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

561–570 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#561

Post by constantcrying »

pydry wrote: post #556
constantcrying wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If this was a genuine concern there wouldn't be so many people skimming off the top of every nation on the planet. We're surrounded by parasites and you're picking on people running calorie deficits for some reason. Wrong. The only way to go hungry here in Germany is by choice. The people "skimming off the top" are not the ones paying millions upon millions in taxes. It is those who are to lazy to work, because they…

>get enough Bürgergeld, that actually working would lower their income. This very rarely ever happens by accident. It's a useful policy hack for people "who pay millions in taxes" because it disincentivizes their workers from pushing for a pay raise. This way they can leech more of the surplus value of their labor.

This is genuinely insane. No, millionaires want people to work, because more people working depresses wages and more people working allows growing the economy.

If people don't want to work, they have to pay the leeches and they have to pay more to get people willing to work. Your economics are insane.

>It's a useful policy hack for people "who pay millions in taxes" because it disincentivizes their workers from pushing for a pay raise.

No, it incentivizes them, because there are fewer people working, meaning the supply of labor goes down. At a constant demand that means the price for labor goes up. Literally economics 101.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#562

Post by onli »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #528
littlestymaar wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you really want to believe it, but this is bs: look at inflation statistics in Europe and you'll see that the effect you're imaging doesn't exist. There's no excess inflation in Germany compared to everywhere else in the EU. Also Bürgergeld is $500 a month for an adult, which is very far from "You can easily live from the Bürgergeld ". Survive maybe but definitely not "easily live". The labor market issues in…

> Also Bürgergeld is $500 a month for an adult, which is very far from "You can easily live from the Bürgergeld". Survive maybe but definitely not "easily live". You're leaving out a ton of information there. The 500 Euros is after everything else has been paid for. There's also lots of benefits like Kindergeld, money for each child you have.

That's just not true. Bürgergeld does not cover real rent costs for example. There is ceiling that is unreachably low. Heating is also not included,so in no way is everything else covered.

To others: This thread is full of propaganda from the neoliberal and extreme right like this. Don't believe a single bit, they do not describe the state of the country nor how the policies work. It is a common wave of propaganda though and maybe interesting from that side.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#563

Post by samatman »

circlefavshape wrote: post #407
throwaway2037 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2024 tax brackets Tax rate Single filers Married couples filing jointly Married couples filing separately Head of household 10% $11,600 or less $23,200 or less $11,600 or less $16,550 or less 12% $11,601 to $47,150 $23,201 to $94,300 $11,601 to $47,150 $16,551 to $63,100 22% $47,151 to $100,525 $94,301 to $201,050 $47,151 to $100,525 $63,101 to $100,500 24% $100,526 to $191,950 $201,051 to $383,900 $100,526 to $191,1…

Wow! It's amazing how anti-tax Americans are when their taxes are so low! My income is at the 24% level above, and I'm paying 52% marginal taxes in Ireland (or 35% of my total income after tax credits etc)

American taxes are low because Americans are anti-tax. That's not amazing, it's democracy.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#564

Post by pcrh »

talldatethrow wrote: post #546
sdwr wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the best critique of UBI I've ever seen (which is a little sad). I don't remember ever reading anything about the second-order effects before.

That's probably because the second order effects of UBI are obvious to anyone that's ever had a job. So you have the people that know the obvious, and the people that want to hide the obvious from the few that don't get it. The covid handouts and raised unemployment benefits gave a sneak peak to anyone else that was blind. Even things on the user market were on shirt supply and with high prices. In California the eff…

It isn't a very good critique, as it assumes that the only reason people work is to avoid starvation.

People will work very hard to increase their income levels above that required solely for basic needs (i.e. UBI levels), see pretty much every non-minimum wage employee.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#565

Post by jewayne »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #511
jewayne wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The question isn't about mathematics, it's about psychology and politics.

In the second scenario, when do I get/spend my UBI money?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#566

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #511
jewayne wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[deleted]

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#567

Post by talldatethrow »

pcrh wrote: post #564
talldatethrow wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably because the second order effects of UBI are obvious to anyone that's ever had a job. So you have the people that know the obvious, and the people that want to hide the obvious from the few that don't get it. The covid handouts and raised unemployment benefits gave a sneak peak to anyone else that was blind. Even things on the user market were on shirt supply and with high prices. In California the eff…

It isn't a very good critique, as it assumes that the only reason people work is to avoid starvation. People will work very hard to increase their income levels above that required solely for basic needs (i.e. UBI levels), see pretty much every non-minimum wage employee.

