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

Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

openresearchlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#441

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

iainmerrick wrote: post #422
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise of it being universal is that it doesn't have an explicit phase out and instead it's implicit in the tax system. Obviously someone making six figures is not going to be a net recipient, but they would still have the money deposited into their account. The amount would just be smaller than the amount they're paying in taxes. The advantage of doing it this way is that it makes it clear what's going on. Righ…

Right! It also lets you eliminate the means testing part of the system that makes people jump through humiliating hoops to show that they’re poor enough to need a handout, punishes people who are working too much by taking away their benefits, etc.

And you don't have to pay for all the government workers that exist solely to manage and observe the hoop jumping!

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#443

Post by akvadrako »

whakim wrote: post #26
legitster wrote: post #5

This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…

> And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented downsides. It all depends on how you tweak the numbers; in theory a negative income tax and a guaranteed income cost exactly the same amount. A guaranteed income of $1200 taxed at a marginal rate of 50% is just the same as a marginal tax rate of -50% on an income of $400. That being said, there are some prett…

They are mathematically the same, depending on the tax curves.

A negative income tax doesn't mean you get -50% of $400, it means your income starts negative. So someone making $0 gets like $1000 back (say by paying 20% over -$5000).

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#445

Post by Spivak »

razakel wrote: post #432
s1artibartfast wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think money and getting ones needs met without work is an incentive for health or productivity. I think it is an incentive for the exact opposite.

Have you ever met a working dog? They go mad if they're not given something to do.

Or retirees who have plenty of money but still choose to work because they're bored.

If getting your needs met was a disincentive for work then why are all the multi-millionaires still working instead of downsizing their lives and playing video games / smoking weed for 40 years?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#446

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

highcountess wrote: post #194

Is there anyone else in here that sees UBI is the "left's" equivalent to flat-earth or chemtrails? No matter how much you explain the most basic and fundamental realities that are adjacent to the laws of physics, they simply cannot or appear to be psychologically incapable of accepting the reality of the matter and are baffled. It's like those flat-earth people who did that experiment with the extremely sensitive gyr…

UBI doesn’t need to be a “left” idea.

See the Libertarian angle f.ex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Or read John Lockes argument on how land, as given by God to all, must be shared fairly.

Expanded a bit upon by Thomas Paine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#448

Post by tacocataco »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #408
jimt1234 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in my college speech class, a woman gave a presentation basically supporting the "welfare today is a disincentive to work" myth, with emphasis on "today" (or current), while totally destroying the notion that welfare recipients don't "want" to work. She was a stay-at-home mom with 2 kids, her husband commit suicide after serving in Iraq and then being pushed out of the military (this was the 90s when the US mili…

I'm retired. I saved enough to live comfortably -not richly. I spend almost all my time, writing code for free. My GH Activity Graph is almost solid green. I'm working on releasing my sixth or seventh free app in just a few years (almost all are open-source). Over the last dozen years, or so, I've released over 20 (most are deprecated). I really don't look forward to having others destroy my work, anymore. After a fa…

Those employers are used to having economic coercion to push people into their arms.

They cannot fathom treating their employees with respect. Their employees are tools to be used, abused, and discarded. Human resources.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#449

Post by Tostino »

patmcc wrote: post #328
briHass wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which welfare plans are you cutting? Social Security? Nope, because the average payout is 50% higher than $1000/m. Same with SSI/disability. You certainly couldn't replace any of the medical plans (Medicaid/Medicare) with anywhere near that amount. The welfare plans that might be subject to being replaced only amount to a few percent of the federal budget. The bulk of the budget is those plans above, which would resu…

Yeah, as I said in my comment, the primary way to pay for it is to adjust marginal rates so that it's (mostly) a transfer from rich to poor. If you're rich, you'll get a $1k UBI and also pay $2k more in taxes (or $4k, or whatever). Probably for those at the median income it would be roughly neutral - but with the benefit that if you ever lose your job, or want to leave an abusive marriage, or want to try starting a b…

> Medicaid and Medicare being wholly replaced by a truly universal plan unrelated to UBI is probably a prerequisite for a UBI.

This has been discussed for decades. The US healthcare system is one of the biggest impediments to other forms of governmental change.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#450

Post by gwd »

ssl-3 wrote: post #296
BobaFloutist wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it as all the human essentials are covered without work (sufficiently nutritious food, safe, clean, shelter with sufficient heating and water for basic needs, basic healthcare, basic internet, and a small extra for discretionary spending) with the assumption that most people will happily do some work to upgrade their circumstances and get more fun and interesting food/entertainment/shelter. If quitting your jo…

There's a mindset that I often run into with IRL discussions that revolves around the premise that if a person has some minimal essentials met by doing nothing, then they will have no motivation to ever improve their situation at all. That if a person can afford to accomplish nothing but still have enough money to smoke weed and play video games, then all anyone will ever do is smoke weed and play video games. I don'…

When I was in the military reserves, there were some guys who graduated High School and went straight into a minimum-wage job, working at Home Depot and the like. At first they thought it was great -- I have my own place! Sure, it's a room in a flat shared with three other guys, but it's mine! I have my own car! Sure, it's an old beater that guzzles gasoline, but it's mine! I can buy a Playstation and afford whatever game I want, and stay up as late as I want!

But pretty soon, once the novelty wears of, it begins to pale. I mean, I have my own place, sure, but it's with three other guys; not someplace I'd want my GF to move into, and definitely not a place to raise a kid. I have my own car, but it's a piece of junk. I can't really afford to go to concerts or long trips, all I can really afford to do is sit around at home and play games on my PS/2.

So, after 2-3 years they all started do things to make themselves more valuable to society: one took classes to become an EMT. Another took classes to become a fire fighter. They landed better, more stable jobs, and could afford to move into a nicer home, get better cars, attend concerts and sporting events, go on trips, start families.

That would be my ideal for how UBI would work: make sure people never have to chose between a bad job and starving or being on the street; but also make sure they have a clear path and opportunities to improve their situation and become more valuable to society.

Are there "deadbeats" who would just play video games for life? Sure, but there already are. I'm not sure how much those kinds of people contribute to society, even if they are working a minimum wage job to support their lifestyle.

Post reply on HN