71–80 of 131 posts
Why not start with something smaller, like providing "basic food" for everyone, and see what the result is? You could reuse existing programs, like food stamps, where the infrastructure is already in place for most grocery stores to accept payment. (except without the application process) That seems like a less risky change than trying to provide enough income to cover housing, utilities, clothing, etc. all at once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate please?
I work for myself, and after I pay my taxes, I have about 2-5K left in my bank account. Then I live month-to-month from what I take in and what I chip away at. If he can afford to pay more taxes, if he makes so much more than I, he can't be disadvantaged to me or the rest of us who can't afford to pay more taxes - by paying what he claims he wants to (but yet does not).
The point is not that they are disadvantaged in absolute terms, but in comparison to those who value profit above all else. Voluntary gifts to gov diminishes relative power of those more compassionate and increases relative influence of those who are less inclined to help others.
Also, the increase in taxation in question could be applied only at the top of income ranges.
Moreover, if you have $2-5K left in your bank account you may be considered privileged by some standards.
I haven't really made up my mind about Basic Income, but one thing I never heard advocates of Basic Income talk about is that incentives matter to human behavior. BI will tax people who work more and give handouts to those who don't. This disincentivizes working and incentivizes not working. For example, the increasing numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance seems like a similar phenomenon and is no…
Some might see that as a good thing. Being forced to do something you hate for fear of not being able to feed your family is probably not healthy for anyone involved. Imagine if that person could quit their job and spend time with their kids instead.
Imagine the passionate painter or musician being able to paint or make music full time without worrying about having to pay rent next month.
Imagine the corporate programmer being able to quit his job and work 6 month on that open source project he always wanted to do.
As someone who actively enjoys his job and looks forwards to going to work most mornings, I think it would be kind of neat if more people could feel that.
Sure some people will just use their new freedom to drink beer and watch TV all day, but perhaps those people weren't contributing too much to begin with, making the net loss minor.
The main 'down' side would be that getting people to do 'shit' jobs will get harder and more expensive, but I think that might work out to be a reasonable price to pay.
Personally I'm not really convinced the numbers add up economically to make it actually viable, but I see it as an interesting utopia.
I haven't really made up my mind about Basic Income, but one thing I never heard advocates of Basic Income talk about is that incentives matter to human behavior. BI will tax people who work more and give handouts to those who don't. This disincentivizes working and incentivizes not working. For example, the increasing numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance seems like a similar phenomenon and is no…
The article points out that making basic income available to those contributing to society (working, looking for work or volunteering). That's incredibly short-sighted for several reasons: 1) the idle are best being, well, idle - out of the way while everybody else gets on with making the world a better place. Sure they will reap the benefits but their number is likely to no higher than the currently idle. Indeed the…
Why do you think giving some people free money that do not get it now would not result in some of them becoming idle?
There is evidence as payments increase the idle increase. For example, I think the OECD has data showing there are more people on disability by a wide margin across countries, and this correlates with the benefits the various countries offer. Do you really think there are naturally more disabled people in the UK than the US, or that because they offer better support more people are inclined to try and get it?
>if I wanted to spend a couple of weeks cleaning up my local beach of garbage I should be free to do so - the benefit to society is obviously large but the effort might just be me or a small group of similar minded folks
Obviously large to whom? Why does this group or person not already pay someone to clean the beach? Apparently the value is so low that people spend their money on things they want, instead of hiring you to clean the beach.
What you're arguing is that people will produce things of lesser value to society, but of some value to their own belief set, things of such low value overall that no one will pay for it. This results in a lower amount of goods and services, which ultimately results in society getting poorer, not richer.
Why not start with something smaller, like providing "basic food" for everyone, and see what the result is? You could reuse existing programs, like food stamps, where the infrastructure is already in place for most grocery stores to accept payment. (except without the application process) That seems like a less risky change than trying to provide enough income to cover housing, utilities, clothing, etc. all at once.
Or just start with a small Basic Income to test out the system.
