It Is Time For Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#321

Post by buzaga41 » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 2:59 AM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #233

rjtavares wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like you scare me. I can't even understand that point of view, and I don't think we can have a productive argument if we don't share a basic understanding of what a society is. Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

> Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral. I'm not arguing that "taxes are theft". I'm arguing that giving money to poor people so they don't attack me is theft. buzaga was saying that if I/we don't "take care of the unfortunate", they'll decide to take our money/stuff by force. Sounds like a veiled threat to "give them money, or else..." That is theft, in my opinion.…

+misery = +violence -misery = -violence +people participating in the economy = +business, +salaries better society = better society for everyone

You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.

Misery breeds violence, there's no "or else", there's no "they", it's reality, I could resort to violence to survive and so could you.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#322

Post by wnoise » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 2:59 AM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #281

ekianjo wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible? The government could be printing money to make that possible, as well, instead of financing it through taxes only.

Printing money causes inflation, which is effectively a wealth tax.

A liquid wealth tax. The actually wealthy have many vehicles for hedging against inflation, from owning durable property, to complex financial instruments.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#323

Post by orthecreedence » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:00 AM UTC

bcheung wrote: post #292

orthecreedence wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the type of attitude that hinders progress, and for no apparent reason. News flash: you're already rewarding people who sit around doing nothing with your tax dollars. GBI does the same, but at reduced overhead. Starting a business is hard. Starting a business while working full time is near impossible. It's not about laziness or incompetence. You just don't get the same business opportunities you do when wor…

I'm opposed to rewarding those who sit around and do nothing period, including the current system. Yes, starting a business is hard. So? All I'm hearing is excuses. I'm not saying do things that put you in indentured servitude. Debt is a tool that can be used to great effect but used unwisely it can make life harder. Unless it makes sense financially people are better not incurring college loans and educating themsel…

> I'm opposed to rewarding those who sit around and do nothing period, including the current system.

So what's wrong with a system that still rewards laziness (because it can't be stopped no matter what system is in place) but benefits the country a lot more?

> All I'm hearing is excuses.

Excuses from someone who's started a number of companies (successful and failed), been through acquisitions, all without going to college. And it has been hard. And I would have really appreciated a GBI =]. If your society requires people to work 16 hours a day to provide for themselves, your society is broken.

> That's a straw man argument there.

No, it's not. Overused term, especially on this forum, doesn't apply here. People do live in indentured servitude to their student loans as an alternative to working full-time in college. It's a detriment to society.

> Bored people creating? Then why aren't they doing that now instead of watching reality tv?

I know a lot of creative people who actively work to make art in various forms who get jack shit in return. They don't watch a lot of reality TV either. You seem really out of touch with a lot of the general population.

> The free market definitely approves of art. What are you talking about?

Once again, I feel you're out of touch. How many artists do you know? Painters? Musicians? Performers? Most of them (if not all) have side jobs to allow them to do their art (while still living in poverty). The free market accepts art in a pop-culture sense, but people who are pushing the boundaries in art are usually lacking in capital. Not because what they're doing is wrong or useless, but because the general population doesn't approve. Which is a big part of art in the first place.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#324

Post by bryanlarsen » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:01 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #67

I agree there are immense benefits but it fails to recognize that markets rule the world. Once there would be a Basic Income, that is when market prices would go up to cancel out the benefit. You underestimate the rulers of the world (wealthy) to hold onto their advantage. I see it as many times better than welfare or unemployment since it is distributed equally to everyone. If there is a limit it will eventually be…

Why would prices go up? It's a money redistribution scheme, not a money creation scheme. The poor have more money, the rich have slightly less, the middle class have about the same, and the bureaucrats and parasitical corporations that live off administering the welfare system have a lot less.

Goods generally purchased by the poor might go up slightly, but BI should shift the poor into the low end of lower middle class. In other words, putting them in a situation comparable to that of the majority of the American population, so the effect on the demand curve should not be large.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#325

Post by MartinCron » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:01 AM UTC

sesteel wrote: post #125

MartinCron wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Meeting basic human needs through other means seems to be a necessary prerequisite to basic income.

I kindly disagree. I would prefer a system where a basic income is distributed (simply for the efficiency) and those that receive it are educated on how to spend it to meet their basic needs. This could be integrated into school curriculum, online courses, etc.

