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

It Is Time For Basic Income

hawkins.ventures

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 761 posts

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#481

Post by pgeorgi »

fishtoaster wrote: post #404
rcoder wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think "working-age adult" (perhaps even "household") not "individual". Also, assume that taxes will reclaim that basic income from folks making significantly more than the poverty line. According to Wikipedia, only the bottom quartile of the US population earns less than $22500 per household; if you assume that BI isn't simply added on tax-free to higher-earning households' net income, that makes it more like 1/4 of…

Some good points. That does seem to get us to the right ballpark. However: - Can you really exclude kids? They still need someone to support them. They may not get their 10k, but their parents need extra (presumably around 10k for each child) to support them. - If you switch to a means-tested system (the article actually advocates for everyone gets 10k, not just the poor), don’t you lose many of the benefits the arti…

The idea of BI is generally to give everyone the money and reclaim it through taxes from those who "aren't eligible", where several models are proposed (land, consumption, or income).

Take income taxes (I like that model for its simplicity because both sides are income):

You get your $10k, but there's a progressive income tax. To invent some random figures: for the first $10k (on top of BI) you pay nothing, at $50k you pay $10k, at $100k you pay $30k. For example: for every dollar between $10k and $50k: $0.25, for every dollar beyond $50k: $0.40.

Once you earn $50k, your BI cancels out, anything higher and you contribute to the BI of others. (simplifying some more: income tax contributes to BI, all other public expenditures are paid through other taxes, like land or consumption).

Progressive taxes are well understood, relatively abuse-free (it can only be gamed by not declaring income), and at no point create a >100% marginal tax rate: tax grows faster than before, but never faster than your income.

That way the complexity of welfare, its abuse and people falling through its cracks is eliminated (or so proponents hope), while still "effectively paying" the $10k in BI only to those who really need them.

(Disclaimer: the tax brackets above probably break down easily when applied to reality, so only use them to discuss the model ;-) )

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#482

Post by dredmorbius »

ende wrote: post #385

Replace income tax with land value tax. Then it's not redistribution of income. The argument for a land value tax is Georgist: land is not property because it is not the product of one's own labor. Therefore land 'owners' should pay rent to society in the form of the land value tax (though not on the property built on the land). That rent is then paid to society as a universal basic income. (And to preempt those who…

How does a lands tax comport with the fact that some acres are hugely more productive (or extractive) than others?

It's not in the US, but the First Oil Well in Bahrain, which has been providing oil since June 2, 1932. For much of its life at 70,000 bbl/day, more recently at about half that rate, 35,000 bbl/day.

That's roughly $3.5 million per day in productivity.

There was a time, and Henry George came well after it, when the agricultural productivity of land was in fact the basis of virtually all wealth (some contributions from the sea, as well as water and wind power). Since the large-scale exploitation of coal, oil, and gas, starting in the mid 18th century, that hasn't been the case.

It eventually likely will be again, but I've not read enough of the Georgist view to see how the huge variances in land productivity would be addressed. Even if mere ag output is considered.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#483

Post by donkeysmuggler »

ende wrote: post #385

Replace income tax with land value tax. Then it's not redistribution of income. The argument for a land value tax is Georgist: land is not property because it is not the product of one's own labor. Therefore land 'owners' should pay rent to society in the form of the land value tax (though not on the property built on the land). That rent is then paid to society as a universal basic income. (And to preempt those who…

but then if you choose not to interact with the market economy you cannot subsist off your own land, especially if everyone is buying up land and making it private so that there is no public access to nature

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#484

Post by donkeysmuggler »

PeterisP wrote: post #226
donkeysmuggler wrote: post #105

Additionally, as well as 100% Inheritance tax with exceptions for personal items (inheritance is the biggest game breaker in a fair system), another very practical and fair idea would be no VAT/sales tax (disproportionately affects the poor) and vastly reduced business taxes; however Progressive personal income taxation that works like the effects of relativity on the speed of light (no tiny group of bands that end a…

