Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available • Hacker News Board

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#461

Post by karaterobot » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:32 PM UTC

qqqwerty wrote: post #356

karaterobot wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the basic uncertainty I have about UBI, and I've never heard an argument against it that went step by step and explained how that wouldn't happen. It seems intuitively like it would. In response, I've hear the equivalent of "don't worry, they've thought of that already, and the math still works". Maybe, but I'd feel a lot better if somebody could walk me through it.

- At a macro level, if a program is "paid for" i.e. revenue neutral, it does not result in inflation (at least in aggregate). - UBI/Negative Income Tax (NIT) is not a handout to literally everyone, only the unemployed and lowest income folks will actually net money. Anyone with a modest income or larger will likely either see no changes to their net income or even a reduction in net income (due to higher taxes to pay…

Thank you. Is what you're describing what is commonly referred to as UBI? It sounds like a different formulation to me. Most of the time I hear about UBI, the emphasis is on it being universal—everyone gets it, not just people living in poverty. That's where the intuition problems arise: if everyone you are competing for real estate with has more money, why wouldn't the cost of real estate increase?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#462

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:32 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #445

razakel wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think that is a very realistic jump.

Most people are not facing that binary.

Would you work 40 hours a week at McDonald's for an extra $20k/year if all your basic needs are met?

OR at that point, would you say screw it and spend your days hiking, reading, and laughing with friends?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#463

Post by lolinder » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:32 PM UTC

ianbicking wrote: post #258

jncfhnb wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people have this weird cognitive dissonance that lets them understand a “partial UBI” is a universally guaranteed income that does not meet basic needs, and then that a “full ubi” is one that does; but then fail to understand that if it’s not full UBI it’s not UBI. A universally guaranteed income that does not meet your basic needs is of course a thing. But it’s not a universal BASIC income. It’s a subset. T…

How far is it from meeting basic needs? "Basic" should imply very modest living, not even "normal" living standards. For a living situation "basic" implies a shared space (family or otherwise). For food it would imply enough food to be healthy, but nothing about the form of food. I think $1000/month/person probably is "basic" income. You can survive on that indefinitely. (Healthcare is the other big expense, but I do…

> I think $1000/month/person probably is "basic" income. You can survive on that indefinitely.

I think part of the problem is that people are assuming that you can and should pick a number for UBI that is sufficient for basic needs everywhere.

$1k/mo is probably not enough in San Francisco. But should our UBI be set up to allow anyone to meet their basic needs anywhere they'd like to live, or should it be set up to allow anyone to meet their basic needs if they're willing to leave the high cost of living areas and go out into the rest of the country where rent and food and transportation is cheaper?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#464

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

ssl-3 wrote: post #358

s1artibartfast wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who can afford it? It sounds like the expectations are higher than the total funds available. What do you think would be a suitable amount for Ubi?

I can afford it. It will cost me a lot of money because I'm barely on the tall end of that hypothetical situation right now, but I can put my part in. I can afford it because a healthy society is a productive society, and this will return to me because good economies are built largely upon productive societies, and healthy societies are more productive than unhealthy societies are. Productivity generates wealth. Are…

[deleted]

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#465

Post by bombcar » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:36 PM UTC

Majromax wrote: post #434

jewayne wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In light of this study, it seems to me that a cash-support system that wants to encourage work should have a starting region with a negative effective phase-out rate: "for every $1 you make up to $X, you get $0.25 more from UBI/Welfare." That would encourage labour-market attachment even if tenuous, and it would also have a side benefit of making the worker want to report the income, possibly uncovering under-the-t…

> Nobody tell this guy about the Earned Income Tax Credit. Let him think he discovered it. I know about the EITC, but the ETIC net of benefit clawbacks still presents a high marginal rate. Then the EITC itself gets clawed back at its own threshold, imposing a small region of high marginal rates. (The EITC itself is also rather paltry for filers without children.) Additionally, the US tax system is ill-structured to r…

The EITC isn't as complicated as the child tax credit; that one is not refundable so you end up trying to calculate a way to get enough tax to get it fully.

Excel1040 is great for this - https://sites.google.com/view/incometaxspreadsheet/home

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#466

Post by QuarterReptile » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:39 PM UTC

jrmg wrote: post #142

willcipriano wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could have worked under the table. Babysitting would make sense in particular if you are available during the day and have children of your own that you are already watching. A lot of poor people are really good at convincing themselves they have no choice but to do the thing they wanted to do anyway. It wasn't until I broke free of this attitude was I able to escape myself.

Could have worked under the table. This is a ridiculous take! You’re arguing (or appear to be) that all-or-nothing welfare systems are fine because you can always just commit welfare and tax fraud if you want more money?!

Yes, I believe that is correct.

I don't know how welfare fraud is investigated, but she probably has a near-zero risk of ever being audited for taxes. Again, welfare cliffs suck. EITC was supposed to replace them, but nothing else got rolled back because people were already dependent on those programs for jobs and benefits.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#467

Post by jewayne » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:41 PM UTC

briHass wrote: post #223

jewayne wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" That's..that's not UBI, at all. UBI is universal . If there are any means tests whatsoever , that's not UBI.

UBI would never be truly 'universal'. If someone takes money from me and then gives some of it back, I don't consider that a free gift. The only way the numbers would ever balance would be for most income earners to end up being taxed >100% of their UBI payment.

1. Why are assuming that UBI would be paid for by individual income taxes?

2. Yes, no matter what, the richest people are going to receive so little benefit relative to their wealth/income that they won't support it. The same is true for most public services, actually. The ultra-wealthy receive little-to-no direct benefit from Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, public transportation, public schools (big one), public universities, or even public police and firefighters (they can afford their own). But somehow they haven't (yet) managed to rid themselves of these horrible violations of their privilege.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#468

Post by QuarterReptile » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:41 PM UTC

valicord wrote: post #219

DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work No. The reason you say that is because you're young and you believe what you've heard. You will soon cease to be the former and then presumably, likely, stop to do the latter. People want to work, they want to be useful. And yes, if I support you but threaten to stop supporting you as soon as you get to work for money—suddenly working for money looks…

> if I support you but threaten to stop supporting you as soon as you get to work for money—suddenly working for money looks less attractive So you agree that "the problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work"?

It's probably worse as a disincentive to marriage than as a disincentive to work.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#469

Post by lawlessone » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:41 PM UTC

jimt1234 wrote: post #79

bko wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…

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…

have spent some time on jobseekers benefit a few years ago. It's soul crushing and you get just enough to get by, and i'm in country where the benefits are kinda ok.

always hear stories about people that spend their life on it, but it's barely a life, you're basically just stuck loitering.

This last part is just my opinion:

Most of the people i've seen/met on it long term, the kind people others see as "sponges" are usually somewhat unwell/sickly, not unwell enough to be recognized as officially "disabled" but they'd probably be in hospital a few times a year.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#470

Post by lolinder » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:43 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Every single time we see results from a study on something like UBI, someone comes out with this argument—you missed the universal and the basic! Yes.

With that stipulated, how would you propose to test UBI before rolling it out on a country-wide scale? Every test I can think of that isn't just "implement UBI" will either fail the universal or the basic part, and "implement UBI" will never get the political will until it can be tested on a small scale first. Tests like this are the best way we know how to do it.

If you want UBI then you either are going to need to figure out how to work with incomplete tests or solve the problem of how to test UBI without just implementing it. We're not going to entirely restructure our economy because some folks on the internet think that UBI sounds great in theory.