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

301–310 of 387 posts

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#301

Post by madaxe_again »

aminok wrote: post #287
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…

>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). How about you don't instate something that requires harsh authoritarian penalties against non-violent behavior to work.

A better punishment would be to strip them of their nationality, and then send them after their money. British overseas territories would become overcrowded hell-holes in short order. Treasure islands become penal colonies.

The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#302

Post by dllthomas »

dnautics wrote: post #9
teddyh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Some people will still behave irresponsibly and be in need before that deposit arrives, but the UBI will radically change the social framework within which they seek help: Everybody will know that everybody else has an income stream. It will be possible to say to the irresponsible what can’t be said now: “We won’t let you starve before you get your next deposit, but it’s time for you to get your a…

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

Maybe. Hopefully it lets us do a better job picking our compassionate response. Someone who can't get by with a sufficient regular income needs help of a different character than further handouts - giving more of the latter is not a sign of greater compassion.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#303

Post by adynatos »

trbvm2 wrote: post #87
JorgeGT wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people who are likely to drop out of the labor market are almost certainly not the motivated, high-productivity workers that actually benefit society The people who are likely to drop out of their job are plumbers, dishwashers, garbage collectors, miners, mail carriers, highway maintainers, taxi drivers, manual fruit pickers and the rest of those performing soul-crushing jobs that actually allow society to keep…

All solvable problems though, no? If no one has to wash dishes in order to survive then you will have to offer a quite decent wage to get people to wash dishes else pay someone to finally make the washing of dishes completely automated. Supply and demand should dictate that the worst issue will end up being the rising cost of having a night on the town. Same thing for any other currently low value jobs. We will have…

so a minimum wage? great, so i'll pay half the dishwashers twice the previous wage for twice the work. or, if automation is possible, i'll pay one guy a minimum wage to look after dozens of dishwashing machines. result is less people working.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#304

Post by zeta0134 »

mynewtb wrote: post #289
aminok wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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). How about you don't instate something that requires harsh authoritarian penalties against non-violent behavior to work.

Crime does not have to be violent to deserve drastic penalty.

I feel like the punishment should be appropriate to the crime though. Leave jail for the criminally dangerous, those whose freedom would be a physical danger to others. (Murderers, rapists, etc.)

Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#305

Post by dllthomas »

adynatos wrote: post #303
trbvm2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All solvable problems though, no? If no one has to wash dishes in order to survive then you will have to offer a quite decent wage to get people to wash dishes else pay someone to finally make the washing of dishes completely automated. Supply and demand should dictate that the worst issue will end up being the rising cost of having a night on the town. Same thing for any other currently low value jobs. We will have…

so a minimum wage? great, so i'll pay half the dishwashers twice the previous wage for twice the work. or, if automation is possible, i'll pay one guy a minimum wage to look after dozens of dishwashing machines. result is less people working.

Not quite the same as a minimum wage. It's not enforced by bureaucrats, but by potential employees each individually deciding they have better uses for their time to do the work you're asking for the price you're offering.

If your workers are willing and able to do twice as much work in the same time for twice as much pay, you should likely make that switch anyway - at the least it'd save you bookkeeping, and it would be a better use of the workers' time.

And if people systematically decide that they have better things to do than a particular job, and we automate that job so we don't need people doing it, that seems like a win to me.

Whether it means less people working overall depends on how big these effects are, what the effects are on demand, and whether we couple it with other changes like a decreased minimum wage (which could lead to more people working on things which are more pleasant/fulfilling but less highly paid).

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#306

Post by svantana »

madaxe_again wrote: post #300
arebop wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those billions in a cayman account are dead money. They are the marginal efficiency of labour crystallised, and then transformed into a immotile instrument which benefits nobody. You say it does no harm, but why do you think we're still working 60 hour weeks when we've improved efficiency in all fields by orders of magnitude since industrialisation? All that efficiency gain's benefit was "realised" by the elites, but…

Money in bank accounts is not like acorns, it's more like having other squirrels owe you acorns. I don't see why that is such a big deal.

People working 60 hour weeks has less to do with the Cayman islands than with those people needing a place to stay, and the demand of land far outstripping the supply, making it a zero sum game. That's why a huge land tax is a no brainer, but of course it will never happen, because the land owners can always pull out the old "poor granny won't afford to stay in her own house" argument and get all the sympathies on their side.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#307

Post by te_chris »

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…

The thing is, in a service based economy we desperately need the rich to buy ostentatious, pointless shit/experiences purely in order to retain jobs.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#308

Post by aminok »

madaxe_again wrote: post #301
aminok wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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). How about you don't instate something that requires harsh authoritarian penalties against non-violent behavior to work.

A better punishment would be to strip them of their nationality, and then send them after their money. British overseas territories would become overcrowded hell-holes in short order. Treasure islands become penal colonies. The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to.

That would be a great solution, although I think the consequence for the tax havens would be the opposite of what you envision.

>The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to.

Difference is that those debt obligations were voluntarily assumed, whereas tax debt is an odd form of debt that is imposed on someone without their agreement.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#309

Post by papapra »

rayalez wrote: post #291
papapra wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you at least read the article ? He writes about replacing the current welfare system with UBI. About the taxes, I think you are wrong because you think in black and white. It's not binary, it's a spectrum and you want to have a balance, in USA the current system is very favorable to the rich.

In the previous discussion a commenter pretty much explained why this wouldn't work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11807840 Also I think I can accept that a certain amount of taxes is a necessary evil. But let's treat it as such, and avoid taking more than absolutely necessary. In my opinion UBI is a step way too far in the wrong direction.

Why it is necessary evil ? You don't live alone in this world and I bet you profited enormously from the country, community that you live in.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#310

Post by papapra »

aminok wrote: post #292
papapra wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you at least read the article ? He writes about replacing the current welfare system with UBI. About the taxes, I think you are wrong because you think in black and white. It's not binary, it's a spectrum and you want to have a balance, in USA the current system is very favorable to the rich.

There is no spectrum. Taxes on private income are grossly authoritarian and should be abolished for basic justice.

Take care with your ideology(for you it's seems it's a religion), that's all I can say to you.
Post reply on HN