That makes sense, though I keep thinking about people who are (for various reasons) fundamentally non-rational actors. Those with mental illnesses or drug abuse issues, etc.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#326

Post by bcheung » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:01 AM UTC

iopq wrote: post #264

bcheung wrote: post #190

1) When people don't need to produce value to live in the world, they will cease to produce value. 2) Ultimately it is not income that is needed to survive but resources properly organized. The cost of survival is getting cheaper and cheaper at an exponential rate. You wouldn't know that though because they keep raising the bar on what it means to "survive"—big screen tv, air conditioning, car, etc. The amount of wor…

Well, it's the only way to be able to dissuade people from programs like welfare and food stamps. Practically, it's the only program that can succeed in doing so in the US. You don't think it would be a better system than we have now where making past a certain amount has a NEGATIVE effect on your income if you're a single mother? It's better to make closer to $30,000 as a single mother rather than $50,000 - you'll g…

I agree that the current system rewards people for consuming welfare and provides disincentives for them to work, but I don't think making the rest of the working population their slaves through taxes is a moral solution.

I think a better solution would be along the lines of "How can we reduce the barriers of entry so that people can create their own success?" and "How can we shift the cultural motif of society from entitlement mentality to valuing hard work and the benefits that come from it?"

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#327

Post by gizmo686 » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:02 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #232

gizmo686 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of three sane approaches. First, BI does not necessarily need to be above the poverty line. We can also go to a progressive BI, which may better be describe as a negative income tax, where the poor get more than the rich. And we can increase taxes.

> We can also go to a progressive BI, which may better be describe as a negative income tax, where the poor get more than the rich. That's called a "means-tested social benefit program", and is one of the thing BI advocates see it as replacing (we have plenty of those now) -- one of the main problems they see is that such programs create perverse incentives, since they reduce the marginal value of additional income t…

That is the same problem we have with a progressive income tax. The major problem I have with current programs is not that they increase the marginal tax rate, but that, at certain points, they increase the marginal taxrate to over 100%. Having a single program, that is also denoted entirely in dollars, will let us explicitly control the effective marginal tax rate.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#328

Post by enraged_camel » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:02 AM UTC

adekok wrote: post #229

I'm reading the comments, and surprised at what's missing. What happened to the business approach? The US government is delivering a large number of products with wildly varying costs, efficiencies, and price points. e.g. unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. There is a proposal is to replace those products with only one. The new product fills (mostly) the same need as the existing ones. It will do so at less cost…

>>Who the hell cares about random welfare guy ripping off the system? If you're making over $40K per year, you're getting ripped of by the system. By your system, that you demand to keep in place.

The USA is a deeply individualistic society. For most people, the default mindset is "me vs. those other people," and your average American will do anything (including tolerating a grossly inefficient system) to make sure "those other people" don't steal from "me."

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#329

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:05 AM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #324

drawkbox wrote: post #67

I agree there are immense benefits but it fails to recognize that markets rule the world. Once there would be a Basic Income, that is when market prices would go up to cancel out the benefit. You underestimate the rulers of the world (wealthy) to hold onto their advantage. I see it as many times better than welfare or unemployment since it is distributed equally to everyone. If there is a limit it will eventually be…

Why would prices go up? It's a money redistribution scheme, not a money creation scheme. The poor have more money, the rich have slightly less, the middle class have about the same, and the bureaucrats and parasitical corporations that live off administering the welfare system have a lot less. Goods generally purchased by the poor might go up slightly, but BI should shift the poor into the low end of lower middle cla…

> Why would prices go up?

Because the propensity to consume is not equal across the economic spectrum; downward redistribution increases expected consumption and, therefore, overall price levels.

The idea that this would eat up the beneficial effects of BI is hard to justify, but the idea that some increase in overall price level is likely is pretty easy to justify.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#330

Post by redler » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 3:05 AM UTC

bitkrieg wrote: post #248

noenzyme wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the basic income creates new business models. If you can't take care of yourself you can sign up with a company that takes your basic income and provides 3 hots, a cot and an allowance. Can't image it will be the nicest accomidations but it will be there if you need it...

As a side note, businesses, in general, could significantly reduce their labor costs if a BI was in place.

This might not work out the way you think. With more money in everyone's pocket, for example, people in subsistence circumstances working minimum-wage second jobs while their children sit alone at home would no longer be compelled as strongly to take or keep such jobs. Some would stick with them, but surely there would be a cohort for whom it's no longer necessary, or who could now afford to be pickier about the nature of that second job. And the movement of this margin, however slightly, in favor of the employee, would place upward pressure on the wages at those types of jobs.

There are businesses whose profitability and business model assume a steady supply of takers of these sorts of jobs at the lowest possible wage. How would basic income affect that supply?