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

511–520 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#511

Post by Dylan16807 »

jewayne wrote: post #480
Dylan16807 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming there's no other income tax on the first $24K you make, it's a bit aggressive but it's still a valid form of UBI and an improvement on the status quo.

You're confusing Universal Income with Guaranteed Income. And again, Guaranteed Income is just another form of "benefits earmarked for the politically powerless."

This particular method is mathematically equivalent to both of them. There's no actual difference between "You get full UBI and you pay income tax on other income" and "You get X cents less UBI per dollar of other income".

The system could be as simple as "UBI, also income tax is 50%, end of description".

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#512

Post by jltsiren »

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…

That is a common misconception. No serious UBI proposal would be that expensive.

UBI is not about free cash to everyone. It's about reforming basic welfare benefits and income taxes to prevent welfare traps.

The "U" part is about making basic welfare benefits automatic and unconditional. You don't have to apply for them, and you don't have to do anything specific to qualify for them.

The "B" part is fundamentally a tax reform. Everyone gets the automatic welfare benefit, but some common tax credits and deductions would disappear, as would the lowest tax brackets. In the US, the 24% federal income tax bracket might start at $0.

For low-income people, the biggest change would be lower effective marginal tax rate, as they would only pay actual taxes. For medium incomes and above, the main change would be that people would have to calculate their taxes in a different way.

The necessity of a tax reform also means that testing UBI properly is difficult. A $1000/month benefit with current income taxes would be more money for low-income workers than an actual $1000/month UBI.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#513

Post by Dylan16807 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #456
Dylan16807 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other, I think most of society would fight tooth and nail against it. ...why? We'd still have modern computers and stuff. Dropping productivity wouldn't revert technology itself. So if you ask people "Do you want the same amount of housing and clothes and cars and services you could get back in 1994, but while working 4 days a week instead of 5?" what's the horrifying factor that makes them say no?

Real GDP per capita has gone from 41k to 67k, so going back to 1994 could actually be done with a 3 day work week. Most people wouldn't want to because they would have to cut 40% of their spending across the board. there are a lot of people today that can already have the option to work less for less money but dont choose to do it.

Okay. Well "they would decline" is pretty far from fighting tooth and nail.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#514

Post by xboxnolifes »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #474
ssl-3 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can afford it. It will cost me a lot of money because I'm barely on the tall end of that hypothetical situation right now, but I can put my part in. I can afford it because a healthy society is a productive society, and this will return to me because good economies are built largely upon productive societies, and healthy societies are more productive than unhealthy societies are. Productivity generates wealth. Are…

Re your edit: I think we are discussing different magnitudes of Ubi. I would consider leaving a 200k job for 40k Ubi (which I think is a number more in line with what people describe. First off, my 200k salary would be taxed into effectively a 100k salary. I could live pretty well off 40k if I never had to work, so quitting my job would be a quality of life upgrade. I think a lot of my peers would consider the same.

I think 40k is way more than most UBI proponents are aiming for. It's certainly 3 times as much as I have bean mentally considering in UBI discussions.

When I think UBI, I think paying for a shared living space and food. A minimum budget, not necessarily a comfortable budget.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#515

Post by [deleted] »

wpguy wrote: post #489
constantcrying wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

[deleted]

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#516

Post by Aperocky »

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…

> as as close to a basic income as you can currently imagine.

More like as far as I can imagine.

Basic Income has to be provided to everyone, not just the ones who don't have a job. That's the whole point. It's not that the amount must be sufficient to live off of, that can be worked out later, but it has to start with everyone on board and that's what makes it "Basic".

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#517

Post by constantcrying »

jltsiren wrote: post #512
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…

That is a common misconception. No serious UBI proposal would be that expensive. UBI is not about free cash to everyone. It's about reforming basic welfare benefits and income taxes to prevent welfare traps. The "U" part is about making basic welfare benefits automatic and unconditional. You don't have to apply for them, and you don't have to do anything specific to qualify for them. The "B" part is fundamentally a t…

With effects this small UBI is clearly not something worth doing.

The 3.6T are for everyone getting an additional 1k a month. Which is exactly what the study tested and which had negligible effects. If the effects of 3.6T free money are negligible, then spending less on the same thing is obviously more negligible.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#518

Post by constantcrying »

wpguy wrote: post #489
constantcrying wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

There is no system where everyone benefits from redistribution.

It is literally impossible to imagine a system where everyone benefits, unless you have a free energy machine of course.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#519

Post by Ray20 »

giantg2 wrote: post #472
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…

That's something that most programs don't even try to explain, and something ive wondered about - how does the money affect competition, both for goods/services and labor? If you're affecting very small percentages of the population, the impacts seem minor. We've seen this with analysis on raising minimum wage to about $10/hr. Most people make over that amount (or work in excluded roles), so the impact is small. Rais…

>how does the money affect competition, both for goods/services and labor?

We have the entire 20th century, when many countries tried exactly that. Production is decreasing, labor participation decreasing, good availability decreasing. Mass famine, millions of deaths from starvation. Governments have to decree force labor to overcome famine and totalitarian oppression to avoid revolutions and protect the progressive achievements of general welfare. Last part centralizes authority even more and gives the government tools to remain in power no matter what.

>Or we can raise the payroll taxes to cover the payouts.

This is exactly where the spiral of death begins. Hieger taxation (when there is welfare) - less work incentives - fewer workers - less goods availability - you need bigger welfare share, so even hieger taxes. And so on until people have literally nothing to eat. Not once or twice, always.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#520

Post by wordpad25 »

Aperocky wrote: post #516
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…

> as as close to a basic income as you can currently imagine. More like as far as I can imagine. Basic Income has to be provided to everyone , not just the ones who don't have a job. That's the whole point. It's not that the amount must be sufficient to live off of, that can be worked out later, but it has to start with everyone on board and that's what makes it "Basic".

isn't that just inflation with extra steps?
Post reply on HN