It Is Time For Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#491

Post by alexeisadeski3 » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 8:51 AM UTC

nirnira wrote: post #443

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard work is a recent invention. It arrived with the farming revolution a mere 10-12k years ago. Before that, humans as foragers are believed to have worked about 20hrs per week, if they so chose.

Yeah, and early vertebrate species in the Cambrian just swam around singing happy songs and smooching anemones all day while they enjoyed a universe free of those horrible constraints of energy and matter that nasty humans invented to oppress each other. Get a fucking grip. Hunter gatherers lived in shitty conditions with unbelievably poor material wealth, and had no protections against disease, injury, starvation, a…

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Hard work came with farming. Before farming people worked very few hours.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#492

Post by phaemon » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 8:59 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #468

dojomouse wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that the remaining $4trillion is lost. It's not. It goes to other people who will spend it on other things worth, in total, $4tril... even though some of them may need it less. The benefit they derive from the increased flexibility that $20k could easily exceed $20k by itself - you've probably seen the research on how people make bad decisions when they are financially unstable. And all that benefit i…

I don't understand. Can you provide a back of the envelope calculation to explain your thoughts? For a BI to be bad from the perspective you're talking about it has to actively make people less productive. You mean like a 10% reduction in work hours? https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...

No, more work hours != more productivity. The very article you linked to illustrates that.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#493

Post by BvS » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:01 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #426

msellout wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In 2013, the total Social Security expenditures were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the Federal expenditures of $3.684 trillion" (Wikipedia). Medicare adds another half billion, rapidly increasing. We could get between $6k and $7k annually per citizen by swapping those plans for a basic income. If children don't count, we could bump that to maybe $10k. Obviously, this change would ne…

To hit that $20k number, we'd need to increase taxes. I'm glad we are in agreement that a BI will cost a lot more than the current targeted welfare state. (Or alternately will require a drastic cut in benefits for the current crop of non-workers.)

It costs more on a nominal basis but if implemented right nobody will have less money in their pocket even after taxes.

If you didn't earn any money before you will get what was spend on you before + the saved overhead (+ a lot of wasted time and hassle). If you made a lot of money before you will still get a free handout but you also have to pay higher taxes so in the end you should have about the same amount. Obviously it will not be exactly the same for everybody but that doesn't mean it will be less fair.

Besides the saved overhead another major advantage of a bi would be to streamline incentive. Currently it can happen that if you start earning money you will lose a lot of benefits. This can lead to an implicit tax rate of > 50% for very poor people and therefore disincentives work.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#494

Post by whatevsbro » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:04 AM UTC

kaliblack wrote: post #280

jiggy2011 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that Basic income would necessarily deal with edge cases all that much better. A simple basic income implies that you provide everybody with the same minimum income and they cut back on public services etc to the minimum since in theory people can now buy what they want. But there are problems in that not everyone can live off the same amount of money. This is especially true with disabled or very i…

> A simple basic income implies that you provide everybody with the same minimum income and they cut back on public services etc to the minimum since in theory people can now buy what they want. I haven't seen the reduction in services implied anywhere. It may, however, be a reality when implemented, but the intention isn't simply to change how government funds are spent on the poor. Generally, the aim is to redistri…

> Generally, the aim is to redistribute wealth from the 'rich'.

What if they leave? Should people be punished for being rich?

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#495

Post by stalcottsmith » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:04 AM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #281

ekianjo wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible? The government could be printing money to make that possible, as well, instead of financing it through taxes only.

Printing money causes inflation, which is effectively a wealth tax.

It's more complicated than that. As a first approximation inflation is a transfer of wealth from from savers to debtors. However, there are many under-appreciated details based on tax implications of such things as paying real taxes on illusory income. (nominal gains which result in an real-after-tax loss) I learned a lot about this from this guy: http://danielamerman.com/

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#496

Post by rjtavares » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:15 AM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #233

rjtavares wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like you scare me. I can't even understand that point of view, and I don't think we can have a productive argument if we don't share a basic understanding of what a society is. Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

> Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral. I'm not arguing that "taxes are theft". I'm arguing that giving money to poor people so they don't attack me is theft. buzaga was saying that if I/we don't "take care of the unfortunate", they'll decide to take our money/stuff by force. Sounds like a veiled threat to "give them money, or else..." That is theft, in my opinion.…

We are proposing a public funded program. That program is funded by taxes. This is what you said:

> why does theft become OK for society? Why are you arguing that stealing is acceptable if you're desperate enough? I say it's never acceptable.

The implications are obvious. Taxes don't have different natures depending on the use we as society give to the money we collect. In fact, the very economic definition of taxes is that you aren't promised anything specific in return[1].

Regarding the tyranny of the majority argument, that would only apply if we were proposing a ridulous amount of taxation. We are not. It's been pointed out that this program could be funded by replacing it with current expenses, and by a minimal raise in taxes. That's not oppression, that'a a choice that we as society are well within our rights to make.

In short: spending taxpayers money can't be theft, and taxes aren't a service you pay if you like how the money is spent.