Personally, I think I would favor providing something like food through a system like food stamps first. It provides less risk of the money being wasted on addictions (drugs, gambling and other bad financial decisions) and better ensures the money is used to help someone (especially in the case of children, where they are not spending the money, but their parents are).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough basic income level.' If everyone's income were increased, might not prices for things like housing go up as well, so some people could still be priced out?
Yes, but I think rent control and such could be better implemented without as strong an opposition from landlords that in the current system have to try and provide for their basic needs.
Apartment-building (and home-building) isn't about the landlord making ends meet. It's about the landlord owning or borrowing a few million dollars to buy property and/or build upon it, then trying to make money over the next several decades, as he pays interest (or incurs opportunity cost), incurs maintenance expenses, pays insurance and property taxes, and watches as the investment depreciates due to the building getting old. A subsistence income is not a substitute for a real return on that investment.
Rent control substantially limits the upside potential of that sort of investment at best and usually goes further to act as a massive wealth transfer from landlord to tenant. As you can imagine, that deters investment, so housing shortages get worse and you end up either paying way too much or you just can't find an apartment to rent. (Moreover, even if rent control is eventually rolled back, the political risk that it will return is likely to haunt every future investment in the city for decades to come.)
You don't need to like landlords in general, or lionize them for their investment (the money is its own reward), or trust your landlord any further than you can throw him, but if you want people to live inside a decent piece of capital (instead of four-to-a-crappy-bedroom) then you'd do well to both study and respect the incentives that capitalism gives landlords (the money is its own reward) and how rent control distorts them.
... or you'll just screw over everyone, like New York City's War Emergency Tenant Protection Act, which continues to this day to protect certain lucky residents from World War II but resulted in something like 1/3 of the buildings in Harlem being abandoned, to say nothing of the Bronx. (and a little like today's San Francisco, though there are plenty of other barriers to new development there.)
Money doesn't disappear. If you give people a basic income, they'll spend it. On rent, beer, education, their kids, all the things people normally spend money on. And some of it is going to come back to all of us in one way or another. Maybe more people will have money to buy apps or pay for services offered by hn members' startups. Or they'll buy lottery tickets and the additional money that goes to education will b…
But it can be used efficiently or inefficiently. For example, if there are two bread bakers, and I can pay $10 to one and he makes two loaves, or $10 to the other and he makes one, then the money has not disappeared but one use produced more goods for society.
>Money always trickles back up, especially when it's put into the hands of low income people who tend to spend more than they save.
Where do you think savings goes? It is most certainly invested back into society, and is not generally spent on consumption. Giving money just so people can consume will mostly make more of the goods they consume. If you want future looking invention and innovation, you need savings that can be lent to startups, businesses, and other uses.
Money doesn't disappear. If you give people a basic income, they'll spend it. On rent, beer, education, their kids, all the things people normally spend money on. And some of it is going to come back to all of us in one way or another. Maybe more people will have money to buy apps or pay for services offered by hn members' startups. Or they'll buy lottery tickets and the additional money that goes to education will b…
I haven't really made up my mind about Basic Income, but one thing I never heard advocates of Basic Income talk about is that incentives matter to human behavior. BI will tax people who work more and give handouts to those who don't. This disincentivizes working and incentivizes not working. For example, the increasing numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance seems like a similar phenomenon and is no…
1. A basic income doesn't mean that you have enough to fulfil all dreams. There will still be reasons to earn more income, especially with those who are capable of delivering value. 2. There is a fundamental assumption that we are at a technological stage where work can be automated. If there are not enough jobs that someone a standard deviation below average intelligence can fulfil, we could be coming upon a societa…
We have so ingrained in our minds that a person's value to society is defined by his/her economic contribution in the traditional sense (i.e. via a job or business ownership), that we assume that a person who does not work has no value by definition. In fact, they are even morally deficient. So, how can they possibly be of a quality/character as to contribute anything to society via arts, ideas, or otherwise?
It's a sneaky bit of circular logic that, for many, argues against a BI.