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

The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

spectacle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 389 posts

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#361

Post by stcredzero »

wj wrote: post #331
stcredzero wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense. Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common…

What cultures are those? Honest question.

Look up the Wikipedia article for Gift Culture.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#362

Post by Suncho »

sleighboy wrote: post #192
Suncho wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government can’t be trusted not to devalue our currency Governments can often be trusted to maintain a stable value of currency. That's why fiat currency out-competed gold and why Bitcoin will never be able to compete with a well-managed fiat currency. > we should introduce a system which makes our livelihoods dependent on the whims of bureaucrats. There are robust ways to implement basic income that don't depe…

When did a fiat currency win out over gold? It requires government manipulation by price fixing, outright debasement and mechanisms like legal tender laws for worthless tokens to win out over a precious metal such as gold.

> When did a fiat currency win out over gold?

It happened gradually. But wars usually put stress on the gold system. They caused the fault lines to slip, so to speak.

The US Dollar was the last major currency tied to gold and we finally severed that tie in 1972 when the Bretton Woods system ended.

And the reason it happened is that in order for prices to remain stable, we needed to be able to adjust the amount of money flowing in the economy to an extent greater than gold would allow.

> It requires government manipulation by price fixing, outright debasement and mechanisms like legal tender laws for worthless tokens to win out over a precious metal such as gold.

Yup! With the rate of economic growth outstripping the rate at which we could mine gold or spend new gold certificates into the economy, gold just simply wasn't going to cut it anymore as a stable basis for a currency. In order for markets to function smoothly, we needed a currency that could be actively managed.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#363

Post by Suncho »

gaius wrote: post #307
firethief wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what guaranteed monthly checks does to ambition Do you think it's a coincidence that that check is only guaranteed in the absence of ambition? You've seen the perverse incentives of means-tested welfare, not the effects of a UBI.

The B is for basic. You won't starve or freeze, but if you want any luxuries then you will need to earn them. That's why UBI won't kill ambition. Contrast to welfare where if you earn anything the welfare is taken away.

Different people have different ideas of what a basic income is. The definition I first learned is that the "basic" in basic income means that it forms a base upon which you can build further in come. It's not about satisfying some level of basic needs. It can be any amount as long as everyone gets it unconditionally.

There's an optimal amount of basic income for social prosperity and it would be an amazing coincidence if that amount happened to be exactly enough to provide for people's basic needs and nothing more.

I agree that basic income won't kill ambition. But I don't think it's because we're withholding money from people. It's because people are naturally ambitious and competitive. Just because you have wealth doesn't mean you don't want more.

Maybe some people won't be ambitious, but that's not exactly a problem for those of us who are.

> Contrast to welfare where if you earn anything the welfare is taken away.

Yeah. I agree with you on this part.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#364

Post by wj »

stcredzero wrote: post #361
wj wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What cultures are those? Honest question.

Look up the Wikipedia article for Gift Culture.

The examples given are for societies that are both incredibly smaller than the U.S as well as not yet reaching industrialization. I'm not sure they are applicable comparisons.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#365

Post by AFNobody »

WalterBright wrote: post #293
AFNobody wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Successful entrepreneurs aren't usually on welfare, they come from great backgrounds (hi Sam, Mark, Bill, Donald...). Coming from a wealthy enough background that you can fall back on your parents if you fail is a form of welfare as it allows you to take risks without it being a disaster that leaves you homeless. Welfare serves a similar function. Its a safety net that allows you to take risks w/o ending up starvin…

> starving/homeless That assumes that the entrepreneur would have no job skills and no get-up-and-go, and so would be unable to get another job, which seems unlikely.

