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

371–380 of 387 posts

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#371

Post by discardorama »

adventured wrote: post #259
discardorama wrote: post #250

> A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. Unfortunately, I have 2 problems with this: 1. Of the people that I see in SF who could use UBI, almost none of them seem the type who would clean up their acts with UBI. They have serious mental issues, and money means only 1 thing to them: a means to chemical substances. So what do you do…

> Where will the jobs come from for them? That's a pretty weak criticism. Where are the jobs going to come from to employ the millions of people that used to be farmers (in 1875)? Where are the jobs going to come from to employ former delivery milkmen? Or what about the jobs for people that used to handle telephone call switching? The same place they've always come from: economic dynamism. The solar industry, as one…

> is adding 100,000 new jobs every four years at this point. In 20 years, that one industry will employ a million people

I think your math doesn't add up.

But going along with your line of thought: will UBI be phased in over 20 years? No. It'll happen over a year or two. Several million people will suddenly be off the rolls. That's not a gradual decline; that's a bloody step function. You will most definitely not have jobs for them. Creating jobs is hard, really hard.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#372

Post by prawn »

aianus wrote: post #344
prawn wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not everyone chooses to have multiple children they can't afford. Maybe their breadwinner partner died. Maybe they were going to be pushing it with two kids, but the second pregnancy was twins. Or the first was triplets. Or they had great family support that allowed them to work a couple of days, but those people moved elsewhere. I don't think people should be jumping into parenthood without knowing what it r…

But if you give people direct financial incentives to have more children, as OP wants, that's what they'll do. Look what the birth rate was 200 years ago when children were considered retirement investments (or elsewhere in the world where that's still true).

In Australia, we have (had) the "baby bonus". Seems a bit wrong. I'd rather support sticks to things like childcare subsidies and so on. I have two children in childcare 3 days a week and it would cost me over AU$600/wk without the subsidies.

Obviously there has to be a strong balance between an incentive that keeps a reasonable birthrate and one that overly encourages those desperate for money to procreate. The latter is disastrous for countless reasons.

Not sure how they'd balance it with a UBI.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#373

Post by aminok »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #369
aminok wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two wrongs don't make a right. No one should go to prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency that they earned in a private trade. There is so much admiration for the covert mass surveillance that Edward Snowden uncovered and exposed to the world yet we seem to not blink an eye at the blatant and overt mass surveillance of private financial transactions - where we are legally required to totally surrend…

So we should completely abolish taxes, then? I assume this is one of those plans where we privatize all government services and the free market makes everything perfectly efficient and utopic, except for the people who can't afford to pay their police bill?

We should only allow the government to raise revenue from a split-rate property tax and user fees for government services used. Non-payment of the former should only be punishable by land expropriation, and not imprisonment.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#374

Post by tmptmp »

ryanlol wrote: post #354
tmptmp wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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. That'd acceptable if at least the following conditions hold: a. First and foremost, the fraudster should be ashamed publicly and in a very visible manner on social media, television/radio and newspaper. e.g. The fraudster be made to wear clothes that are deemed filthy and be made…

>a Why would anyone be ashamed about not paying taxes? That's hardly a shameful thing to do. >b That's just ridiculous. >c And how do you propose that'd be implemented? >d Why? >e So those suspected of tax fraud do not deserve legal representation? What you're describing here sounds like something fit for DPRK, not a civilized country.

>>So those suspected of tax fraud do not deserve legal representation? >>What you're describing here sounds like something fit for DPRK, not a civilized country.

I am not for turning USA into a brutal and unjust communist country (e.g. DPRK).

All I am saying is the current laws are such that the financial fraudsters generally get only a slap on the wrist and they are let free.

This is going to cause social unrest (e.g. the occupy movement) in the USA and mostly socialists/communists will be (are) going to take advantage of it to topple the current free market based democracy. If USA wants to save, apart from heavy taxes on the top dirty-rich it should also implement severe and visible punishments for financial fraudsters.

Read this news [1] to know how the dirty-rich are gaming the system and what's wrong with shaming them in public? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843477

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#375

Post by akx »

roblabla wrote: post #366
akx wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They implicitly agree with the debt by assuming a nationality.

Did you really chose your nationality ? I get the idea that to live, you will probably need the assistance of your government at one point or another. And that the government needs money. So taxes. But saying it was something you could chose ? Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ?

> Did you really chose your nationality ?

Naturally one doesn't get to choose their initial nationality.

At some point, though, you (may) have the option to emigrate elsewhere, and assume another nationality, and thus assume that other nationality's perks and burdens.

> Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? > Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ?