[1] > From the view of economists, a tax is a non-penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector levied on a basis of predetermined criteria and without reference to specific benefit received (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax)

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#497

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:23 AM UTC

BvS wrote: post #493

yummyfajitas wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To hit that $20k number, we'd need to increase taxes. I'm glad we are in agreement that a BI will cost a lot more than the current targeted welfare state. (Or alternately will require a drastic cut in benefits for the current crop of non-workers.)

It costs more on a nominal basis but if implemented right nobody will have less money in their pocket even after taxes. If you didn't earn any money before you will get what was spend on you before + the saved overhead (+ a lot of wasted time and hassle). If you made a lot of money before you will still get a free handout but you also have to pay higher taxes so in the end you should have about the same amount. Obvio…

Numbers, please. And see my other comments on the disincentive to work - in the pilot projects, BI was a massive work disincentive.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#498

Post by EricDeb » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:29 AM UTC

bcheung wrote: post #410

orthecreedence wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't give them money. Stopped. How would you go about doing this? Who gets money and who doesn't? Is a single mother raising 3 kids lazy? Is an artist who works night and day and gets pennies in return lazy? There's a lot of overhead in deciding this. A lot . > That fact that other people won't buy their work is not a problem of other people. It's their problem. So, my point that art is only worth it's value to th…

> How would you go about doing this? Who gets money and who doesn't? Is a single mother raising 3 kids lazy? Is an artist who works night and day and gets pennies in return lazy? There's a lot of overhead in deciding this. A lot. You get money if someone agrees to pay you for goods or services rendered. Period. No overhead. There will always be unfortunately situations. Charity and family can help. Knowing there will…

Congrats on your ability to climb out of a desperate situation. A distinction needs to be made between a situation that has a solution and one that doesn't. Consider refractory cancer, or a severe neuralgia. Such persons cannot simply "do something about it" in the same way that someone who is in financial trouble can.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#499

Post by haldujai » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:39 AM UTC

TheLegace wrote: post #467

wozniacki wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us not delude ourselves into thinking any healthcare system is self-contained and self-sustaining, equipped to deal with all the needs of its citizenry. Most European nations ( and Canada, Australia & New Zealand ) are great at dispensing - what can be termed as - "subsistence medicine." Most ailments, procedures and surgeries are handled quite well, although - it has to be said - a tad frugally. ( It is not unco…

I think you need to see what Dr. Danielle Martin[1] a Canadian doctor had to say when she testified to the U.S. Senate defending the Canadian system. The reference was to Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams’ controversial 2010 decision to undergo heart surgery at a Miami hospital. “It’s actually interesting,” replied Dr. Martin, “because in fact the people who are the pioneers of that particular surgery … are in Toro…

As a Canadian in the healthcare field perhaps I can chime in as well.

When you talk about Canadian healthcare, it is a provincially run program (not federal) so let's talk about it at the provincial level. As I am an Ontario resident I'll be discussing this from an Ontario perspective, talking about all of the provinces and their differences would entail several posts.

Ontaio is currently going to institute (or plans to at least) pay freezes on physicians due to the rising cost of healthcare in a non-booming economy. However it is currently one of the best provinces in wait times. The provincial median is 6.7 weeks to see a specialist after being referred and another 7.1 weeks to being treated. This has increased 3 years compared to last year and about doubled from 20 years ago. For some specialties like orthopaedics the total duration is ~40 weeks. This is in contrast to the US where ~90% see the specialist within 4 weeks. Internationally we are considered to be amongst the worst nations when it comes to wait times.

Another big problem with the Ontario system is unemployment. 1/3 specialists, especially surgeons, are unemployed due to a lack of operating rooms and jobs available - even in rural areas. There is a definite need but with the single payer system we have, the aging population pyramid, and increasing healthcare costs we have there is no money left to pay physicians - who make less on average (at least in the surgical specialties) than the US physicians. So we're graduating surgeons who can't work and are forced to go the US to find jobs.

To address one of Dr. Martin's comments btw, someone jwo develops a surgery/technique/game isn't always the best person at solving it. Developing a mitral valve replacement survey using MIS techniques doesn't mean you're the best person to technically achieve it (you could be, but it's not a given as she phrases it). The US has a system that rewards exceptionalism and excellence, the Canadian system generally rewards mediocrity (this is even evidence in other fields such as law and even academia). The US is famous for having premier surgeons and state of the art equipment. A prominent example I know is in the field of limb lengthening, where until very recently there was not a single surgeon in Canada who could do internal limb lengthening, they all used the external fixator pioneered in the USSR. Even in medical education you are seeing prominent US schools teaching the use of hand held ultrasound devices which are supposed to one day replace stethoscopes. The US also has far more specialized medical fellowships focused on advanced techniques and tools such as using tne da Vinci robot system.

I can provide references if necessary (I typed this up on my phone) but most of these facts are readily google-able.

TLDR: Our system isn't as perfect as you might think and is actually teetering on financial instability at the moment with up to 1/3 new physicians unable to find a job in the country due to funding issues.

Re: It Is Time For Basic Income

#500

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 9:41 AM UTC

sans-serif wrote: post #459

stcredzero wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's charge these rich people coming over here for premium care a bit extra and redistribute subsistence care to those traditionally not covered.

This is so appalling. If your wife is in labor and needs to rush to the hospital, the cab driver ought to charge you outrageously because you're richer than him?

[deleted]