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

481–490 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#481

Post by slothtrop »

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…

Having them quit jobs was not the desired outcome, but 2% did. Noahpinion talks about it briefly here https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/at-least-five-interesting-thin...

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#482

Post by constantcrying »

Completely devastating results for promoting free money. 1k a month and the "benefits" are some minor lifestyle changes.

No impact on health. Biggest spending beverages. Slightly less time spent working. Some people start budgeting (presumably to figure out how to spend the money). And black people start businesses.

There are 300M people in the US. Giving 1k to each every month is 3.6T a year. And the effects are miniscule. With 3.6T you could do a lot of things. Just reversing the trend of obesity would be a major improvement for the lives of millions.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#483

Post by mikrl »

harimau777 wrote: post #155
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've heard negative income taxes suggested as an alternative to our current approach. I'm not an expert on them, but it might be worth looking into for people who are interested in ideas for improving our system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

That is one of the most interesting ideas I read from Friedman.

I assume the administration of such a program is heavy though, but with future technological advancement and bureaucratic reform it could be possible.

The idea of replacing all welfare services with money in your hand derived from this formula is radical… and has its promise but I worry about those who rely not only on welfare for the economic side, but also the social support aspects.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#484

Post by constantcrying »

nkmnz wrote: post #460

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 les…

>Germany shifted to a system that is as close to a basic income as you can currently imagine.

It is free money for everyone. Everyone obviously excluding the people who work full-time and who are paying taxes so that "everyone" can live of Bürgergeld.

>but especially for those relying on government money...

Yes, those are the real victims here. Who else could be victimized by working full time, so that other people don't have to work?

Maybe the real victims are the people who have to work full time and are suffering from the increased cost of living?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#485

Post by smileysteve »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #282
smileysteve wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-introducing progressive tax rates would be a small start; Though, allegedly, a majority of Americans don't comprehend progressive tax rates. Many state income taxes reach the top income tax rate before the federal poverty rate (ie The federal tax rates are poorly graduated; the first, 10% rate, cuts at $11,600 over to 12%; and then we jump 10% to 22%, only for the next bracket to have only 2% bracket gap again. Im…

2024 tax brackets Tax rate Single filers Married couples filing jointly Married couples filing separately Head of household 10% $11,600 or less $23,200 or less $11,600 or less $16,550 or less 12% $11,601 to $47,150 $23,201 to $94,300 $11,601 to $47,150 $16,551 to $63,100 22% $47,151 to $100,525 $94,301 to $201,050 $47,151 to $100,525 $63,101 to $100,500 24% $100,526 to $191,950 $201,051 to $383,900 $100,526 to $191,1…

Yes - first - this is progressive - but, not efficient in the context of Median income being $40k, poverty being $12k, and most welfare programs having a cutoff at ~$30k.

The 10% bracket is all under poverty level (the reasons this exists is somewhere between occasional part time work for seniors or teenagers, the standard deduction)

The 12% bracket includes ~50% of individual filers that are under most welfare levels. Does that 20% increase in tax rate make sense for that group? The Married/household rate covers the majority of American households, including median household income.

The 22% bracket... let's start with this is a 47% graduation increase versus the previous 20% increase (more than double)

The 24% bracket... again, a seemingly random increase of The 32% bracket... an 8 point rate increase, that's 25%...

The 35% bracket, back to a 3 point, 10% increase

the 37% bracket, even more decreasing, a 2 point, 6% increase

So; the rates of graduation increase are 10%, 47%, 10% , 25%, 10%, 6%; from a distance we can see that the 47% and 25% changes are definitely outliers; If, the top rates of change were at least at the top marginal incomes, it would make more sense.

It looks even worse if you also include the regressive 6.2% OASDI payroll tax. 16%, 18%, 28%, 30%, 38%, and 41% -- 25%, 55%, 11%, 26%, 8% (ignoring the employer's OASDI / Social Security)

Nc Income tax rates 4.5%

SC Income Tax Rates $0-$3200, 3% > $3200, 6.5%

Al Income tax rates $0-$500 2% $500-$2500 4% > $2500 5%

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#486

Post by qqqwerty »

karaterobot wrote: post #461
qqqwerty wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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?

I think anyone who has thought deeply about the topic recognizes that NIT is probably the only practical implementation (if you search this thread it gets mentioned a lot). There are the MMT folks that think you could finance UBI with deficit spending, but I think the recent bout of inflation we experienced has them on their heels.

