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

This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

funding.basicincome2013.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#51

Post by kfk »

anoncowherd wrote: post #48
kfk wrote: post #7

I will never support this idea. This is kind of thinking is extremely nationalistic: I am entitled to free money because I was born in XYZ. On top of this, this idea has very weak economics fundamentals, there is no prove that growth comes from redistributing wealth. There is plenty of prove growth comes from innovation and innovation comes from people actually working. We are in denial. The whole Europe is in denial…

Good to see someone thinking for himself here.

If I were thinking for myself I would support this idea and then go on basic income for life, I can live with very little, so why not?

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#52

Post by [deleted] »

KiwiCoder wrote: post #9

I'd not heard of the basic income concept until now so my reaction might be naive, but what benefit could possibly justify the collection and redistribution of a fixed amount of cash to everyone , regardless of their situation? For example, if 1 person in 10 is thirsty, what benefit derives from giving water to all 10 versus the 1 - isn't that simply a wasteful distribution of resources? Even in the extreme case wher…

[deleted]

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#53

Post by transfire »

jrkatz wrote: post #14
KiwiCoder wrote: post #9

I'd not heard of the basic income concept until now so my reaction might be naive, but what benefit could possibly justify the collection and redistribution of a fixed amount of cash to everyone , regardless of their situation? For example, if 1 person in 10 is thirsty, what benefit derives from giving water to all 10 versus the 1 - isn't that simply a wasteful distribution of resources? Even in the extreme case wher…

To construct a trivial example, say we give every citizen $2000 a month in post-tax basic income. Of course, most citizens have jobs and other sources of income. To make math easier, assume this government has a flat income tax of 20% If you earn $0, you are pay $0 in tax and get $2000 in basic income. If you earn $9000, you pay $1800 in taxes and get $2000 in basic income, netting you $200. Basic income washes at $1…

FYI, for the States at least, $2000/mo is too high. It always strikes me... I don't think people who make good money often understand just how poor most people really are. The lower 50% of U.S. tax payers only average around $15,000/yr. If I were to guess, approx. 50% of the poverty level would make a good peg. I also think parent should get additional allowances for no more than two children.

That said, the system has a tendency to balance itself (the marvels of free-market capitalism when allowed to work properly) so no mater how much was granted per month, the system could self-adjust. Unfortunately there are so many entrenched interest gumming up the works these days, I'm not sure anything about the markets are really working "freely" as they should.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#54

Post by achy »

The problem I envision with a basic income model is that it could have an inflationary effect - shifting the baseline. The only way this doesn't happen is if our basic income economies exploit non basic income economies - and even this wouldn't prevent housing, energy, and (non artificially) scarce items from inflation.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#55

Post by JanezStupar »

JackFr wrote: post #47
JanezStupar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In quite a lot of Europe we have social support schemes that are supposed the same net effect. Except if you are unemployed for more than X. Or if you have more than a minimal wage on your bank account. Or.. Or.. Or.. All these exceptions are meant to cut social support from people who are not entitled to it. While in reality they usually hurt people who have no means to be really productive. Quite a lot of resources…

> Especially because we can afford it. You mean you can afford it. How do you know if I can afford it? By necessity, to implement this, you've got to take money from people and give it to other people. Your assumption is that by rights any one in the category of those losing money, is making so much that they lack any moral claim to it.

We already do that.

Throughout Europe we take 40-50% of personal income + taxing corporations to fund common good programs.

I will argue that we needn't take any more than we take currently. Expecting that taxes would drop because of BI is ludicrous. However less of our money may be wasted and more of the needy may be served.

You don't need to trust my word. Run some numbers[1].

[1]: https://googledrive.com/host/0B68HCFLtgK_QTHRGWGZBTkRNQjQ/UB...

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#56

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #17
jaibot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare. Replace foodstamps/subsidized housing/unemployment-insurance/myriad-of-other-safety-net-programs with a basic guaranteed income and everyone is better off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income .

The problem is that not everybody's costs are the same. A disabled person may have much higher living costs due to needing additional care and special equipment to help them, they also have less chance of gaining employment in order to increase that income. Also consider costs of living/housing etc. For example an unemployed programmer might be better off staying somewhere like SF where costs are higher because they…

>The problem is that not everybody's costs are the same. A disabled person may have much higher living costs due to needing additional care and special equipment to help them, they also have less chance of gaining employment in order to increase that income.

This would seem to be the case regardless of the type of government assistance provided. Suppose we provide enough that a disabled person can live a dignified, if spartan, life. Should we deny that same level of support to someone else, who may be more able to contribute to society, just because that person is not disabled?

