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

Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#41

Post by maxerickson »

spacehome wrote: post #21

I haven't really made up my mind about Basic Income, but one thing I never heard advocates of Basic Income talk about is that incentives matter to human behavior. BI will tax people who work more and give handouts to those who don't. This disincentivizes working and incentivizes not working. For example, the increasing numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance seems like a similar phenomenon and is no…

That's more or less what the 'basic' is aimed at, part of the idea is to set the income at a level that has a limited impact on the incentive to work.

Chart 3 shows quite some growth since 1980, but the per year increase is not exactly astronomical (and the page mentions that there are trends not accounted for in the data, such as the aging of the baby boomers).

It's also reasonable to expect a contingent benefit to have more impact on the incentive than an uncontingent benefit.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#42

Post by ThomPete »

spacehome wrote: post #21

I haven't really made up my mind about Basic Income, but one thing I never heard advocates of Basic Income talk about is that incentives matter to human behavior. BI will tax people who work more and give handouts to those who don't. This disincentivizes working and incentivizes not working. For example, the increasing numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance seems like a similar phenomenon and is no…

Basic income is not wealthy income you wont' be getting that much, just enough. Furthermore with unconditional basic income you will always be incentivized to work even if just for a month or a season (since you are not taxed on you basic income)

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#43

Post by emsy »

highCs wrote: post #32

A generous basic income funded by very high taxes would be self-defeating, as it would reintroduce the sort of distortions that many of its advocates hope to banish from the welfare system. Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger. Basically, if there is not enough jobs for everyone - the raison d'etre of the basic income - then at some point, some aren't going to do anything: that's the point. In othe…

I always argue that even if they'd want to cultivate their own food, all land is already taken so they are not only unable but forbidden to earn their income.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#44

Post by asuffield »

treelovinhippie wrote: post #24

Best solution I've come across is a small This guy is giving the method a shot: http://www.basicincome.co/

Economists believe that a financial transaction tax would primarily result in reducing low-income employment opportunities and ultimately be paid for by low-income consumers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_tax#Evaluation_and_r...

The TL;DR is that a transaction tax would primarily serve to increase bid-offer spread, which slows down the markets and results in every industry selling slightly less at slightly higher prices - which naturally means slightly shifting to favour those with more purchasing power.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#45

Post by jeza »

transfire wrote: post #13

The article also doesn't seem to take into account that we already spend of hundreds of billions of dollars every year of welfare programs that could be saved. The article just piles BI on as an additional expense. I also think most BI supporters tend to shoot too high. The equivalent income of just a 16hr per week job at min wag would do wonders for the economy without putting a great deal of pressure on people not…

That would hardly keep people without jobs out of poverty, which I read in another article is just over $20k.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#46

Post by ZeroGravitas »

KaiserPro wrote: post #14

sure actually giving everyone 10k a year is going to cost too much. But I don't think anyone who is sane is actually proposing that. At the moment, the poor get a mismash of benifits that all require administration. replacing that with a single means tested universal income is far simpler. for example: every house hold is entitled to 10K, if you only earn 5k, you get a top up to 10k. This is no more costly that what…

You're correct in that it can replace a mish-mash of benefits, but incorrect to suggest topping up to a set limit. Rather they should get a set amount and then we can let wages fall to levels that would be unviable if the basic income wasn't in place.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#47

Post by netfire »

Why not start with something smaller, like providing "basic food" for everyone, and see what the result is? You could reuse existing programs, like food stamps, where the infrastructure is already in place for most grocery stores to accept payment. (except without the application process)

That seems like a less risky change than trying to provide enough income to cover housing, utilities, clothing, etc. all at once.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#48

Post by ThomPete »

akhatri_aus wrote: post #20

I don't see how this is affordable. With the Swiss amount of $2700 per month ($32,400 p.a) it's $32bn for 1m people per annum (8m people in Switzerland). This is 45% of the annual federal budget last year ($70b) & doesn't even cover 13% of the population. What about everything else that needs government expenditure: roads, defense, education & research, regulatory oversight, police?

But you don't need all the people you are paying to control all sorts of things in a conditional system. So you would basically get rid of a lot of expenses that are currently being used to control the system.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#49

Post by vdaniuk »

powertower wrote: post #30
raldi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

> Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes. Here you go friend... http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html If what you just said is true, I'm sure you've already done this many times before. Lead by example, practiced what you preached, paid your real tax due. And if not, no need to wait any more. Here is also the public debt gift page (and stats) if…

This argument doesn't have merit. Tragedy of commons/game theory provides us the basis to understand that individual/group efforts are insufficient. Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others.

Advocating for across the board changes for everyone is a more efficient strategy.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#50

Post by douche »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #33

I am going to tell a story about the state I live in: Maine. We have many programs: HUD (to help pay rent), Food Stamps, HEAP (fuel/electricity assistance), and others. All of these have complex forms to fill out, and offices filled with staff that don't actually understand the complex rules, and the rules seem to change all the time. Hiring these people costs money. Due to the complexity of the rules and forms, many…

Yup (ex-pat Mainer that had to leave to find real work). The really perverse thing is where some of these benefits have income cliffs, where you lose the benefit if you make too much money working. For instance, let's say that you get to work some overtime and earn a little extra money. Then you realize that you've gone over the line to get your heat assistance, and you've got to come up with the $600/mo to fill the oil tank out of your own pocket. You'd be better off not working any harder, unless you can make the jump to get out of the band where losing benefits offsets the increased income.
Post reply on HN