Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#521

Post by prostoalex » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

zxcdw wrote: post #313

I don't understand how people oppose unconditional basic income without also opposing the fact that automation decreases the amount of working hours available for a person(or in other words, the amount of jobs ), and thus decreases the amount of income per person, while maintaining productivity stable if not increasing it, thus making all sorts of goods cheaper. Someone enlighten me. These discussions always seem so…

So a few basic strategies for maximizing UBI:

1) Get educated, find a job, work.

2) Produce more children, pool financial benefits that a single household is eligible for.

3) Vote for politicians who promise to increase UBI.

Long-term which option do you think the populace will go for?

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#522

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #514

btilly wrote: post #5

I've got a twist on this basic idea. Fund basic income with a large tax on various CO2 producing activities. With the idea that - on average - people can pay this tax out of the basic income received from it. And people will have direct incentives to find ways to reduce CO2 consumption. Then get rid of silly specific legislation that tries to achieve the same goal in less successful ways. Thus fuel efficiency, Califo…

You want to couple one controversial idea (basic income) with another controversial idea (global climate change)? Yikes!

Climate change is not a controversial idea. It is widely accepted idea.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#523

Post by comrade_ogilvy » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

pjungwir wrote: post #431

dragonwriter wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every item can be valued by seeing what people would pay for it "What people would pay for it" is a controversial quantity that can only be speculatively and uncertainly answered unless you are actually selling it in an open, unrestricted auction (even actual sale under real-world conditions often doesn't answer this, since its possible that both buyer and seller have non-financial interests which motivate the sale…

> "What people would pay for it" is a controversial quantity Yep. A friend thinks we should have a "You bought it!" law for insurance companies that assess the value of your belongs to calculate a premium. Basically once they give you their assessment, you have to right to say, "You bought it!" and they have to take it off your hands at that price. Not that such a law could work in the real world, but it is pretty cl…

The incentives do not necessarily work well there.

But I could imagine a "We The People Buy It" under a system of wealth taxes. That the gov't could choose to buy any asset for a modest premium over what the taxpayers asserts it was worth for purposes of taxes last year. Heck, maybe any citizen should be allowed in on that game?

"Hmmm, you say your restaurant business is worth only $300k? It is your lucky day! I just bought it for $360k."

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#524

Post by prostoalex » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

zxcdw wrote: post #313

I don't understand how people oppose unconditional basic income without also opposing the fact that automation decreases the amount of working hours available for a person(or in other words, the amount of jobs ), and thus decreases the amount of income per person, while maintaining productivity stable if not increasing it, thus making all sorts of goods cheaper. Someone enlighten me. These discussions always seem so…

So a few basic strategies for maximizing UBI:

1) Get educated, find a job, work.

2) Produce more children, pool financial benefits that a single household is eligible for.

3) Vote for politicians who promise to increase UBI.

Long-term which option do you think the populace will go for?

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#525

Post by bradleyjg » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #258

crazygringo wrote: post #73

> "How would we pay for it? We could start by getting corporations to pay their taxes." I don't know why people keep harping on corporate taxes. If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. Taxing corporations doesn't produce magic money -- it's still taxing people in the end, but it's the consumers.…

I'm not in favor of corporate taxes for practical reasons--I think they're too hard to make work in an international setting. That said, it is not necessarily the case that taxes on corporate profits are passed on to consumers through higher product prices. At always comes back to prices being the equilibrium of supply and demand. Taxes on corporate profits obviously have no impact on demand, so we must look at suppl…

Not just in an international setting. Even in a closed universe it's a lot more difficult to measure, or even define, profit than revenue. Although they are both called income tax, individuals are largely taxed on income, corporations on profit.

Better would be trying to tax the beneficiaries of the corporation. The best measure of profitability is some benefit to the owner. Usually capital appreciation or dividends, but sometimes outsize cash or non-cash compensation in an employee context, or as a non-arms length counterparty.

Increase the dividend and capital gains* rates substantially, start taxing fringe benefits, transform the corporate income tax into a very small tax on revenue to prevent the multiplication of corporate entities, crack down on people who renounce US citizenship (by for example making them inadmissible) and call it a day.

*Also eliminate the capital gains basis reset when assets are transferred at death. That makes no sense at all.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#526

Post by ppereira » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

kbolino wrote: post #464

superuser2 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation exists. They should vote themselves a larger base income every year (unless it's automatically pegged to the CPI or something).