Depends on how much you're willing to give up. For instance, you can liquidate all of your assets and, say, start living on a boat in international waters. Or if you're willing to ilve on a sovereign country's land, just move into a forest where no one will ever find you. Depending on freedom-to-roam laws, that may even be reasonably legal.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#376

Post by PhasmaFelis »

aminok wrote: post #373
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should completely abolish taxes, then? I assume this is one of those plans where we privatize all government services and the free market makes everything perfectly efficient and utopic, except for the people who can't afford to pay their police bill?

We should only allow the government to raise revenue from a split-rate property tax and user fees for government services used. Non-payment of the former should only be punishable by land expropriation, and not imprisonment.

So it's the "police bill" thing, then?

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#377

Post by aminok »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #376
aminok wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should only allow the government to raise revenue from a split-rate property tax and user fees for government services used. Non-payment of the former should only be punishable by land expropriation, and not imprisonment.

So it's the "police bill" thing, then?

User fees would be for things like use of roads. Services like policing would be paid out of revenue collected by a split rate property tax.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#378

Post by opo »

chimeracoder wrote: post #337
opo wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...Hospitals would typically make a loss on residency programs otherwise; contrary to what some people believe, they're actually quite expensive to operate. How does that work? Residents make very little money and do a lot of work. How are they not a profit center for hospitals?

> Residents make very little money and do a lot of work. How are they not a profit center for hospitals? Residents start their first year knowing literally nothing about practicing medicine. Medical school teaches the foundation, but you learn the practice during residency. In addition, the ratio of attending physicians to residents is capped by law (i believe it's 3:1). Would a startup want to hire three fresh-out-o…

>Residents start their first year knowing literally nothing about practicing medicine.

If this is true, it really indicates that how we train medical practitioners needs to be reformed. (If true, maybe there should be different programs for people wanting to become medical researchers vs those who treat patients.)

>In addition, the ratio of attending physicians to residents is capped by law (i believe it's 3:1).

Are hospitals actually at that 3:1 ratio? The AAMC seems to be saying the limiting factor right now is the limits on medicare subsidies for residents: https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html

>...Would a startup want to hire three fresh-out-of-high-school interns for every full-time employee?

Probably closer would be companies hiring engineering students straight out of college. Those college projects the students did generally aren’t anything like the work they will be doing. Companies don’t hire at a 3 to 1 ratio, but they do hire them and they pay them more than residents get paid and don’t get subsidies from the government to do so.

I was originally replying to your comment: >...Hospitals would typically make a loss on residency programs otherwise; contrary to what some people believe, they're actually quite expensive to operate.

Thinking about it, I guess if hospitals don’t bill patients for work done by residents, then they would obviously need to paid by the government (or someone else) but I don’t know if that is how it works.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#379

Post by mapt »

wildmusings wrote: post #212
newjersey wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can support letting the bottom fall out like this provided we had full single payer coverage for everyone. Any additional coverage can then be whatever you want with the only protection from law being protection from false advertising. I can also support removing the ama-fia's control on licenses but I'm afraid we'll just replace it with something similar when it comes to which providers are eligible to reimburseme…

My idea is that these catastrophic insurance plans would be affordable by anyone with their basic income. Debt financing could cover anything below the deductible, for the indigent. Getting such loans would also be easier because of the UBI. Again, people would be financially responsible for their own healthcare, which restores sane incentives, but it wouldn't be possible for it to financially destroy them. No need f…

"Debt financing" and plans that may be absent or sometimes cover nothing much, is the dystopian nightmare we're trying to escape. Healthcare is not a normal consumer good subject to normal pricing pressures and amenable to substitutes. Single payer works extremely well.

Re: A Guaranteed Income for Every American

#380

Post by mapt »

zenogais wrote: post #223
noonespecial wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite: Consider a society with 2 members, Mr Rich (net worth $10M) and Mr. Poor (net worth $100). Mr. Rich is 100,000 X richer than Mr. Poor right now. Institute a ridiculous UBI of $1M/year for everyone. At the end of the year, Mr. Poor has $1,000,100 and Mr Rich has $11M but Mr Rich is now only ~ 11 X richer than Mr Poor. Now sure cheeseburgers at Micky-D's are now $700 but the fact has changed that before, Mr…

What are the pros and cons of this economic gravitational force?

For one, theories of economy were created in order to better serve the people's needs and wants using scarce resources - if they can be demonstrated (as in western Europe) to represent very large increases in the hedonic calculus, they are objectively superior. For two, a liberal democracy's functioning is premised on a degree of middle class participation: a large group of people with sufficient assets that they have a stake in the future (beyond entertainment value), but insufficient assets and numbers too great to corrupt the system towards their own ends.
Post reply on HN