> Also consider costs of living/housing etc. For example an unemployed programmer might be better off staying somewhere like SF where costs are higher because they are more likely to get a job there.

That's the reason why the cost of living/housing is higher there. Increasing government subsidies in areas with higher costs cause the costs to increase even more, because recipients of government assistance then have that money with which to pay, increasing demand without increasing supply and therefore raising prices. Meanwhile only the poorest of the poor remain in the lower subsidized areas because they can't afford to live in more desirable areas even with some government assistance, causing those areas to degrade even more. This is the same logic that leads to the mortgage interest tax credit which benefits mortgage lenders much more than homeowners (and screws over renters even more) -- you're subsidizing the sellers of housing and loans more than the buyers because you're increasing the demand rather than the supply. If you want to help the poor live in San Francisco, subsidize the construction of affordable new high density housing and mass transit there, so that the cost goes down rather than up.

> The risk would be that you ended up with low cost of living slum areas where the unemployed would congregate, separate from the productive economy.

That's what happens already. If anything a basic income can disrupt such behavior, because it allows people living in poorer areas to take better risks, and provides them an increased incentive to seek employment because taking a job doesn't result in the discontinuation of government benefits.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#57

Post by RivieraKid »

anoncowherd wrote: post #43
RivieraKid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's equivalent, everyone knows government gets its money from taxpayers.

That's exactly what he wanted to emphasize. People think government has some magical, limitless supply of money available to them, when in reality, it's mostly just money that's forcefully confiscated from everyone. In other words, basic income is a zero-sum game, but not without its consequences. It's alright not to go into printing or loaning money here, both of those lead to ruin too. How high would tax rates have…

I think that 90% of people (100% on HN) understand this.

> How high would tax rates have to be, to collect enough money for basic income?

They would need to be significantly higher, but significantly more money would get back to the taxpayers too, so the aggregate demand would remain about the same, so businesses would be ok.

BI, if set up properly, can redistribute wealth in a very similar way as it's happening today (in Europe). The only difference would be side effects like lower fear of unemployment, which could make the labor market much more liberal.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#58

Post by dllthomas »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #41
dllthomas wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The risk would be that you ended up with low cost of living slum areas where the unemployed would congregate , separate from the productive economy." But in this case, they would be able to offer each other money for providing each other services. Congregations of people would inherently be able to realize some demand, which is not presently the case (or that demand is filtered through bureaucrats).

Maybe, but the same could probably be said about the favelas in Brazil. It probably makes some sense to subsidize people to live in the area where there is currently the most opportunity for them.

"Maybe, but the same could probably be said about the favelas in Brazil."

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. My understanding of the favelas is that there is a great deal of economic activity going on there, and a lot of people working actively to better their situations. Limited resources coupled with sparse, unequally applied regulation and rule of law leads to some bad situations, but those in the favelas are living in the favelas primarily to have access to the economic activity of the city. Resources go to the favelas only in proportion to the earning power of the residents, which dynamic basic income specifically changes, and it is this change specifically that I am saying is likely to produce better results.

It's totally possible you were saying something I'm missing; if so, please clarify.

"It probably makes some sense to subsidize people to live in the area where there is currently the most opportunity for them."

Physical location matters, but it matters less than it ever has before. Ideally, we want more places with opportunity, not ever higher rents in SF and Manhattan.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#59

Post by weddpros »

sz4kerto wrote: post #4

"Unconditional basic income is a new form of total social security for all citizens. It’s an unconditional monthly sum, paid out to by the government to every citizen - rich or poor, old or young, employed or unemployed." Well, they should have written "Unconditional basic income is a new form of total social security for all citizens. It’s an unconditional monthly sum, taken from taxpayers and paid out to every citi…

There's a logic problem with Basic Income.

They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI)

But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time.

Instead they should think either : 1- it won't change a thing 2- it won't change a thing (so why do it?)

OR

1- it will help me earn more 2- I will earn less so others can earn more

BI advocates say it is an important change. So they advocate for a tax raise, but they "forget" to say it.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#60

Post by JackFr »

MarcusVorenus wrote: post #40
benihana wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare. Is this empirically proven somewhere? Or is that what its proponents are saying? Forgive me if I'm a little cynical when someone tells me an idea they support is a much better form of welfare than what we currently have but doesn't back it up with proof.

How would you go about getting supporting evidence for something that hasn't been tried yet? At the very least we would save a ton of money on bureaucracy and corruption.

Why? Do you think the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the social services industry would sit idly by while their jobs are eliminated? Of course not. And that is the real reason it will never be implemented. For this to be palatable to the right, it's got to credibly eliminate a large existing bureaucracy -- something which might be palatable to the left, but for the specific interest of that bureaucracy.
Post reply on HN