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

This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

funding.basicincome2013.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#71

Post by achy »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #70
achy wrote: post #54

The problem I envision with a basic income model is that it could have an inflationary effect - shifting the baseline. The only way this doesn't happen is if our basic income economies exploit non basic income economies - and even this wouldn't prevent housing, energy, and (non artificially) scarce items from inflation.

Why do you expect inflation? Inflation only occurs if the source of the money comes from creating currency. If it comes from taxation then you're not increasing aggregate demand at all, you're just eliminating the large disincentive to seeking employment created by the discontinuation of government benefits if you succeed.

sorry, price inflation. Supply and demand.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#72

Post by dclowd9901 »

kfk wrote: post #7

I will never support this idea. This is kind of thinking is extremely nationalistic: I am entitled to free money because I was born in XYZ. On top of this, this idea has very weak economics fundamentals, there is no prove that growth comes from redistributing wealth. There is plenty of prove growth comes from innovation and innovation comes from people actually working. We are in denial. The whole Europe is in denial…

It does seem strange, like we've given up trying to bring people along on the unstoppable train of progress, and are now content with simply funding people to be alive, while those who were lucky enough to be taught drive and determination real the most massive benefits of this world.

True wealth is discipline and knowledge. We should be figuring out how to teach people to reach for their dreams and also figure out how to sustain themselves (and others who share those dreams) through their work. Because truly outstanding things in this world are almost always rewarded.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#73

Post by weddpros »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #69
weddpros wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a logic problem with Basic Income. They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI) But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time. Instead they should think either : 1- it won't change a thing 2- it won't change a thing (so why do it?) OR 1- it will help me earn mor…

Basic income doesn't inherently require taxes to increase, especially if you measure it as taxes paid less government benefits received. You're thinking of things in class warfare terms -- someone else gets more money from the government therefore I get less or pay more. Any program that works on that principle is just redistribution of wealth, or naked corruption. The benefit of a basic income is that it changes inc…

Say I'm jobless, and I make 1000/m. If I find a job that pays 1100 : - with BI I'll make 1100. That's the value of work. - without BI I'll make 100 + 1000. The value of work is 100.

With BI, people will think "I don't want to work for 100/m" (you know, it's the gov that pays the other 1000/m). You'll hear people say "I'm paid 1000 just to breathe, why work for 100?".

It you want to limit this problem as much as possible, you'll need a basic income of exactly 0.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#74

Post by AnthonyMouse »

achy wrote: post #71
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you expect inflation? Inflation only occurs if the source of the money comes from creating currency. If it comes from taxation then you're not increasing aggregate demand at all, you're just eliminating the large disincentive to seeking employment created by the discontinuation of government benefits if you succeed.

sorry, price inflation. Supply and demand.

There is no difference between "inflation" and "price inflation."

Suppose that yesterday you received $50 from government assistance programs (e.g. food assistance) but today you receive $50 as a basic income and no food assistance. You have the same amount of money to spend.

Suppose that yesterday you received no government assistance and paid no net taxes but today you receive $50 as a basic income and pay $50 in new taxes. You have the same amount of money to spend.

There will be some people who, on net, receive more or less from a basic income (less the taxes required to pay for it) than they do now -- mostly the very rich would pay more and the working class would receive more -- but the net amount of money in the average person's pocket remains the same. The difference is that you don't have the disincentive to seeking employment that the current unemployed do when they lose government assistance by taking a job.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#75

Post by anoncowherd »

RivieraKid wrote: post #57
anoncowherd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what he wanted to emphasize. People think government has some magical, limitless supply of money available to them, when in reality, it's mostly just money that's forcefully confiscated from everyone. In other words, basic income is a zero-sum game, but not without its consequences. It's alright not to go into printing or loaning money here, both of those lead to ruin too. How high would tax rates have…

I think that 90% of people (100% on HN) understand this. > How high would tax rates have to be, to collect enough money for basic income? They would need to be significantly higher, but significantly more money would get back to the taxpayers too, so the aggregate demand would remain about the same, so businesses would be ok. BI, if set up properly, can redistribute wealth in a very similar way as it's happening toda…

> I think that 90% of people (100% on HN) understand this.

Really? Well, then you should understand that the feedback loop I described alone is enough to make BI unsustainable, and thus not worth pursuing. But it doesn't seem you do. There's another feedback loop too: the more people are just sitting at home, the more will want to join them, and so on.

From another comment of yours: >> Do you think that wealth redistribution is wrong?

Do you think it's wrong for a mafia to extort money from you? -Yes? Well then, do you think it's wrong for the government to do the exact same thing?

You see, you'd pay "protection money" under threat of violence, but you also pay taxes under threat of violence. Spare yourself the mental gymnastics here. Forcefully dragging you to jail or just plain shooting you if you resist does actually count as violence.

Where do you think the "wealth" to be "redistributed" comes from? -Why from extortion, of course. Would a mafia's extortion be perfectly fine as long as they used your money "efficiently"? Heck, their spending of your money increases aggregate demand, so all is well!

>> There are many arguments suggesting that zero wealth redistribution is not the optimum. >> I'm convinced that wealth redistribution leads to higher aggregate utility. Whether it leads to higher nominal growth, I don't know.

You throw around these terms as if they meant something here in the real world, let alone after acquiring the wealth to be distributed through blatantly immoral means. What makes zero redistribution of stolen loot "not optimal"? I'd say it's actually precisely the optimum.

