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

AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 207 posts

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#71

Post by claudeganon »

jrbuhl wrote: post #63
claudeganon wrote: post #5

I’m in favor of UBI, but it only works with floors on housing, healthcare, and possibly even food (which are more or less in place through ag subsidies anyway). All of this will just be eaten up by rents and rising healthcare costs, and means testing it makes it even more absurd, as it will exclude most vulnerable populations. Given the recent state-wide rent control, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a so…

Wouldn't it be easier to move away from the big cities and the big rents with ubi?

No, because that’s where the vast majority of jobs and other services are located.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#72

Post by michaelt »

timerol wrote: post #30
throwaway55554 wrote: post #7

> (b) California residents who are 18 years of age or older and receiving benefits under the Medi-Cal program, the County Medical Services Program, the CalFresh program, the CalWORKs program, or Unemployment Insurance shall not be eligible to receive a universal basic income under the CalUBI Program. I must be misunderstanding something. If you're unemployed and getting unemployment benefits you don't get your UBI? I…

One of the stated benefits of UBI is that it has the potential to replace other forms of welfare more efficiently. Instead of people getting separate benefits for food, housing, unemployment, etc, they get the one benefit: UBI. This removes the problem of "I don't work hard enough to be poor in America", where the people going through the worst situations have to spend the most time going through forms and bureaucrac…

> Most serious UBI proposals do what this one does: Either keep your current benefits or go on a UBI, whatever works best for you.

I appreciate that we wouldn't want the situation where instituting UBI stops (for example) severely disabled veterans getting specially adapted cars.

But doesn't this mean we retain all the forms and bureaucracies and weird income caps and disincentives to work, and the administrative costs that go with them?

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#73

Post by jngreenlee »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #68
rmah wrote: post #24

Can they not do basic math? There are around 30 mil adults in California. Even if provision 18992.1 (b) is 5 mil people, that's still 25 mil people. That's 25 mil * $12,000 = $300 bil a year. The ENTIRE California state budget for 2020 is only $220 bil. They would have to more than double the tax revenue for a state with already very high taxes. Now, assuming the most generous interpretation of their 10% VAT proposal…

If you double taxes, but the money is literally just going back into people's pockets, less administration fees of the UBI program, it's just income redistribution and can completely work.

>less administration fees of the UBI program

Show me a success story where this didn't become a gigantic suck on the funds

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#75

Post by hedora »

rmah wrote: post #24

Can they not do basic math? There are around 30 mil adults in California. Even if provision 18992.1 (b) is 5 mil people, that's still 25 mil people. That's 25 mil * $12,000 = $300 bil a year. The ENTIRE California state budget for 2020 is only $220 bil. They would have to more than double the tax revenue for a state with already very high taxes. Now, assuming the most generous interpretation of their 10% VAT proposal…

Excluding food, education, medical, and a few other expenses, you need to spend $10k / month to come out behind on this bill.

That’s $120K/year. Assuming a 33% effective income tax rate, that’s $180k, pre tax, no savings, or expenses for food, etc. That’s well into the 80th percentile income bracket in CA, and it’s probably possible to be in the 90th percentile and still come out ahead (factor in retirement savings, college, etc):

https://statisticalatlas.com/state/California/Household-Inco...

Re-reading your comment, this is probably just another way of saying the math doesn’t work out.

Income or property tax increases are probably necessary.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#76

Post by nradov »

oDot wrote: post #56
kyledrake wrote: post #44

If you pass this without passing radical reform of zoning and building millions more homes, it will be yet another wealth transfer mechanism from poor consumers to wealthy California landholders. Rents will eventually match the increase in income as way too much demand chases an incredible, inhumane, History Will Judge You shortage of supply. Which, amazingly, is one of the reasons this could actually pass. Californi…

You write as if markets are a zero sum game, however they are most certainly not. You say the poor tenant will transfer wealth to the wealthy landlord as if the tenant is losing. However -- they are both gaining. Say the rent is $1000. Obviously, the property usage right is worth to the landlord less than $1000, otherwise he would've just used the property himself. He gains. The property usage right is worth more tha…

And what about the taxpayers? They lose. I'm not necessarily opposed to wealth transfers in principle, but they absolutely are a zero sum game.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#77

Post by nerdjon »

Jtsummers wrote: post #48
nerdjon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very confused about the math of this, unless California has a surplus of taxes coming in. Without even taking into account the existing tax rate in California, wouldn't this need an average of 10k of spending per person a month getting this to work out? Then again there are enough restrictions on this (seemingly largely the ones that would actually benefit the most from this) that it actually works out...

A VAT would apply to businesses as well as people. Considering the amount of manufacturing in CA, this would be quite significant.

Ok so that is the part that I was missing.

So that does spread that out a bit if you take into account anyone buying those manufactured goods outside of the state.

Then that personally raises the question on how this would scale nationwide, the cost to the business would ultimately be largely pushed down to the consumer. Maybe that is getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but I keep hearing about a UBI and I struggle with seeing the logistics of it.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#79

Post by purplezooey »

option wrote: post #45
mech1234 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill will not pass. Its introduction is primarily a signalling exercise and a populist rallying cry.

we should vote out those who introduced it. In CA it is very easy to vote by mail. Please do

While you're at it, also vote out your state senator that voted against SB 50.

Re: AB2712 – California Universal Basic Income

#80

Post by oDot »

nradov wrote: post #76
oDot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You write as if markets are a zero sum game, however they are most certainly not. You say the poor tenant will transfer wealth to the wealthy landlord as if the tenant is losing. However -- they are both gaining. Say the rent is $1000. Obviously, the property usage right is worth to the landlord less than $1000, otherwise he would've just used the property himself. He gains. The property usage right is worth more tha…

And what about the taxpayers? They lose. I'm not necessarily opposed to wealth transfers in principle, but they absolutely are a zero sum game.

I was talking about the voluntary transaction part, not the taxing part, which is not voluntary in any way.
Post reply on HN