Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available • Hacker News Board

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#451

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:50 PM UTC

iainmerrick wrote: post #431

s1artibartfast wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and…

My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. There’s nothing magical about exceeding a 50% marginal tax rate. (Hitting 100%, sure, that would be bad.) There’s definitely a psychological threshold there for most people. I ran an informal survey a few years back about what tax rates people would consider fair, and there was a very…

>The whole point of taxation is redistribution, so why would you care whether you’re “winning” versus the marginal tax rate?

A substantial portion of the population doesnt think taxation should be used for distribution at all. They think the fundamental point of taxation is to pay for public goods that everyone uses like roads, police, and firemen.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#452

Post by gwd » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:51 PM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #242

rbanffy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People in a functioning society still have to work Why?

Have you ever interacted with a free rider? You know, those guys who always dodge their round at the pub, they never pay you back that fiver, they always need somewhere to crash? Hell, have you ever dated someone like that, or known a friend that has? One person goes to work, cooks, maintains the home, the other just spends their time on highfalutin' ideas like their photography project? UBI to me sounds like a way o…

You can see that they exist already, without UBI. So the question is, what effect will UBI have on freeloading if introduced? Will they contribute even less than they do now? Will there be more of them? Or will they stop free-loading off companies and individuals?

If UBI means everyone at the place you work is actually motivated, and you never have to watch your friend support a free-loader again, I think we're probably better off as a society.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#453

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:58 PM UTC

laserlight wrote: post #354

s1artibartfast wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm saying that given the choice, those who are forced into spending their time in a way that is detrimental to themselves in any other term but economic would not do so You cant have the fruits of labor without the labor. People make this calculus every single day, and nearly unanimously decide that it would be more detrimental to go without the fruits of labor (especially those that must be incentivized). It is ob…

> A "do what you want" policy would not result in the tasks people want done getting done. That sounds weird to me. If people want it done, they would get it done, wouldn't they? Can you maybe expand with an example?

examples would be that people dont want to collect trash, work a the sewage treatment plant, or lumber mill.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#454

Post by iamthirsty » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:03 PM UTC

maeil wrote: post #420

ixwt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a podcast or video about this exact same issue in... Sweden? Some anecdata from people receiving welfare, but couldn't start a job or a business because if they received any money, they get nothing from welfare and wouldn't be able to support themselves. This resulted in people that were trying to start a business not get paid for their work (I believe one of the anecdata was a photographer) because doing s…

> Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" concept. This seems a very easy way to wean people off of welfare. That money is already tracked by the IRS (unless you're getting paid under the table). Just subsidize the minimum wage. It's dead simple. Raise the minimum wage by $x but have that extra $x be paid from taxes, not the employer. Big businesses will scream "But…

I'd like to see any reasonable math behind this idea.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#455

Post by randomdata » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:04 PM UTC

mey wrote: post #30

ilaksh wrote: post #22

$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…

Imagine if we gave everyone $20/mo. No strings, tax free, not qualifed by income. That obviously isn't enough to live on, let alone buy food. But imagine the infrastructure that would be universally in place to allow us to scale it up as a society. We could find the balance. Maybe it's $1000, maybe it's $5000. Maybe another global pandemic happens and we need to dump an infusion into people's lives for a time. Just h…

> But imagine the infrastructure that would be universally in place to allow us to scale it up as a society.

What kind of special infrastructure is needed? Doesn't your government already have a system in place for sending tax refunds to its people? That's ultimately all your $20/month is.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#456

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:07 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #346

s1artibartfast wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how much productive work would you undo for more leisure time? Go back to the productivity of 2000? 1980? further? On one hand, I think this is an interesting question to put the value of work into context. On the other, I think most of society would fight tooth and nail against it. That said, I do know people who do live pretty simply, no electricity, healthcare, or fancy food. It kind of reminds me of an old miner…

> On the other, I think most of society would fight tooth and nail against it. ...why? We'd still have modern computers and stuff. Dropping productivity wouldn't revert technology itself. So if you ask people "Do you want the same amount of housing and clothes and cars and services you could get back in 1994, but while working 4 days a week instead of 5?" what's the horrifying factor that makes them say no?

Real GDP per capita has gone from 41k to 67k, so going back to 1994 could actually be done with a 3 day work week.

Most people wouldn't want to because they would have to cut 40% of their spending across the board.

there are a lot of people today that can already have the option to work less for less money but dont choose to do it.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#457

Post by podgorniy » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:17 PM UTC

bentt wrote: post #427

I used to support UBI but after seeing the US stimulus money get socked away into savings and the stock market, leading to rising prices and inflation, I no longer support it. I think all it will do is raise the cost of nearly everything and those that couldn’t afford the basics still won’t be able to since they’ll be more expensive.

And then businesses start competition for the customer with pricing pulling that inflation down. No one will start new business or start adjusting existing in context of stimulus money to make prices competitive because they know this spike is just a temporal glitch. Business was rather interested in raising prices to get more in the face of supply shortage. Showed good corporate profit numbers.

Stimulus checks are nowhere close to ubi from person's and business perspective, I would not extrapolate observations from one to another.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#458

Post by randomdata » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:23 PM UTC

ericjmorey wrote: post #118

ghufran_syed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a society, do we need to worry about where this money will come from? Or will there always be an inexhaustible supply that also scales up? Or could taking that money away from other parts of the economy possibly cause harm, to the point where the ubi would become unsustainable?

Do we as a society know where money comes from now? Could the current distribution of money be denying ourselves greater value? Is the current system sustainable?

> Do we as a society know where money comes from now?

Technically, yes. The only difference between money and an IOU is the formal paper trail (i.e. accounting). The paper trail tells where the money comes from. Granted, we as a society don't always follow the paper trail, which is perhaps what you are meaning?

What the parent means, though, is that money still needs a real, live person standing behind a promise to provide something in the future to whomever holds the IOU (money). Without such a promise, the IOU (money) doesn't mean anything. But who is offering to make that promise? Are you volunteering your services?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#459

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

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.

Yes, and I've had other dogs that won't even go for a walk.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#460

Post by nkmnz » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

The problem with this kind of test is that the people still live in a society where cheap labor is available to the companies around them that provide them with all the goods and services that they like to purchase with those $1000 (or whatever free amount they've gotten). Germany shifted to a system that is as close to a basic income as you can currently imagine. There are some strings attached, but considerably less than in the past. You can easily live from the "Bürgergeld", but the labor market currently takes a third hit after Covid and Russia's full scale invasion on Europe: lots of companies, especially labor intensive services like bars and restaurants, have serious trouble to hire staff. The only way is to offer higher salaries – which, in turn, needs to be paid by the customers. This makes goods and services less affordable for everyone, but especially for those relying on government money...