"Higher aggregate utility", "aggregate demand"? -Well there's Keynes again. False voodoo economics meant to justify/rationalize State spending and taking on ever more massive debt loads until, of course, eventually the nation's extortion income is wholly consumed in paying interest and the house of cards falls down.

Does an economy imploding help the poor? Does currency debasement and inflation (ie. loss of purchasing power) help the poor? Why no, no they don't. Quite the contrary, but those two are what governments are causing with massive printing and borrowing and using money they don't actually have.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

benihana wrote: post #26
jaibot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare. Replace foodstamps/subsidized housing/unemployment-insurance/myriad-of-other-safety-net-programs with a basic guaranteed income and everyone is better off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income .

> Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare. Is this empirically proven somewhere? Or is that what its proponents are saying? Forgive me if I'm a little cynical when someone tells me an idea they support is a much better form of welfare than what we currently have but doesn't back it up with proof.

"Efficiency" is ambiguous. In terms of (benefit dollars delivered)/(benefit dollars delivered + administrative costs) its almost true-by-definition, since the absence of means testing removes most of the source of administrative requirements in traditional welfare programs.

In terms of effectiveness at achieving the goals of welfare programs, it is far less clear, though there are pretty clear arguments that certain features of basic income -- particularly the lack of disincentives to outside income -- are beneficial in that regard. OTOH, there are also pretty clear arguments that the lack of need-based focus -- which is intimately tied to the lack of disincentives -- are potentially negative, especially when replacing welfare programs whose existing qualifications are based around special needs (e.g., programs qualified by particular disabilities) that increase costs rather than simple lack of resources (e.g., income/asset-qualified poverty support programs.)

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#77

Post by sharemywin »

kfk wrote: post #7

I will never support this idea. This is kind of thinking is extremely nationalistic: I am entitled to free money because I was born in XYZ. On top of this, this idea has very weak economics fundamentals, there is no prove that growth comes from redistributing wealth. There is plenty of prove growth comes from innovation and innovation comes from people actually working. We are in denial. The whole Europe is in denial…

Why is economic growth the goal over exploitation. You say it's nationalistic but why should what family I'm born into give me any more freedom/advantage. Completely changes society. Automation happens alot faster in this scenario. Fast food dispears why would someone wait on another if tehy can survive without being someones servant?

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#78

Post by streptomycin »

weddpros wrote: post #73
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income doesn't inherently require taxes to increase, especially if you measure it as taxes paid less government benefits received. You're thinking of things in class warfare terms -- someone else gets more money from the government therefore I get less or pay more. Any program that works on that principle is just redistribution of wealth, or naked corruption. The benefit of a basic income is that it changes inc…

Say I'm jobless, and I make 1000/m. If I find a job that pays 1100 : - with BI I'll make 1100. That's the value of work. - without BI I'll make 100 + 1000. The value of work is 100. With BI, people will think "I don't want to work for 100/m" (you know, it's the gov that pays the other 1000/m). You'll hear people say "I'm paid 1000 just to breathe, why work for 100?". It you want to limit this problem as much as possi…

Problem is, rich countries already have welfare systems and hardly anyone would support completely eliminating them. So people are already paid to breathe. The question is how to do so while minimizing perverse incentives.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#79

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #66
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is that not everybody's costs are the same. A disabled person may have much higher living costs due to needing additional care and special equipment to help them, they also have less chance of gaining employment in order to increase that income. This would seem to be the case regardless of the type of government assistance provided. Suppose we provide enough that a disabled person can live a dignified, i…

The point is more than a disabled person will require a higher subsidy to attain the same standard of living. The differences can be enormous. A non-disabled person can walk or cycle around the city to pick-up groceries whereas a disabled person might need a specially modified vehicle or may require the services of another person. Subsidizing everyone to the same amount as required by the most disabled of people woul…

The "most disabled person" who is not independently wealthy is not going to achieve the same standard of living as the average person. If you need a special vehicle and you can't afford it, you can live across the street from a grocery store and get a job working there.

You're basically talking about the "heart transplant problem." Suppose you have zero dollars and no job and you need a heart transplant which will cost $200,000, which will cause you to live for another two years, or else you will die today. The government can't afford to pay for that -- people can say "death panels" all day long but the fact is that with the current state of medicine and technology we cannot save everyone, and it is not productive to bankrupt the government paying for measures that are more expensive than they are effective. Moreover, the fairest way to distribute government services is to give the same amount to everyone. If you need more than that amount, seek charity. There is a point past which government cannot fix every problem, and we can't calibrate society to the level of the "most disabled person."

> I guess by the second point I mean the short term unemployed more than the "poor" per se. Consider a person who has just graduated from a university in SF and wants to remain there while they look for a job in SV. If they can't afford this , they might have to move to a poor area with less opportunity.

So how is that different with a basic income than it is today?

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#80

Post by sharemywin »

weddpros wrote: post #73
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income doesn't inherently require taxes to increase, especially if you measure it as taxes paid less government benefits received. You're thinking of things in class warfare terms -- someone else gets more money from the government therefore I get less or pay more. Any program that works on that principle is just redistribution of wealth, or naked corruption. The benefit of a basic income is that it changes inc…

Say I'm jobless, and I make 1000/m. If I find a job that pays 1100 : - with BI I'll make 1100. That's the value of work. - without BI I'll make 100 + 1000. The value of work is 100. With BI, people will think "I don't want to work for 100/m" (you know, it's the gov that pays the other 1000/m). You'll hear people say "I'm paid 1000 just to breathe, why work for 100?". It you want to limit this problem as much as possi…

I think with basic income you would get $2100.
Post reply on HN