At the end of the day, if someone is making $500k/yr and we give them $12k/yr in UBI, that isn't really going to move the needle for them. And from a practical standpoint, we are probably going to have to raise their taxes by a bit more than what they are getting in UBI to pay for the program. So it is kinda pointless. NIT solves this. And as an added bonus NIT can be implemented by the IRS, eliminating the need for another bureaucracy (although some UBI folks suggest that the social security admin can handle things, but I would argue that we should get rid of social security and just have a bigger NIT for seniors).

I still consider NIT to be "universal", because everyone would qualify for it. You do not need to apply for it. And it will kick in automatically when you need it. A lot of our current welfare programs are a bureaucratic nightmare. There is an entire industry of non-profits that exist solely to help people navigate that mess. A lot of people don't get the help they need because of this, or because they don't like the stigma of being on welfare. NIT/UBI eliminate that, so that is why I consider both to be "universal".

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#487

Post by smileysteve »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #339
smileysteve wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both parties may feel that complying with tax and labor laws is too much of a burden. That's - a way - to phrase: - facilitate an effective 7.5% pay cut (employer paid Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid tax) - avoid being properly compensated for overtime (assuming non exempt salary), - and make claiming unemployment, disability benefits more difficult When you refer to both, can you emphasize a specific burden…

> facilitate an effective 7.5% pay cut (employer paid Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid tax) The employer skipping out on taxes is not a "pay cut". And the employee also gets to skip out on taxes.

The employee, under current laws, does not get to skip out on taxes; they have to pay the self employment tax rate of 15%; We're talking about 40 hour weeks, that kind of regular pay doesn't go un noticed by revenue offices.

Yes, the employee must file and pay taxes, even if they've reported their employer to the IRS for mis-classification.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#488

Post by titanomachy »

constantcrying wrote: post #482

Completely devastating results for promoting free money. 1k a month and the "benefits" are some minor lifestyle changes. No impact on health. Biggest spending beverages . Slightly less time spent working. Some people start budgeting (presumably to figure out how to spend the money). And black people start businesses. There are 300M people in the US. Giving 1k to each every month is 3.6T a year. And the effects are mi…

This is the first good data on direct cash transfers in developed countries. The results in developing countries were quite different:

https://www.givedirectly.org/2023-ubi-results/

People in that study were receiving a lot more money, relative to typical local incomes. But it seems like they used it quite differently. I think there are major differences between poor people in rich vs poor countries.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#489

Post by wpguy »

constantcrying wrote: post #484
nkmnz wrote: post #460

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 les…

>Germany shifted to a system that is as close to a basic income as you can currently imagine. It is free money for everyone. Everyone obviously excluding the people who work full-time and who are paying taxes so that "everyone" can live of Bürgergeld. >but especially for those relying on government money... Yes, those are the real victims here. Who else could be victimized by working full time, so that other people d…

That is the problem with these programs. You will never get full buy in from the population unless EVERYONE benefits from it. Just look at social security and Medicare if you go to cut that it is political suicide.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#490

Post by jon_richards »

superfrank wrote: post #143
aeturnum wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone who's yearly income is in the 5th percentile is still earning in the 5th percentile. Isn't this an intended feature of UBI? The idea of UBI is that some level of material support should be guaranteed. It's about bringing "up" the floor, not really re-arranging relative equal and unequal positions. Plenty of people dislike that about it, but it's an intended feature. That said, this is basically inflationary…

> Isn't this an intended feature of UBI? The idea of UBI is that some level of material support should be guaranteed. It's about bringing "up" the floor, not really re-arranging relative equal and unequal positions. Plenty of people dislike that about it, but it's an intended feature. Absolutely, but I guess I don't see how just giving everyone money brings that floor up. Maybe I'm looking at this naively, but I don'…

If A is making $1 and B is making $1000, A has to survive on 0.1% of what the economy produces.

If A is making $1001 and B is making $2000, A has to survive on 33% of what the economy produces.

Even if inflation could be exclusive to basic needs, causing A’s costs and B’s costs to both rise by $1000, the economy now heavily incentivizes more competition around satisfying basic needs. All rent going up equally regardless of unit size means it’s time to start building or converting luxury apartments to multiple low income apartments.

Post reply on HN