Many non-technical people require 6-12 months to find a new job and would likely run out of cash before then after plowing it all into a startup.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#366

Post by dahdum »

stcredzero wrote: post #355
Dylan16807 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment is talking about tax avoidance . They are going out of their way to not pay these taxes, but they'd give away the same money or more if nobody tried to "make them"? I wouldn't hold my breath. > I don't expect more from the wealthy than I do of myself. When you're not wealthy, you have strong needs for that extra money. So I definitely do expect more from the wealthy, in terms of dollar amount. In terms o…

They are going out of their way to not pay these taxes, but they'd give away the same money or more if nobody tried to "make them"? To force them, out of resentment, as if they are immoral villains or monsters. Do you take well to being treated as an immoral villain? I wouldn't hold my breath. This is exactly how successful museums operate. What would be so outlandish about changing the culture, such that intentional…

If you're that wealthy I don't think it's really going out of your way to avoid taxes. More like your CPA / tax lawyer says 'Found a way to save you $X in taxes. It'll cost a fraction of that to setup. Shall I go ahead and do that?'.

Treating them as immoral villains and trying to take their wealth away will just make them hold onto it that much tighter. I'm just upper middle, but I feel the strain knowing CA is constantly trying to raise my taxes to cover increasing deficits / unfunded pensions.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#367

Post by tom_mellior »

heynonynony wrote: post #346
tom_mellior wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sorry but $100K is not a lot of income these days Did you click the link in the post you're answering to? Among many other interesting things, it says: "Of those individuals with income who were older than 15 years of age, approximately 50% had incomes below $30,000 while the top 10% had incomes exceeding $95,000 a year in 2015." The source it gives is this, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/…

bullshit. do you live in CA? do you have any f'ing idea how expensive it is to live in CA? $100K/yr does not get you very far.

So are you saying that there are no bus drivers and cleaning people in California, or are you saying that bus drivers and cleaning people in California make $100k per year?

(As for your request for proof by claimed authority, I used to live in the Bay Area. It's been about ten years since I left. I was doing fine on $60k back then. Maybe prices have doubled in the meantime.)

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#368

Post by Dylan16807 »

stcredzero wrote: post #355
Dylan16807 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment is talking about tax avoidance . They are going out of their way to not pay these taxes, but they'd give away the same money or more if nobody tried to "make them"? I wouldn't hold my breath. > I don't expect more from the wealthy than I do of myself. When you're not wealthy, you have strong needs for that extra money. So I definitely do expect more from the wealthy, in terms of dollar amount. In terms o…

They are going out of their way to not pay these taxes, but they'd give away the same money or more if nobody tried to "make them"? To force them, out of resentment, as if they are immoral villains or monsters. Do you take well to being treated as an immoral villain? I wouldn't hold my breath. This is exactly how successful museums operate. What would be so outlandish about changing the culture, such that intentional…

It's not treating someone as a villain to say "hey, we know you give to charity, but in aggregate people don't give enough to charity to run an entire country, so we're going to tax you among everyone".

And I don't think that's a false statement either.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#369

Post by dahdum »

specialist wrote: post #341
dahdum wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SNAP, section 8 housing, disability, and other programs are still necessary under UBI unless UBI is absurdly high. If is that high, then the sick/elderly/disabled are hugely disadvantaged relative to those who are not - not a desirable outcome for me. We should overhaul our existing programs to provide graduated phase outs instead of creating new entitlement programs. I see UBI in general as having far more perverse…

When you say "entitlement", I hear "progressive wealth redistribution". Government is the source of all wealth. So administering cashectomies is a fine way to mitigate hoarding. Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach.

> Government is the source of all wealth. So administering cashectomies is a fine way to mitigate hoarding.

Labor is the source of all wealth, not government.

> Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach

What exactly is the democracy promoting range? How does it promote democracy exactly? The richest Americans are nearly split between democrats/republicans, so this isn't a 1 party issue.

I don't think UBI is over reach, I think it's bad policy.

Re: The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

#370

Post by nightski »

themacguffinman wrote: post #291
heynonynony wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"nets you millions" probably not if "tax the hell out of wealth" ... right?

If you earn $10MM and you get taxed 80%, you've still netted millions.

Right but your costs are not reduced by a similar amount. When I purchase things or take out a loan for a personal expense I have to pay that off with post-tax dollars. So I have to earn more money to buy the same things.

In this regard a large tax greatly reduces purchasing power and makes it less worth the trouble.

Post reply on HN