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

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#401

Post by rhino369 »

corin_ wrote: post #127
cmdli wrote: post #43

From the $1 trillon stated in the article, spread across 300 million people, each person would get around $3000 a year. That honestly doesn't seem like it would help a lot, considering it would replace current welfare systems. The Swiss proposal of around $2600 a month, implemented in the US, would cost nearly $10 trillion a year which doesn't really seem feasible. I don't think the problem with basic income is an id…

> The Swiss proposal of around $2600 a month, implemented in the US, would cost nearly $10 trillion a year which doesn't really seem feasible. That number sounds higher than it would effectively be: 1) The population is ~320m, but ~65m of those are under the age of 16 (add on another 8m if you say under 18), who presumably don't need the same $2600/month right from when they are babies. That shaves of $2.8trillion 2)…

You probably have to give children some sort of amount. Maybe even the full amount. The public isn't going to buy into a program that gives an abled bodied man who smokes pot and plays WoW all day the full share but give a single mom the 4 kids the same amount.

There is also no way this would work if 50% of the country doesn't really get the income because you raise their taxes to take it back. Middle class taxes are a third rail in American politics. Even socialist Bernie Sanders won't raise their taxes.

You'd be better off just raising the earned income tax credit.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#402

Post by fucking_tragedy »

newjersey wrote: post #284
creshal wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries have dozens to hundreds of government programs (a dozen federal, a dozen per state, another dozen per city, …) to support parents of underage children. You'd get rid of a lot of administrative overhead by outphasing all of them in favour of including children into basic income (maybe at a fixed reduced rate if expenses are a concern).

No, I'd rather we raise the basic income for every adult enough to the point where the adult can support themselves and ONE (1) child at least for bare necessities like food and shelter. For what it is worth, I don't think anyone sane would have kids to get money. In fact, you couldn't pay me to have children and raise them. I know what a shitty brat I've been and I'm sure if God or karma exists, I'll get an equally…

Unfortunately, the racist caricature of the 'welfare queen' who will go out of her way to work 24/7 for 18+ years for welfare benefits that equate to less than the pay of a part time job has been used to drive conservatives to the polls since the 1980's.

It's well cemented in the public consciousness as a result, so you'll see it trotted out whenever monetary benefits are proposed to help children.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#403

Post by slavik81 »

Unklejoe wrote: post #315
goda90 wrote: post #294

Earlier 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.

Many adults make bad decisions their whole lives.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#404

Post by morgante »

Unklejoe wrote: post #307
pluma wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany at least, public retirement funds are "pay-as-you-go", i.e. you don't pay in to save up money for yourself, you pay in to finance the current payouts to other people who previously paid into the system (and so on). Of course nobody treats it that way -- you'll hear a lot of "my pension" talk especially from people close to retirement and those who are unaware of how low their pensions will be a the current…

Social security works basically the same way in the USA. Once a system like that is in place, it's very hard to stop the pipeline. I honestly don't see the purpose of that type of system either. Why create this pipeline of money anyway? Why not just take the contributions that everyone makes and put them into individual retirement accounts? Assuming the system is stable (which it's probably not), it seems there would…

I despise social security, mainly because it's a wealth transfer tool masquerading as retirement savings. I would love to eliminate it and have everyone just save their own money.

The reason that it's not done that way is three-fold:

(a) People's contributions are not enough to cover their social security. Instead, they depend on the current workers paying in more than the previous generation did (in a perpetual cycle).

(b) Liberals oppose the idea of personal responsibility. If you don't save any money for retirement, they think society still has an obligation to fund your retirement.

(c) It's a benefit which goes to old people and old people vote a lot.

In reality, it's just a cleverly marketed way of stealing money from the youth and giving it to old voters.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#405

Post by throwanem »

ido wrote: post #144
mcv wrote: post #130

Interesting 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.…

The sum also depends on how much robots will make stuff cheaper. Remember buying clothes and appliances/electronics before the 90s? These used to be major expenses, and much more expensive than today, adjusted to inflation (stuff got cheaper partially due to globalisation & partially greater automation).

You mean the clothes and the electronics made by Asian indentured workers in conditions close to outright slavery? I mean, don't get me wrong, I participate in the modern economy as much as the next guy, and the man who eats meat is brother to the butcher. But let's not get starry-eyed imagining that robots make our trousers and smartphones.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#406

Post by MicroBerto »

drabiega wrote: post #288
MicroBerto wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because that's not how markets work. The ones that try would loose all their business to those that didn't.

The amount of wishful thinking in this thread makes me question how many of you have actually functioned in the real world. Have you ever met a group of landlords? Ever talk to any who deal with low income housing?

You honestly think they care about "losing business" in a market that they absolutely control and have extremely high demand?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#407

Post by fucking_tragedy »

Unklejoe wrote: post #336
danharaj wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think it's so rational to have children for cash, you can go do it. I've never met anyone who actually thinks it's a good idea . It's always a hypothetical to malign the poor. Because people who malign the poor know exactly how poor people think, or something.

Do you really not believe that some people would start having children for the sole purpose of income if there was suddenly a program that provided people with $10,000 per year in cash for every child they have? Having children for financial benefits is a real thing. It's not just something people accuse the poor of for the purpose of hate (although it is commonly used in such a way). It's usually not as direct as "l…

Do you have a citation for your belief?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#408

Post by chongli »

jrcii wrote: post #341

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…

Likewise, nobody should be entitled to police or military protection. If you've got a lot of money, you better hire a very large and trustworthy private security force to protect it because otherwise I'm going to take it from you.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#409

Post by MicroBerto »

ww520 wrote: post #347
MicroBerto wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

OK, so then when you give more to the lower class, and landlords increase rent.... guess who gets the majority of that newly printed income? The asset holders once again!!

I don't see how basic income doesn't create more unforeseen problems than it solves unless there are some serious strings attached to that money.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#410

Post by ArkyBeagle »

bane wrote: post #277
deanCommie wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. First of all, even if the people in positions like this were only working for sustenance and UBI provides it for them, it doesn't mean some wouldn't want to continue working to make even MORE money. UBI is a baseline, not welfare. If previously a lawn mowing job was only enough for rent and food, maybe now…

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…

I am not sure your argument does not suffer from the lump of labor fallacy. But it's not like there is a coherent definition of inflation, much less a working model for it.
Post reply on HN