Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#51

Post by falcolas » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:40 PM UTC

transfire wrote: post #27

powertower wrote: post #9

Having negative income tax brackets for those that: 1. Work + 2. Declare their income (i.e., file tax returns) + 3. Make below X amount ... is more financially reasonable and has the benefit of keeping the person working/trying/moving . In this system, as an example, someone making below 30K year would gets the difference between what they make and the 30K mark given to them. Otherwise, the only other solution is to…

A solid BI system could be done for around $2-3 trillion, not $5-10+. BI supporter tend to over shoot, $2000 a month is too high and will disincentivize work too much. (Although, the market would correct itself via inflation given enough time.) I worked out the figures, and roughly the equivalent of a 16hr/week job at min wage would be close to optimal and affordable. Taxes should be lower too, btw, but that has to d…

> disincentivize work too much

This assumes that work is good, and that not working is bad. How do you back up that assumption?

What happens when there is not enough work for everyone? If your value is intrinsically tied to your job, and there just aren't enough jobs to go around, are you supposed to just die and make way for someone who won the N lottery which let them get the job? Or should employers create unnecessary jobs just for the sake of giving everybody a job (and thus taxing us in another way, to support paying all of these unnecessary jobs)?

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#52

Post by powertower » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

vdaniuk wrote: post #49

powertower wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes. Here you go friend... http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html If what you just said is true, I'm sure you've already done this many times before. Lead by example, practiced what you preached, paid your real tax due. And if not, no need to wait any more. Here is also the public debt gift page (and stats) if…

This argument doesn't have merit. Tragedy of commons/game theory provides us the basis to understand that individual/group efforts are insufficient. Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. Advocating for across the board changes for everyone is a more efficient strategy.

> Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others.

The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged.

What I'm point out is hypocrisy.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#53

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

highCs wrote: post #32

A generous basic income funded by very high taxes would be self-defeating, as it would reintroduce the sort of distortions that many of its advocates hope to banish from the welfare system. Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger. Basically, if there is not enough jobs for everyone - the raison d'etre of the basic income - then at some point, some aren't going to do anything: that's the point. In othe…

Although automation of jobs is a popular reason for talking about basic income these days, I don't think it's the original or only reason for it being thought a good idea.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#54

Post by ownagefool » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:46 PM UTC

highCs wrote: post #32

A generous basic income funded by very high taxes would be self-defeating, as it would reintroduce the sort of distortions that many of its advocates hope to banish from the welfare system. Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger. Basically, if there is not enough jobs for everyone - the raison d'etre of the basic income - then at some point, some aren't going to do anything: that's the point. In othe…

The problem with this, at least in somewhere like the UK, is you haven't convinced the public that there aren't enough jobs.

Sure, some people are saying so, but there's a barrage of benefits programs that shows there is a subset of the native population who just can't be arsed trying to get a job, and who won't work for a job that earns them similar or less money than they get on benefits.

While these people are sitting around with their massive entitlment complexes and a subset or them are willing to go on channel4 and openly discuss it, you're never going to convince the public there's no jobs.

It's sad because, these people are supposed to be statsticly insignificant, but alas, I work full time and had to pay £500,000 for a 2 bed terrace. I resent the fact we can't move the non-working out of London when it costs a fortune to live somewhere nearby.

Of course the bigger problem is that money has a gravitational pull and the rich are getting richer, but they're not being idiots on channel4, so the middle class aren't taking it out on them.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#55

Post by vdaniuk » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

powertower wrote: post #52

vdaniuk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument doesn't have merit. Tragedy of commons/game theory provides us the basis to understand that individual/group efforts are insufficient. Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. Advocating for across the board changes for everyone is a more efficient strategy.

> Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. What I'm point out is hypocrisy.

>The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged.

Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate please?

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#56

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:48 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #38

Unvoiced assumption #1: working is good. Corollary: Not working is bad. Unvoiced assumption #2: anyone who wants a job can get one. We know that #2 is false. Coupling the assumptions together produces a group of people who are considered to be bad for reasons that are entirely beyond their control.

[deleted]

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#57

Post by ownagefool » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:48 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #3

This analysis doesn't seem to account for the savings and increased efficiency from all the policy changes basic income would enable. For example, water and parking spaces could be priced at their actual cost, rather than being subsidized. This would make the water market function properly and allocate it efficiently, and remove a bunch of car-related externalities. Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough b…

For the record, house renting prices in the UK have went up with what the Government has been willing to pay. It's probably folly to assume that house prices wouldn't just rise with basic income.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#58

Post by seahorse » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:49 PM UTC

netfire wrote: post #47

Why not start with something smaller, like providing "basic food" for everyone, and see what the result is? You could reuse existing programs, like food stamps, where the infrastructure is already in place for most grocery stores to accept payment. (except without the application process) That seems like a less risky change than trying to provide enough income to cover housing, utilities, clothing, etc. all at once.

Is "basic food" enough without "basic shelter"?

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#59

Post by rjsw » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #10

raldi wrote: post #3

This analysis doesn't seem to account for the savings and increased efficiency from all the policy changes basic income would enable. For example, water and parking spaces could be priced at their actual cost, rather than being subsidized. This would make the water market function properly and allocate it efficiently, and remove a bunch of car-related externalities. Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough b…

'Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough basic income level.' If everyone's income were increased, might not prices for things like housing go up as well, so some people could still be priced out?

People getting priced out of an area could be good in the long term. Property taxes would have to increase a lot in that area to enable service workers to be paid enough to live there too. Over time this could act as a bit of a brake on housing costs in the expensive area.

My understanding is that people are happier with change if they feel that they have some choice in how to respond to it. If they were provided with a Basic Income then they could decide how to live within their means, maybe by extended families and friends picking where to live together.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#60

Post by powertower » Sun, May 24, 2015, 1:51 PM UTC

vdaniuk wrote: post #55

powertower wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. What I'm point out is hypocrisy.

>The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate please?

I work for myself, and after I pay my taxes, I have about 2-5K left in my bank account. Then I live month-to-month from what I take in and what I chip away at.

If he can afford to pay more taxes, if he makes so much more than I, he can't be disadvantaged to me or the rest of us who can't afford to pay more taxes - by paying what he claims he wants to (but yet does not).