100% inheritance tax is a bit ridiculous - if I'd die today in a car accident, my family already would lose it's main income and suffer; and you'd suggest taking away my savings from my widow&toddlers at that point? And even if you'd really want this, it's feasible only if you also have a 100% tax on gifting stuff - otherwise any old/sick person would simply gift their wealth to whoever he wants to leave (generally t…

The amount of revenue gained in a near 100% system would guarantee basic income for all, including children. This is my point. Take away gifting and nepotism and automatically assign an equal amount of potential resources to each child from birth.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#485

Post by PeterisP »

donkeysmuggler wrote: post #484
PeterisP wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% inheritance tax is a bit ridiculous - if I'd die today in a car accident, my family already would lose it's main income and suffer; and you'd suggest taking away my savings from my widow&toddlers at that point? And even if you'd really want this, it's feasible only if you also have a 100% tax on gifting stuff - otherwise any old/sick person would simply gift their wealth to whoever he wants to leave (generally t…

The amount of revenue gained in a near 100% system would guarantee basic income for all, including children. This is my point. Take away gifting and nepotism and automatically assign an equal amount of potential resources to each child from birth.

You can't take away gifting unless you take away private property - how you can prevent me spending my resources (no matter how much/little of them I may have) on rising my kids instead of myself?

The natural unit of the economy isn't a person, it's the household - all the legislation and market theory is about resource flows between households, we've never had societies that were able (or even intending) to control resource flows within a household. The only way to ensure equal resources to each child from birth would involve also fully centralizing childcare - i.e., taking them away from parents and raising them all equally by some single anonymous system; but I'd call that a dystopia.

I do want my children to have an advantage in resources if I can help it, it's a natural property of homo sapiens and most other mammals to care about their offspring.

You can take away 'nepotism' in that sense as soon as you're able to genetically modify our species to have a different psychology than homo sapiens - and while we're at it, this could also solve wars, greed and a bunch of other problems.

Implementing what you propose might be possible, but it would require to apply violent force on a mass scale, as almost all people would naturally want to circumvent the system at some point and need to be forcibly prevented from that - or it all goes back to the "communism" where in theory everybody is equal but in practice it's just empty words and everybody cheats the system.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#486

Post by Kiro »

If the incentive to work at McDonald’s decreases to a point where they either need to raise the wages or automate large parts of their process, won't that lead to a possibility where McDonald’s ceases to exist or becomes a luxury item?

It's not very unlikely that they won't be able to automate their business and the only option is to raise the wages. With raised wages they will need to increase their prices.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#487

Post by Dale1 »

This would be akin to dumping a load of cash into the economy, driving inflation to the point where the extra cash had absolutely no difference to anyone especially the poor.

It's a lovely idea but the working wage is a much better one!

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#488

Post by [deleted] »

demoncore wrote: post #306

I just spent a year living in South Western France which is the most socialist part of France. (I'm a US citizen based here most of the time and I'm a CEO). If you want to see the result of wealth redistribution, go check it out yourself. You'll meet young men and women in the prime of their lives who spend their entire day in a coffee shop and later a bar, sipping a beverage discussing art, culture, poetry, how busi…

[deleted]

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#489

Post by sp332 »

sliverstorm wrote: post #437
whyme wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What indication did I give you that leads you to believe I'm making that assumption? I didn't make any claim to suggest why poor nations are poor, did I? I simply suggested that as poor nations evolve, their people will consume more.

Their people will consume more, but their GDP will go up as well.

There are more resources than just money. Metals are in high demand already, and the prices have increased faster than anyone's GDP.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#490

Post by sp332 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #263
iopq wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% on a public fund? So I should be paying for the elections of Republicans and Democrats even though they are private parties that may for no reason exclude me?

It's done this way in many other countries. For example, in Canada, each party receives $2 per vote received in the last election to campaign in the next election. Corporate donations are banned, although small donations by individuals are still allowed. You're paying now through the distortion of the electoral process and the indirect increase in your cost of goods and services (the hundreds of billions spent on ele…

We can ban corporate donations without raising taxes, and without giving people's money to parties they don't support.
Post reply on HN