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

A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#61

Post by ineedasername »

wjmao88 wrote: post #20
Causality1 wrote: post #13

What always seems to happen with UBI studies is the proponents point to results that say "the people we gave free money to are happier" but never try to quantify whether that money would have done more good used in a different way.

I don't think that's the right question to ask. It should be "Would they be happier if the tax to fund UBI was not levied"

That all depends on who gets a UBI payment. If it served to "top up" people to a minimum income level, then those receiving the payments would by definition have been paying little enough tax that it wouldn't have covered the UBI they receive. So in those case, yes, they're probably more happy to receive the UBI than to have the tax waived. UBI doesn't require it to avoid means-testing the benefits, it simply sets a minimum acceptable income and lifts anyone below it up to that level. People with high incomes pay for it.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#62

Post by zhoujianfu »

mikedilger wrote: post #42
lostlogin wrote: post #15

Below is an article arguing that New Zealand has been testing a UBI for decades with its pension scheme which is available to everyone aged over 65. Be warned - Gareth Morgan has some interesting politics. http://morganfoundation.org.nz/already-ubi-nz-super/

UBI to people outside of the workforce is entirely different. My argument against UBI is that it erodes the desire to work, and we still need nearly everybody of working age to work... until the robots catch up (they still have a lot of catching up to do).

I feel like that’s the same argument the hunters gatherers had against farming: it erodes the desire to hunt and gather!

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#63

Post by zhoujianfu »

There are two questions to answer first.

1. Do you think people can best decide what’s best for themselves?

2. Do you care about other people?

The Democratic Party answers no and yes.

The Republican Party answers no and no.

The Libertarian Party answers yes and no.

A UBI is the solution to yes and yes.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#64

Post by ineedasername »

geddy wrote: post #33
gonational wrote: post #22

“Universal basic income” of any reasonable size in, e.g., the US, requires the creation of new money, because taxation is insufficient for its funding. New money derives its value, subtractively, from the value of existing money (“WEALTH”), which is held by individuals who earned that money (“WORKERS“). Some individuals decide not to work because of reasons OTHER THAN retirement, inheritance, disability, and child be…

Sounds about right. Like everything in the US, some group is trying to figure out a way to siphon money from those to earn to those who “need it more”. I don’t care to support this, I want all the money I make, thank you very much. I’ll decide who to help with it. Or, I’ll help no one at all with the money I worked for, which according to college students and other people who have no skills and have paid no taxes, ma…

So you'd pay for your own private guards, private fire department, pave the roads you use to drive to work out of your own pocket, and countless other things that are currently tax-payer funded resources? You'd need to be exceptionally wealthy indeed. Or maybe you still think there's some basic things the government should do, and therefore needs to collect taxes for them. In which case we're not arguing over whether or not money gets siphoned, we're just arguing over where you draw the line.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#65

Post by zozbot234 »

ineedasername wrote: post #61
wjmao88 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the right question to ask. It should be "Would they be happier if the tax to fund UBI was not levied"

That all depends on who gets a UBI payment. If it served to "top up" people to a minimum income level, then those receiving the payments would by definition have been paying little enough tax that it wouldn't have covered the UBI they receive. So in those case, yes, they're probably more happy to receive the UBI than to have the tax waived. UBI doesn't require it to avoid means-testing the benefits, it simply sets a…

Typical UBI proposals are "means tested" in the form of a "negative" income tax (NIT), or as we call it nowadays, a refundable tax credit. If you make 0 taxable income, you get a "full" UBI payment. Then some percentage of your earned income (typically 60% or so) is clawed back from the UBI, until the break even point is reached where you get nothing as UBI, but also no further earned income is clawed back. This gives acceptable work incentives at the low end, very good ones above the break-even point, and a low monetary cost for the program as a whole. It is important that the break even point not be too high, or the cost of the program would be way too high for little benefit.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#66

Post by astura »

mikedilger wrote: post #47
zozbot234 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of UBI is that it has lower disincentives against work than other kinds of social insurance. When you say that UBI discourages working, that's perhaps true compared w/ no social insurance at all but it's not a very meaningful comparison.

I've not heard this. Can you explain how? And are you also suggesting that UBI proponents support abolition of other kinds of social insurance, replacing them with (not augmenting them with) UBI?

Yeah, the whole idea of ubi is you replace the patchwork of various social programs (and the overhead of each program) with a basic ubi for everyone. It's supposed to be much more efficient and there's no disincentives to self improvement (because you never lose your benefits).

I personally don't actually think it disincentives working very much because people who want to work for more than just the minimum always will and people who really, really don't wanna work find a way to get out of working within the current system. Since my family is full of degenerates, I've seen every trick in the book used. Out of my dad's family (8 kids) only one (1) has meaningfully participated in paid employment.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#67

Post by ineedasername »

zozbot234 wrote: post #56
ineedasername wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems more like an implementation detail. It certainly could replace social security, but then again in the US social security payouts are tied to how much you've paid into it over the years. Then again, UBI would be paid for, albeit less directly, but tax payments as well so it might not be an important distinction. And of course it would be important to peg the UBI to different costs of living for different re…

I'd do the opposite. Peg UBI to the lowest cost of living, and have separate short-term insurance-only programs (on top of UBI) for folks living in higher-cost areas. That way, those who are unwilling or unable to work in the longer term will be incented to move to low-cost areas and relieve pressure elsewhere.

I'm not sure I agree... literally not sure. It's an interesting idea though.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#68

Post by chongli »

zozbot234 wrote: post #60
zhoujianfu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t a (high enough) UBI mean the free market would create “affordable” education and “affordable” health care and obviate the need for unemployment benefits?

There is no free market in education credentials or in healthcare. Both sectors are heavily regulated by the government.

Regulation isn’t the reason those sectors aren’t free markets. On the contrary, regulation exists because they can’t be free markets. Both lead to market failures due to information disparities, principal-agent problems, massive externalities, and a lack of free choice (in the case of health care).

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#70

Post by Supermancho »

astura wrote: post #66
mikedilger wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not heard this. Can you explain how? And are you also suggesting that UBI proponents support abolition of other kinds of social insurance, replacing them with (not augmenting them with) UBI?

Yeah, the whole idea of ubi is you replace the patchwork of various social programs (and the overhead of each program) with a basic ubi for everyone. It's supposed to be much more efficient and there's no disincentives to self improvement (because you never lose your benefits). I personally don't actually think it disincentives working very much because people who want to work for more than just the minimum always wi…

The majority of my wife's family also do not work. It has been this way for at least 3 generations and are raising another generation of the same.
Post reply on HN