big screen. It should have a room to smoke weed too.…

More and more things will become too important to fail, in this scheme. ;)

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#38

Post by notepad0x90 »

vintermann wrote: post #16
notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

> Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system, etc Sure, people can do that, but remember that it's impossible to measure wealth without distributional concerns. Whenever you ask "will this make us richer", there's an implied wealth distribution in the question, since what's valuable depends on who has money.

I'm asking more in the lines of "will this sort of and roughly make for its cost by savings elsewhere, resulting in minimal cost to tax payers?"

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#39

Post by notepad0x90 »

facile3232 wrote: post #21
notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". The government has far more ways of financing things than taxes. I’m not sure why we refer to money this way—it’s fundamentally disingenuous. A federal budget is not the same thing as a household budget in any way.

That argument makes no sense, I don't care that the government has other revenue sources, those revenue sources still belong to the people. The government doesn't have its own money, it manages its people's monies. And UBI at significant cost only makes sense if the people agree to that cost.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#40

Post by arijun »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #29
notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". There have been numerous pilot studies, e.g. those listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income . The problem is that opponents of UBI invariably point out that as only some people received it, and only for a limited time, that it wasn't universal, or…

Perhaps not police departments, but proponents do claim it reduces the stress on social programs. If it allows people to put money where it's needed, then they might need those programs less. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Post reply on HN