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

/r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

tracingwoodgrains.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 566 posts

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#551

Post by relaxing »

nybble41 wrote: post #550
relaxing wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand. You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment? Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc?

> Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc? The actual amount varies by region and income, but e.g. the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (which is financed by HUD) says[0]: > For CY2020, HACLA paid more than $582 Million to private Landlords on behalf of more than 44,000 participant families. That works out to an average (mean) of $13.2k per year per family—and they're onl…

HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less.

Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. The same problem exists under the current scheme as well.

Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income. Some would use their initial UBI payments to move to cheaper locales. Grants could help.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#552

Post by nybble41 »

relaxing wrote: post #551
nybble41 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc? The actual amount varies by region and income, but e.g. the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (which is financed by HUD) says[0]: > For CY2020, HACLA paid more than $582 Million to private Landlords on behalf of more than 44,000 participant families. That works out to an average (mean) of $13.2k per year per family—and they're onl…

HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less. Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. The same problem exists under the current scheme as well. Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income. Some would use their initial UBI payments to move to cheaper locales. Grants could help.

> HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less.

Over 85% of HACLA's revenues in 2020 came directly from HUD[0]. Another 10% were from other government grants (which would also be cut). The numbers reported before were just for the Section 8 program, which AFAICT is administered by HACLA but fully funded by HUD.

> Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable.

That 50% is the part paid by Section 8. The part not paid by Section 8 is expected to be about 30% of income, which at the 2020 poverty level for a family of two would be about $5k (30% of $17.2k), so the total rent is more like $20k or 65% of their pooled UBIs. And again, this is just Section 8. If you qualify for Section 8 housing you probably qualify for some of the other programs which are also being eliminated.

> Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income.

Possibly, but then again we're talking about people who are already living in these places and still qualify for housing assistance. Telling them to get a (better) job or move somewhere cheaper isn't a viable solution. If these were reasonably solutions with UBI they would also be reasonable solutions without UBI.

> Grants could help.

I hope you're not suggesting federal grants since those, too, would be eliminated under this proposal. And really that just gets back to programs targeting specific needs.

[0] https://online.fliphtml5.com/ctqqu/gmgb/#p=42

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#553

Post by giantg2 »

relaxing wrote: post #548
giantg2 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be the premise, but as stated earlier in this chain, it appears to be false ($15k won't cover healthcare, housing, etc that would be removed under the proposal).

I don’t understand. You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment? Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc?

"You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment?"

No, and it's pretty disingenuous for you to put words in my mouth.

It's not so much what HUD spends as what those individuals would need to pay. $500 is an extremely low estimate that would still mean $6k per year (assuming they live in the cheapest stuff they can find). Average costs in most cities for a studio apartment are generally over $1k, giving about $12k per year.

This is only one of the many things eliminated under the proposal. Healthcare is the real big rock and could bankrupt anyone needing substantial care. Even just premiums run from $150-300 per month for the cheapest plans (depending on various factors).

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#554

Post by dopidopHN »

Msw242 wrote: post #526
dopidopHN wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually happened not that long ago, in the US. And the country did not collapsed. It actually entered a era or unparalleled prosperity ( but that had little to do with taxes ) In 1945 tax rate was around 90% IIRC Honest question : you do understand that a 100% tax rate means that 100% of revenu are taxed correct. ( as opposed to 100% are taken by the state ). Of those 100% only a percentage of it is actually “los…

Holy crap how are your comments not greyed out? Marginal income tax rate of 90% != Wealth tax (for which we haven't even tested constitutionality) Also, nobody paid close to 90% thanks to generous loop holes and strategic tax avoidance: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-...

I don’t know what is the wealth tax you are referring to and I don’t see it referenced in my comment.

I was pointing out a historical period where taxes were setup differently than now. We tend to forget it was the case; and it seems to be out of the collective psyché.

Indeed in 2022 nobody pays close to 90%. I was referring to the 1945 to 1960 period. ( see linked article, nice read )

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#555

Post by dopidopHN »

wonderwonder wrote: post #527
dopidopHN wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually happened not that long ago, in the US. And the country did not collapsed. It actually entered a era or unparalleled prosperity ( but that had little to do with taxes ) In 1945 tax rate was around 90% IIRC Honest question : you do understand that a 100% tax rate means that 100% of revenu are taxed correct. ( as opposed to 100% are taken by the state ). Of those 100% only a percentage of it is actually “los…

lol, we are on the same page. I am not suggesting it as an real option I am stating it to describe the insanity of the people who think that just taxing the rich will supply all the money we need. I am using the example of a 100% wealth tax to show there is just not enough money to do everything that is desired. That regardless of taxation we would have to print money.