I think why people work at the jobs they do is a lot more complicated than that.

Many people do work to avoid starvation PLUS maintain whatever level of standards they've become comfortable with.

But the reason IMO people work non basic jobs is because if they are already forced to work their entire lives to avoid starvation, they might as well optimize. If I have to commute, and maintain a car, and be there for 40+ hours a week, I might as well invest in getting the most out of that as possible.

But once people have enough money to maintain their comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their life, many do retire.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#568

Post by fellowniusmonk »

literallycancer wrote: post #553
fellowniusmonk wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing up I was in a negative leverage situation, even though I was smart and hardworking I was bled financially and I had to spend effort to layer contingency after contingency before I could even drive. This gave my life negative torque, the moment I got a little leverage, I stacked up roommates and basically lived like a digital ascetic for 12 years. I ended up in the top 1% of earnings for my starting co-hort no…

Are you gonna give everyone a national ID and wall up the border first? Or just let everyone come and get the free money?

People really do love to take imperfect solutions to tractable problems and deceptively expand them into something intractable so they can continue to sit on their hands.

"How can I tie real solvable issues to some kind of thought stopping meme", it's a fun game politicians and and other disingenuous people play.

Every pundit buzzword you've injected is orthogonal to the point and the issue. You can personally pursue those plans if you want, they have nothing to do with what I am discussing.

Worse, everything you've raised is irrelevant to all the little american kids getting screwed right now.

But better America and Americans suffer and decline than having measurable but marginally imperfect solutions right? Perfection or nothing right? Iteration, measurement and incremental improvement isn't real so we shouldn't try? Defeatist attitudes didn't make this country.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#569

Post by ianbicking »

lolinder wrote: post #463
ianbicking wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far is it from meeting basic needs? "Basic" should imply very modest living, not even "normal" living standards. For a living situation "basic" implies a shared space (family or otherwise). For food it would imply enough food to be healthy, but nothing about the form of food. I think $1000/month/person probably is "basic" income. You can survive on that indefinitely. (Healthcare is the other big expense, but I do…

> I think $1000/month/person probably is "basic" income. You can survive on that indefinitely. I think part of the problem is that people are assuming that you can and should pick a number for UBI that is sufficient for basic needs everywhere. $1k/mo is probably not enough in San Francisco. But should our UBI be set up to allow anyone to meet their basic needs anywhere they'd like to live, or should it be set up to a…

Housing can be very variable, to the degree there aren't any reasonable options in San Francisco even if you have a lot of people sharing a space. I don't think basic food varies nearly as much. A 5 pound bag of rice costs a little more in San Francisco, but not much more. I think there's less geographical variability in cost of living (excluding housing) if you constrain costs to basic needs.

Also a UBI shouldn't have to facilitate living _everywhere_. Santa Monica is lovely. Should we arrange it so anyone can move to Santa Monica and be able to live there fully supported on their UBI?

I hadn't really thought about transportation costs, and am inclined to leave it out of UBI calculations as it doesn't feel like a necessity. But in a rural area transportation is necessary just to buy food, so I guess that adds some complexity.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#570

Post by Spivak »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #501
Spivak wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "at that point" is the crucial element. An extra 20k to work a physically and mentally taxing job for inconsistent hours, no benefits, and no flexibility -- the calculus is garbage. But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily. If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at…

>If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point. I think that is a major motivation for most work and I question if it is as bad as you think it is? Is it really that unreasonable that someone do something they don't like to get shelter, food, and healthcare? >But would I continue working my SWE job…

> I question if it is as bad as you think it is

I don't actually think it's that bad but I was trying to steelman your argument. The hypothetical presumes a terrible job with not enough pay to make up for it. The kind of job that someone would only take if they had not better option. If the job isn't that bad, or it pays well enough I think people will take it despite not needing it to make rent.

> you do it if your take home income was reduced by 50%

I don't think that would happen because UBI is supposed to be replacement for all other forms of welfare and I would also expect some small gains in reducing the prison population, and administrative overhead. But to answer your question, yes. Government already takes >30% right now and because of the U I'm getting the benefit as well so that covers a good chunk of mandatory expenses. In a very real sense I need less money under this system.

I'm not really sure how to answer the retirement question because under this system I can't "just retire" because my lifestyle wouldn't permit it.

Post reply on HN