Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#521

Post by maxerickson » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:10 PM UTC

k2enemy wrote: post #385

cbr wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> worked for black money and collect the social benefit at the same time This one doesn't apply to BI, since you get the same amount of BI money whether you work or not and regardless of how much you earn.

I keep seeing this repeated in discussions about BI, but I honestly have no idea how it would be possible. I get that everyone receives the same size check, no matter what their income, but who pays for the BI program? I assume it is funded through taxes and that people that earn more income will pay higher taxes. So once you take BI received - taxes paid , people that earn more outside income get less from the BI pr…

Yes, it creates a disincentive to work. The hope is that it creates much less disincentive to work relative to a means tested program. I don't think the structural economic advantages are enough of a reason to implement a BI (you have to start looking at fairness issues).

Typical proposed implementations just increase taxes at higher income levels. So there is a taper starting somewhere above the basic income where people that are working are benefiting less than people who aren't working, and there is some income level where the basic income is effectively a pure cost. But all those people have a higher effective income than they would have from the BI.

And it likely would represent a massive increase in spending for most countries, even if it was more efficient than welfare programs. Especially if you make payments outside the tax code, which ends up with a lot of spending that is just accounting.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#522

Post by DominikR » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:11 PM UTC

ygjb-dupe wrote: post #283

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

If you are an engineer I would expect a better capability of root cause analysis than that. Your list of things there is entirely comprised of things that are largely outside of the control of individuals. "Poor people are mostly poor because of the decisions they make." * Drug addiction Yes, a person can choose to use drugs. Usually the choice is made under intense peer pressure and at a young age. We won't let chil…

Does it matter in if it's the drug addicts fault that he is a drug addict or not?

The parent shared his opinion on if a basic income is going to help that person or not.

You could instead describe how you believe a basic income would actually help such a person instead of starting a discussion about morals.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#523

Post by JustSomeNobody » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:11 PM UTC

clavalle wrote: post #267

Jemaclus wrote: post #120

There's a lot of skepticism about basic income, especially when it comes to how does it save money? The top comment as of this writing is questioning it: > But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all their money and now can't afford rent and/or food? Do you tell them "tough shit, you've exhausted all your social safet…

People can decide what they need. It is a lot less bureaucracy to say "Here's a check that should be able to get you shelter, clothing, and food -- go find it." rather than trying to place everyone somewhere.

I just see way too many people not doing this. BI would be like winning the lottery to these people. Someone would hand them a check once a month and they'd go spend it on useless stuff.

To top it off, they'd be first in line to complain about how crappy "the system" is.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#524

Post by lawpoop » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:11 PM UTC

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

gshulegaard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really isn't a good riddle. First, Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) work better than most people expect ( http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... ). As noted in the article, UCTs work surprisingly well in scenarios where lack of capital is the primary problem. A UBI (at least as usually is discussed in the US) is a de-scaling UCT. Second, most proponents of a UBI see it as more efficien…

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I come from a middle class background and I know a number of people, in my extended family and in my middle-class community, who have made the same choices (BTW mental illness is not a choice), and it didn't put them in poverty.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#525

Post by lawpoop » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:11 PM UTC

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

gshulegaard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really isn't a good riddle. First, Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) work better than most people expect ( http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... ). As noted in the article, UCTs work surprisingly well in scenarios where lack of capital is the primary problem. A UBI (at least as usually is discussed in the US) is a de-scaling UCT. Second, most proponents of a UBI see it as more efficien…

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I come from a middle class background and I know a number of people, in my extended family and in my middle-class community, who have made the same choices (BTW mental illness is not a choice), and it didn't put them in poverty.

I don't think there's a cause and effect relationship there.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#526

Post by lawpoop » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:11 PM UTC

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

gshulegaard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really isn't a good riddle. First, Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) work better than most people expect ( http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... ). As noted in the article, UCTs work surprisingly well in scenarios where lack of capital is the primary problem. A UBI (at least as usually is discussed in the US) is a de-scaling UCT. Second, most proponents of a UBI see it as more efficien…

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I come from a middle class background and I know a number of people, in my extended family and in my middle-class community, who have made the same choices (BTW mental illness is not a choice), and it didn't put them in poverty.

I don't think there's a strict cause and effect relationship there.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#527

Post by SpaceCadetJones » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:12 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #458

acgourley wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. The liberal would prefer to keep universal healthcare and food programs and put cash on top, making the total distribution to the poor larger. The liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size. As an aside, if you pay attent…

As a left libertarian I fall firmly in the camp you call "liberal", for the reason that provisioning about universal healthcare is not just about cost, but about liberty. If one sees protection of life as a moral imperative - because without life there can't be any liberty - then allowing someone to purchase priority over those who need healthcare most is already morally dicey; allowing them to do so without ensuring…

Agreed. It does not address the high concentrations of wealth which allow a small minorty of people to be in direct control of the majority of our resources and economic activity.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#528

Post by INTPenis » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:12 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

Of course there are safety nets, look I can only speak from my perspective living in Sweden but it's my perception that we already have a sort of basic income through the various social services available.

I never understood BI until you said "cut a check", so that's the difference between BI and what we have today in a welfare state.

Because today you get a grant for your rent and you get a basic minimum income from social services. All of which is designed so that you should be able to survive but not in excess.

It's two sums of money that is essentially a BI but instead of cutting a check it's calculated based on your standard of living.

For example if you're keeping a 3 room apartment without a job then the public insurance company that issues the housing grant will require you to move to a smaller apartment to keep your grant.

There's also additional money you can request if you're sick or old. And of course some people have a disability so there's money for that too.

The problem with having many small creaks like that is most people don't know about all their rights, or are just too lazy to pursue them.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#529

Post by petra » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

BI won't save much money, it's just a political myth. administrative costs over all welfare programs are just a few percent.

Source: an economist in a panel i heard.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#530

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi » Tue, May 31, 2016, 8:14 PM UTC

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

gshulegaard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really isn't a good riddle. First, Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) work better than most people expect ( http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... ). As noted in the article, UCTs work surprisingly well in scenarios where lack of capital is the primary problem. A UBI (at least as usually is discussed in the US) is a de-scaling UCT. Second, most proponents of a UBI see it as more efficien…

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

> Giving $1200 check to someone without food and shelter most definitely isn't going to provide them food and shelter. It will more likely go to a stamp bag, scratch off, 40 ounce, etc.

At first, absolutely, for some significant percentage of the homeless. Anyone would be a fool to think otherwise. And yet I still strongly support the idea because I think think a bit farther than that, and not just because many will rise up to the opportunity.

You can't even casually approach the issue without considering the cycle of poverty. It's equally foolish to doubt that; higher-income areas don't magically produce harder-working, more responsible kids.

A UBI allows more opportunities for those that do want to rise up. A UBI provides drastically more stability for kids, taking away the major dragging force that causes so much violence, homelessness, and instability. So many low-income parents are away all the time working shitty jobs. You can ignore it all you like, but these people are in shitty situations from the beginning.

And ditch the personal narrative. It doesn't help. I grew up poor (rural, not urban) and got educated, etc. Yet, looking back, my situation wasn't too bad; my mom was always around, education was a priority, government programs offered a lot of help, and ultimately the state paid for a lot of my education. I am very much the exception that proves the rule, and almost without fail, any time I meet someone like you describe yourself, I find they had lots of advantages, too. Sure, not as many as someone from the middle class, but not nothing.