Abolish all welfare, phase out social security, and have the poor rely on private charities. If people don't want to donate to the charities that's their choice, it's their money. You're not entitled to money, food, a home, or a job -- you're entitled to nothing. You're entitled to starve in the gutter. If you want something more you have to earn it or have someone voluntarily agree to give it to you out of their own free will.
A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
341–350 of 840 posts
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. Or they could have the fathers change the diapers.
If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. This is absolutely true in a free market with no labor distortions (BI, tax, etc). However, we already live in a world with distortions (taxes, welfare, regulations) that drive a wedge between economically optimal and actual choices. How would adding an even bigger wedge help? Also, due to women'…
I wonder how big of a basic income you could pay out while keeping the distortion from the basic income about the same size as the distortion from the replaced programs.
Later: Which is not intended as more than hand-wavy thinking out loud. Regardless of the impact, a basic income is a political pipe dream in the US. More immediate improvements in quality of life might come from better aligning incentives in the healthcare system and fixing cliffs in existing programs.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make it work you'd have to take whatever the amount is and extract it from all other government benefit programs. You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. Your social security, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc is reduced by $700 / month. Reducing all of those programs by the first $700 would effectively gut each of them enough to finally make some reforms without inducing panic in everyone…
Or instead, give it universally to children, but require a certain percentage be saved in some sort of fund that they are given full control of when they turn 18. That way the parents don't have to shoulder all of the expense of a child, but the child isn't screwed over by irresponsible parents either.
When they turn 18 they are already going to have access to the BI. I'm not sure of the benefit of a fund rather than directing it to school funding.
Prior to school it would allow parents to pay for daycare, diapers, food and subsidize paternity/maternity leave.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#344This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…
The only way I can see UBI working is if most people get no benefit. So someone making the average US income of $50,000/yr would get a check for $20k from the government and then see their taxes go up by ~$20k. Rich people would pay much more, effectively transferring their wealth to the poor. People who are solidly middle class wouldn't see much change, except having a new class of potential customers (the people th…
I fear it will only increase inflation to a level that the 10k people get is representing about the same in goods as the current level is they have. Free money is fake: it doesn't work in my opinion. It either increases the price level (hey - even the poor bum gets 10k a year, so he can afford a $10 bread, isn't it?) or it will stop people from over-achieving. My motivation to earn extra with a job only to see it go to taxes would reduce significantly if I can remain at the same level without a job and just 2 or 3 extra kids :)
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#345This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…
Can't we just taper it "on" and see what the effects are? For instance, in the first year everybody gets 10% UBI, second year 20% UBI, etc. until 100% UBI. If by year 10 the economy still functions as desired, we keep UBI. Otherwise we taper it off again.
The only way for this approach to work would be to define the metrics of "success" before starting this taper process. Also, it would need to be implemented in such a way that makes the process unstoppable.
Otherwise, it will be nearly impossible to taper "off" in the event of a failure.
It's easy to start giving people money that they never had, but once they have a taste, it's going to be hard to take it away.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#346Interesting how this article spins Basic Income as something of particular interest to conservatives while liberals would object to it. I suppose that can help sell the concept to highly partisan anti-liberals, but I know plenty of liberals and progressives who strongly support Basic Income. The idea that the people employed in the bureaucracy managing the current mess of programs losing their job is a silly concern.…
I think the author may have a conservative bias. For example, he writes: "The proposal died in part because of liberal opposition to a work requirement and obstruction by a well-organized welfare lobby, Moynihan would later write." If it's got a work requirement it's not really minimum income, is it? It certainly doesn't have the same properties as one - far from reducing bureaucracy, the proposal in question would've created a whole new bureaucracy around making sure people were working or seeking work and penalizing them if the bureaucrats decided they weren't trying hard enough. Oh, and it was specifically aimed at replacing welfare for single moms at a time of massive unemployment.
Basically, the reason he sees Basic Income as something of particular interest to conservatives is that he's hijacking the term to describe conservative policies of trying to punish people into work regardless of how realistic it is for them to find a job.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#347The Fed engineers a slow inflation every year via interest rate control and gives the benefit of the newly created money to banks, the loan borrowers, and asset holders as rates lower than keeping inflation at zero. Since the money supply increases anyway, might as well give the new money as basic income to ALL people. At least the money will be spent directly by the people for economic activities, instead of indirec…
Regarding inflation... if everyone instantly has $X now, doesn't $X become worthless? For instance, why would landlords not raise rents knowing that everyone now has this cash?
The problem is not inflation. It happens already. The problem is the new money created causing the inflation is given to the asset holders and banks, not to everyone.
Rent increases now, due to inflation. The general public have to give more despite not getting the created money. Landlords got the benefit of rising rent due to inflation and rising housing price due to lower interest rate to create more money.
Basic income just shifts the inflated money to everyone instead of just the asset holders.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or instead, give it universally to children, but require a certain percentage be saved in some sort of fund that they are given full control of when they turn 18. That way the parents don't have to shoulder all of the expense of a child, but the child isn't screwed over by irresponsible parents either.
Cool idea. I'd advocate for an age of 25 though. An 18 year old these days is still a child. Give them a couple years into the drinking age to get their bad decisions out of the way.
Sounds like you should advocated for a drinking age of 25 instead. Or move all those other things you get to do at 18 to 25 also.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your arguments are interesting, but they hold only in systems with artificial inflation controls. UBI increases the amount of money in the economy, which has the same effect as simply printing more, thus the value (scarcity) of the money decreases. A poor mother without UBI will be a poor mother with UBI because costs will simply go up, something you acknowledge. As costs for services go up, costs of products go up a…
Your entire theory is based on the idea that the labor market will decrease AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI. Sounds more like fantasy than economics.
Why wouldn't labor markets decrease? Isn't that the principle idea floating by UBI advocates entirely throughout this thread?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619730
> AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI.
No, all money will devalue with the increase in supply and increase in labor costs. That's pretty basic economics.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#350This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…
It's not just wealthier people who will be worse off - it's everyone. Basic income is known to create a large disincentive for work. In previous experiments (Mincome) labor supply dropped by about 10% - double what happened during the great recession. This means that fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. No matter how much money you give to peop…
It's so strange. It's almost as if people don't work if they don't have to.