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

Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

greshm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#41

Post by bsenftner »

mandmandam wrote: post #32
bsenftner wrote: post #25

Every opinion on UBI is short sighted, and does not understand the macroeconomic poison that is UBI. Our economy, all economies, have lowered ethics players operating at the top of each economy. UBI institutionalizes these low ethics players, as well as institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles. UBI is nothing less than the death of hope and the elimination of an…

As if current economic structures don’t already entrench powerful players? Lol. CBI, as outlined in the paper, is funded through monetary contraction; meaning it does not introduce traditional taxation distortions or increase government control over industry. If anything, UBI/CBI reduces dependence on hierarchical employment structures by providing individuals with a baseline income. This allows more freedom to rejec…

It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI:

1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species as a whole. Hope and the ability to better one's situation is essential. UBI and it's variants institutionalize economic positions, and that destroys hope short of an overthrowing revolution.

2) UBI will exist in our social human Capitalistic world where any and all expenditures are eyed for reduction. Those on UBI (or what ever name it ends up having) will observe a gradual reduction of their UBI and a gradual criminalization of their economic parasitism. This is human culture. This reduction of the "economic waste" that is UBI is inevitable. Humans do not give gifts for any lasting duration without oversized returns.

Just look at the top posts: they ask "is this the best use of our tax dollars?" as in once UBI is active, such attitudes will immediately seek to reduce it.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#42

Post by maxerickson »

immibis wrote: post #9
notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

Is politics supposed to be about maximizing the government's money? We saw where that lead with businesses. I thought the government was there to do things that weren't good profit maximizers but made the world better.

They are saying that a good justification for a UBI would be if it maximized the value obtained with the spending. If $1 spent on basic income were demonstrated to improve society more than $1 of police spending, and so on.

It's of course harder to measure value to society than it is to measure profit, but it is reasonable to consider it when looking at policy proposals.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#43

Post by metalman »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

[flagged]

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#44

Post by bsenftner »

gampleman wrote: post #30
bsenftner wrote: post #25

Every opinion on UBI is short sighted, and does not understand the macroeconomic poison that is UBI. Our economy, all economies, have lowered ethics players operating at the top of each economy. UBI institutionalizes these low ethics players, as well as institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles. UBI is nothing less than the death of hope and the elimination of an…

Can you explain this a bit more?

See my comment below explaining a bit more

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#46

Post by bsenftner »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #4

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a po…

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?"

This attitude right here is why UBI will never exist without being a farce, a trap, and those that go on UBI regulated to institutionalized misery.

Plain fact: humans do not give gifts without expecting returns. UBI violates this basic tenant. No, the economic activity generated by UBI is not enough, that's a flat wash, the returns need to be just like investments.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#47

Post by DonaldFisk »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #35
DonaldFisk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?". There have been numerous pilot studies, e.g. those listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income . The problem is that opponents of UBI invariably point out that as only some people received it, and only for a limited time, that it wasn't universal, or…

> Its purpose is to ensure that everyone has their basic financial needs met, not to provide those particular government services. The government is run by the people. If it increases cost to tax payers over all then the tax payers (people/voters) have every right to oppose this. Even social security alone (for elderly people who can't care for themselves) is untenable, the government has been borrowing from social s…

> If it increases cost to tax payers over all then the tax payers (people/voters) have every right to oppose this.

They should be informed. There are various proposals (this one is new to me), and issues with it which are still unclear. And there's a lot of misinformation from people ideologically opposed to UBI.

For some people, UBI would replace existing benefits (examples of which might include child benefit, unemployment benefit, student grant, the non-contributory part of old age pension). That doesn't cost anything. Reduction of bureaucracy (no further need for means-testing the benefits UBI would replace) actually saves money. People already earning an income would of course pay extra taxes to fund UBI, but they would also receive it, so that would just be redistribution with no net cost. That leaves only people not seeking work, e.g. those looking after their children but not claiming any benefits.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#48

Post by 6510 »

randallsquared wrote: post #36
6510 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I think about that it strikes me as a dumb idea. Everything that cant be allowed to fail should be a government enterprise. I would go nuts with the concept, turn city hall into a museum, hotel, grandcafe, restaurant, cinema, casino, conference rooms, desks for rent, city tour guides, etc etc open 24/7. Live music if there are no council meetings on the big screen. It should have a room to smoke weed too.…

More and more things will become too important to fail, in this scheme. ;)

Perhaps but we currently err on the other side.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#49

Post by veltas »

mandmandam wrote: post #23
veltas wrote: post #5

The issue with the current system is it gives a lot of money and power to banks, and finance. The issue with the proposed system, is that debt is actually a good thing for normal people. For example if you are young, productive, and come from a poor background, then you might buy a house with a mortgage. If debt is more expensive, then you are less likely -- and older people (and rich kids) are more likely -- to be a…

> Everyone is focused on how the rich are getting richer. This is inevitable in liberal societies. The goal should instead be to stop the poor getting poorer These things are fundamentally connected. When the wealthy have too much power, they squeeze the middle and the poor too hard. Unlike much else in life, the pool of money is a zero-sum game (though this is addressed in the paper, notably). When 3 Americans hold…

Focusing on 'wealth inequality' usually leads to policies that hurt the economy, and make us all poorer, and actually increase the inequality. It hurts poor people more than the rich when we make bad economic decisions, and this paper proposes just such a decision. What can we do that won't backfire? We need a strong economy to help poor people.

Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

#50

Post by svardilfari »

bsenftner wrote: post #41
mandmandam wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if current economic structures don’t already entrench powerful players? Lol. CBI, as outlined in the paper, is funded through monetary contraction; meaning it does not introduce traditional taxation distortions or increase government control over industry. If anything, UBI/CBI reduces dependence on hierarchical employment structures by providing individuals with a baseline income. This allows more freedom to rejec…

It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI: 1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species…

Because the majority of opinion holders are refusing to read and internalize the parent article. You're just echoing sentiments that people make regarding their opinion on typical welfare - which your parent comment already addressed completely.

Either TRY and refute those comments or don't comment at all.

Post reply on HN