I see. Sorry I guess I’m dense, I completely missed that in your message.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#556

Post by prepend »

rootusrootus wrote: post #375
prepend wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not print money. So you give everyone some amount, say 12K/year, and then support it with taxes. I’m trying to say this with utmost respect. But $12k x 330M is $4T/year. In 2021, the US collected about $4T [0]. The US spent about $7T [1]. So it would take lots of iterations to figure this out. I think there are some efficiencies so you can reduce some of this budget but introducing a UBI like this would up the spen…

> I’m trying to say this with utmost respect. But $12k x 330M is $4T/year. I don't disagree, it sounds infeasible. But it's such a massive stimulus that I think it's really hard to model the real outcome. I just think it's probably not accurate to try and model it using a single iteration of the current budget. Ultimately I think we have to collectively decide whether or not our society can support a basic level of c…

No, it’s really easy to model. And all models show it as not feasible. Saying something is “hard to model” is not accurate in this situation.

It’s like saying “it’s hard to model how prepend will marry Katherine Hepburn.” It’s true, I suppose. But it’s true because that’s an impossible situation on many dimensions.

And again, it’s not about some suffering so others don’t (although I think that’s an unhealthy way of looking at it). Even if you take all money from all billionaires. Like every penny and they suffer. That doesn’t even support a simple UBI of only $13k/year. So there’s not a suffering model that works out. There’s no proposed taxation plan that would account for this.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#557

Post by labcomputer »

dopidopHN wrote: post #554
Msw242 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy crap how are your comments not greyed out? Marginal income tax rate of 90% != Wealth tax (for which we haven't even tested constitutionality) Also, nobody paid close to 90% thanks to generous loop holes and strategic tax avoidance: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-...

I don’t know what is the wealth tax you are referring to and I don’t see it referenced in my comment. I was pointing out a historical period where taxes were setup differently than now. We tend to forget it was the case; and it seems to be out of the collective psyché. Indeed in 2022 nobody pays close to 90%. I was referring to the 1945 to 1960 period. ( see linked article, nice read )

`wonderwonder` said that a 100% wealth tax was unprecedented and not a realistic scenario.

Then you replied "It actually happened not that long ago, in the US" and cited that the US used to have a 90% marginal income tax bracket.

A 90% marginal income rate is not in the same universe as a 100% wealth tax rate.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#558

Post by relaxing »

nybble41 wrote: post #552
relaxing wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less. Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. The same problem exists under the current scheme as well. Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income. Some would use their initial UBI payments to move to cheaper locales. Grants could help.

> HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less. Over 85% of HACLA's revenues in 2020 came directly from HUD[0]. Another 10% were from other government grants (which would also be cut). The numbers reported before were just for the Section 8 program, which AFAICT is administered by HACLA but fully funded by HUD. > Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. That 50% i…

> That 50% is the part paid by Section 8. The part not paid by Section 8 is expected to be about 30% of income

An excellent point to keep in mind that receiving assistance doesn’t mean you have no other source of income, so the situation likely would not be as dire as you suggest.

You seem to be hung up on the proposal from the CNBC link? Which is a strawman purposely designed by the right wing think tank AEI with the flaws you’ve keyed in on, so that it can be easily batted down like a strawman should.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#559

Post by dopidopHN »

labcomputer wrote: post #557
dopidopHN wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what is the wealth tax you are referring to and I don’t see it referenced in my comment. I was pointing out a historical period where taxes were setup differently than now. We tend to forget it was the case; and it seems to be out of the collective psyché. Indeed in 2022 nobody pays close to 90%. I was referring to the 1945 to 1960 period. ( see linked article, nice read )

`wonderwonder` said that a 100% wealth tax was unprecedented and not a realistic scenario. Then you replied "It actually happened not that long ago, in the US" and cited that the US used to have a 90% marginal income tax bracket . A 90% marginal income rate is not in the same universe as a 100% wealth tax rate.

I see now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#560

Post by sol_invictus »

JSavageOne wrote: post #533
sol_invictus wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont understand the logic in this at all. Is the idea to have some sort of free flowing money pool a la UBI that ensures all people can obtain basic necessities? If so, then what will ensure those necessities exist in the first place if the intent is to remove money as a tool of trade? You cant just make supply and demand magically disappear. This sounds just about as superficial as the dude on fox news who wants t…

Never said anything about abolishing money or supply and demand. Supply and demand would continue to exist. Look into the vast plethora of research on universal basic income before you dismiss it as "superficial" without even understanding what it even is.

So lets say 50% of farmers quit and become philosophizing dog-walkers, please explain how you avoid a global famine and / or how you distribute food to people and simulatenously take five minutes to think what happens to food prices when its suddenly a scarcity, and what happens to the value of your monthly universal income

Protip: we’re experiencing the same effect right now thanks to liberal money-printing for ”covid relief”

Post reply on HN