If there was a UBI, then the yearly raises everyone voted themselves would be a significant cause of inflation.

No, because the basic income would be paid for by a tax. Tax revenues increases with inflation too.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#527

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:46 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #495

toomuchtodo wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me be more specific: Who is blocking comprehensive reform of the banking sector (which arguably drove not only the US into a recession, but the world as a whole)? Republicans Draconian anti-abortion laws? Republics Raising student loan interest rates while keeping lending rates to banks near zero? Republicans Supporting egregious amounts of defense department spending (The US spends more on defense then the next…

Maybe the reason they are blocking reform on the banking sector is because they feel it wouldn't be necessary if only the Executive branch would actually enforce the laws already on the books that apply? Maybe the reason they oppose abortion laws is because they feel they are saving human lives who have no say in the matter? Maybe the reason they support such amounts of military spending is because they feel it is th…

You are again one of these people going with the notion that since you disagree with the other people's ideas you get to assume that the ideas are somehow bad. Notice that in no way did you explain why these ideas are inherently bad, you simply disagree with them. You are perpetuating the fallacy that they are bad simply because you say they are while ignoring the possibilities that they have good reasons to think that way. Next thing on your agenda will be to ridicule them in some way to show your superiority over such backward-thinking people in a feeble attempt to convince us you are right without actually having to prove anything nor support your accusations.

Not at all. Being young, I will simply wait until the older majority dies off. It happened with black rights. Its happening with gay marriage, and it will happen with other socials issues.

I've got nothing but time.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#528

Post by MartinCron » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:46 PM UTC

antitrust wrote: post #268

The problem with unconditional basic income is that there's no incentive to do anything beyond the minimum. Like most utopian plans, this idea relies on the belief that humans will get up and do things in large numbers. We can't even get them to voluntarily recycle and quit beating their kids.

The problem with unconditional basic income is that there's no incentive to do anything beyond the minimum

Actually, that's the problem with with means-based social programs, as there's an incentive not to work to get more stuff.

We can't even get them to voluntarily recycle and quit beating their kids.

Oh, never mind, you're just trolling.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#529

Post by jonnathanson » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:46 PM UTC

It's a fascinating idea, and it's a real challenge to market capitalism as we know it in the long run.

But the biggest problem with any such system is unequal need. Need states are stochastic at the individual level. They might appear to be neater and more deterministic at the aggregate level, but a system designed in aggregate is bound to have challenges at the margins. I could easily see this system becoming, essentially, a fixed amount that just shifts everyone's personal needs/income graphs up by X amount a year. Above that point, everyone still needs income to fit any needs not met by X.

An unintended consequence, for example, would be that this system places an extra burden on the disabled, or the parents of multiple children, or the elderly, etc., to take on more work to meet their greater needs. By eliminating need-based welfare and replacing it with a flat payment structure, we'd basically be handwaving away the fact that need states are variable.

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding how this system works. And many of the same arguments I'm making against this system could certainly be leveled against our current system. I guess I'm struggling to see how this system has greater utility and fewer externalities than the current one.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#530

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 9:46 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #477

pjungwir wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's the same thing, because your salary is an expense to the company, so they don't pay taxes on that amount. (Some states/cities do tax corporate revenue as well as corporate profit, but not federal taxes.)

I'm not saying they are taxed on the amount of money they pay you. Well, there is Social Security (US) taxes that they pay but you could argue that's money that should go to the employee anyway if there was no such tax. I'm saying the company makes money that is taxed and then they pay you out of that money in which you are taxed for receiving. Ok, granted, not all the money that the company has on hand that is paid…

The root of this thread was someone saying,

"Most people are taxed roughly 36% (28% income tax, 2% medicare, 6% social security) on their labor, however investments are only taxed at a flat 15%."

"Double taxation" may not be an entirely accurate label (more like "an additional pass of taxation"), but the fact that dividends (in particular) are taxed as corporate profit before being taxed as individual profit makes that 15% figure misleading for dividends, which is what the child comment brought up: "Arguably, you get double-taxed if you own stocks."

Really, the number of times the money is taxed is irrelevant (except wrt paperwork) and we should be looking at the total tax level, but the point is that it's more than the nominal tax rate on qualified dividends if we're going to be comparing tax rate on labor income to tax rate on non-labor income, apples to apples.

Of course, that's specifically for dividends; bond premium payments and capital gains are a different discussion.