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

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#661

Post by jotux »

MicroBerto wrote: post #202

In the early 1970s, animal behaviorist John Calhoun built a "mouse utopia" to see what would happen if he created the perfect world for mice, with unlimited food, starting with four males and four females, that could reach a population of 2500. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM What happened next is absolutely astonishing. When the mice had nothing to do and nothing to work for, their society collapsed upon…

The problem with your argument is that basic income isn't anything like a utopia or perfect world -- it's just enough to pay rent and buy food. Basic income for people is much closer to the treatment pet owners are expected to provide for their pets.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#662

Post by nightski »

dragonwriter wrote: post #525
clarkmoody wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? Gas tax? Hugely regressive. Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Value-added tax? Wouldn't those continue to "destroy the middle class"? What about the tax of inflation that serves to redistribute wealth from savers to debtors? (middle class -> government) Also interesting how you know better than others how they should arrange their financial lives…

> What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? The broader they are, the more likely liberals are to oppose them, and oppose expanding them. Replacing the progressive income tax system with something regressive isn't something that's going to get support on the left. > Gas tax? Hugely regressive. But very narrow. > Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Many liberals support the concept of carbo…

Having studied the fair tax in a fair bit of depth I can say that it probably would not penalize net spenders. In fact, they would probably be better off. Not only would you have more money to spend, but goods and services would likely cost less. There are numerous reasons for this given in easily accessible sources on the fair tax proposal.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#663

Post by DominikR »

zyxley wrote: post #630
DominikR wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't surprising considering the alcohol/drug abuse and crime among homeless people. The reason why their death rate is higher is their state of mind. It causes them to not take that crappy job that barely affords them a normal life and can potentially open up new perspectives for the future and instead choose to do nothing and hang out with the wrong people until it is too late and they end up on the street. I…

Are you really trying to claim that literally every homeless person is a drug-abusing criminal?

No I did not claim this. I wrote that drug and alcohol abuse is affecting more homeless people than others. This is obviously one of the causes why the death rate for homeless people is higher.

But you are obviously not interested in a normal discussion since you just try to read something into my statements to attack me.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#664

Post by hfsktr »

mjevans wrote: post #647
hfsktr wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the new tax needed? What are we trying to fund that other taxes don't already cover? Don't we (the government) subsidize HFCS? Wouldn't not doing that raise the prices and not require a tax then? I will oppose a 'sugar' tax because I don't think the government should be deciding what foods I consume, especially when I think taxes should be for raising money. I am aware it's not the full picture and I haven't e…

Maybe we should stop subsidizing unhealthy sugar (because it is in -everything- cheep as a result).

I agree with this. Then there would be no need for a new tax right?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#665

Post by nightski »

dragonwriter wrote: post #522
brightball wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make it work you'd have to take whatever the amount is and extract it from all other government benefit programs. You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. Your social security, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc is reduced by $700 / month. Reducing all of those programs by the first $700 would effectively gut each of them enough to finally make some reforms without inducing panic in everyone…

> If you were to implement the Fair Tax, which includes a stipend for basic needs, you'd get bipartisan support as well. No, you wouldn't. Flat tax proposals and national sales tax proposals like the "FairTax", have support almost exclusively on the right (and each particular such proposal has minority support on the right.) You won't get bipartisan support for any of them.

Just to be clear however, the Fair Tax and a Flat tax are very different things that would have wildly different consequences to different people.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#666

Post by MarkPNeyer »

ww520 wrote: post #645
humanrebar wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't across-the-board efficiency gains look like across-the-board deflation? That is, wouldn't automation in and of itself cause hoarding? Why buy a TV this year if the one next year will be better and cheaper? Also, hoarding would theoretically only be a problem for the middle and upper classes since the working classes can't afford to save. But the middle and upper classes already hoard, more or less, when they…

Well, money is supposed to enable economic activities; hoarded money not used is money wasted. Yes, increased productivity and efficiency are deflational in nature. You can create N more things now with the same cost. The extra N things push price down if the amount of money in the system stays the same. That's why central banks inject more money into the system to "soak" up the extra economic activities, to maintain…

> ; hoarded money not used is money wasted.

If a man walks up to a microphone in a crowded room, and everyone seems him up there, and he could say anything he wants, so that the whole room will hear it - and he says nothing -

has he said anything?

spending money is 'speaking in the formal language of money'

saving money is holding your tongue.

https://medium.com/@MarkPXuNeyer/consider-money-as-a-formal-...

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#667

Post by prostoalex »

hfsktr wrote: post #615
prostoalex wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you followed recent headlines, tax on sugary drinks has been a subject in Democratic primaries. Even though high-fructose corn syrup has been linked to obesity, diabetes and myriad of other problems related to that, some members of liberal community oppose a consumption tax on sugary drinks on the basis that it hits lower-income families disproportionally http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0430/Bernie-…

Why is the new tax needed? What are we trying to fund that other taxes don't already cover? Don't we (the government) subsidize HFCS? Wouldn't not doing that raise the prices and not require a tax then? I will oppose a 'sugar' tax because I don't think the government should be deciding what foods I consume, especially when I think taxes should be for raising money. I am aware it's not the full picture and I haven't e…

From the tax simplification point of view you're right. But removing the subsidy would still raise the prices on soft drinks, and affect lower income households disproportionally, so it's a regressive measure as well.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#668

Post by dragonwriter »

idiot99 wrote: post #523
gjm11 wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far as I can tell, "the public" has this perfectly clear. (Or at least as clear as "the public" ever has anything, which is not necessarily all that clear.) I think what you mean is that I need to convince you . I've no idea what (if anything) you would accept as evidence. Here's the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on communism; feel free to check that the [...]s don't hide anything that changes the meaning.…

We'll have to agree to disagree. And as I say, step outside your bubble. The vast vast majority of the population reject basic income, in favour of a meritocracy, where the harder you work, the more money you can earn. Confiscating money from everyone, and then distributing it equally amongst the population (Regardless of whether they need it or deserve it) doesn't sit very well with people.

> The vast vast majority of the population reject basic income

The recent poll I've seen has 54% oppose to 34% support, with the remainder not sure, with the "Social Security for all" phrasing. [1] That is majority opposition, but its not the "vast, vast majority", and its on something which while its gotten some media attention, its been very little in mainstream media, and certainly no big public sales effort in the US. (Same sex marriage took about 10 years to cross a similar, net 19% oppose, gap -- and that's with firmer opinions [fewer unsure].) [2]

[1] https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/01/09/poll-results-guaran...

[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#669

Post by prostoalex »

Grishnakh wrote: post #621
prostoalex wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. Your social security, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc is reduced by $700 / month. What happens to Medicare under that scenario? Some medical procedures, particularly for old people, can exceed that. Current federal government revenues top out at $3 trillion. Dividing it by a rough population number of 300 million (and ignoring the fact that portion o…

Medicare and UBI would have to be separate programs, just like Social Security and Medicare are today. Poor old people living off of Social Security don't pay their medical bills out-of-pocket, they have Medicare to pay for them. In a system with UBI, we'd really need to have universal healthcare ("Medicare for all"). Someone making only the basic income isn't going to have any money for sky-high Obamacare premiums,…

If one is keeping the largest entitlement program of them all, the originally quoted $700 a month is a bit pie in the sky number.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#670

Post by elihu »

Animats wrote: post #625

The next big thing, after the $15 minimum wage, should be the 8 hour day and the 40 hour week. Everybody gets overtime, unless you're in the 1%. The whole "exempt" thing needs to go.

I agree that everyone who goes over 40 hours should get overtime, but I also think the standard work week should be reduced from 40 hours.
Post reply on HN