Live data from Hacker News

Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

reuters.com

721–730 of 736 posts

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#721
post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's my point, unless you can work at a co-op, you have no say in how much value from your labor is extracted and given to someone else, and given the way society is designed, it's basically impossible to live without nonconsensually giving up the majority of your labor's value to someone else. Whereas with taxes, if you don't like them, you can elect a different politician. Look at the Americans, they do it…

You can work for a different employer that extracts a different amount of value. You can’t switch governments without paying exit taxes (in the United States).

> You can work for a different employer that extracts a different amount of value.

Not necessarily as easily as you can vote for a different politician, especially since you're restricted by your ability to change locations (family, property, heritage ties), or industries. And in this day and age changing employer very well may not at all mean you're changing who's extracting your value or how much.

Government meanwhile, at least in a liberal democracy, is fundamentally designed to be petionable and changeable. Thus "we the people." Of course I would agree that this system has been utterly corrupted by neoliberalism and corruption ("lobbying"), but I'm talking at a theoretical level here.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#722
post #676
post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you! You will live long, but I will have more fun.

Dying the next day? Bold choice. But you do you.

> Dying the next day? Bold choice.

No, I can figure out how to build a shelter. But I can't figure out how to be an artist.

So if you are so grossly incompetent that you can't figure out how to build a shelter to save your life, sure take your carpet installer and enjoy your hundred years of boredom.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#723
post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what they’re saying. Only the funding source would change; the funds would still be split evenly to anyone who meets the criteria of being an artist.

Ok, well that problem has just been solved already by Ireland. What's your argument to do it some other way?

I’m not arguing anything, I was just trying to clear up confusion. However, it’s not clear to me that Ireland has “solved” the problem.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do create wealth. That is exactly how those wealthy people become wealthy - by having someone create wealth for them, and then appropriating most of it.

Let's be clear: the appropriation mostly consists of leveraging existing (inherited) wealth and other social privileges.

Leveraging ownership of capital, more specifically.

But lest we forget, all this wealth is still protected by people with guns. These days, those people normally work for the state rather than directly for the wealthy, but the latter can also leverage their wealth to steer politics such that the state does violence on their behalf to protect their property as needed.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#725
post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those places would have to build an impossible number of houses to affect demand. If houses were able to be built freely then everyone would be able to build a house... Except , if you can't afford a used house, you most definitely cannot afford a new one. As before, time and materials are the real killer. The used housing market is merely a reflection of the cost to build new. Same reason used cars have risen so h…

> The used housing market is merely a reflection of the cost to build new. The majority of the cost of a home in places with shortages is the land, not the home.

Land is more or less worth the same whether it has a used house on it or if you build a new house on it. The trouble remains that the high cost of new construction anchors the cost of used houses.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#726
post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can work for a different employer that extracts a different amount of value. You can’t switch governments without paying exit taxes (in the United States).

> You can work for a different employer that extracts a different amount of value. Not necessarily as easily as you can vote for a different politician, especially since you're restricted by your ability to change locations (family, property, heritage ties), or industries. And in this day and age changing employer very well may not at all mean you're changing who's extracting your value or how much. Government meanwh…

> Not necessarily as easily as you can vote for a different politician

Voting is easy. Of course that doesn't actually do anything, you're entirely held hostage by the 51%. Unlike switching jobs, which is entirely consensual and determined by you. If you dislike the arrangement you made with your boss you are more than welcome to leave at any moment.

If I dislike the arrangement made by 51% of people my only option is to leave - an option that I have to pay exit taxes in order to exercise.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#727
post #666
post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know you CAN donate money to the government any time you want, right? Do you do that? Practice what you preach, don't hide behind "oh if only the government made me do it." You know we can also advocate for higher taxes, given that it's astronomically more meaningful for everyone to give ten cents than for me to give a few dollars, right? Or did you think this was an insightful, valuable addition to the discuss…

> You know we can also advocate for higher taxes, given that it's astronomically more meaningful for everyone to give ten cents than for me to give a few dollars, right? And you can ALSO voluntarily pay more in taxes while doing so. It's called leading by example. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates get called out on this and they do the same thing; "oh I'm just one person, my extra tax money is but a drop in the ocean, so…

> And you can ALSO voluntarily pay more in taxes while doing so.

You're just repeating the same fundamentally silly thing I argued against like saying it louder will make it somehow less childish and silly. Did you have an actual point here, or do you think "people's respect" has any slight value in the context of the discussion?

> Well let's see, anyone who's lived their entire life on welfare (we have families of multiple generations who have done so at this point) would qualify. So would all the homeless people more content to live on the street and do drugs than go to rehab.

So you have no actual clue, but you think hand-wavy bullshit that feels good will suffice for numbers. Fantastic. I'm glad you have such strong opinions on things you clearly know absolutely nothing about.

> Enough for people with low ambition to live on! And their vote counts just as much as the productive members of society paying for them.

Is "low ambition" angry-posting on social media? Do you think vibe-coding React bullshit, or whatever, is "productive"? Do you think engineers at Meta, busily finding new ways to make teen girls depressed are "productive"? Or is this just more stuff you have convinced yourself is true because it makes you somehow "better" than other people?

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#728
post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively. That's literally the entire basis for it. Might as well ask why "only the taxpayers who care about a new highway can raise funds to buy it" and then we're back in some weird, system of no central government because someone can always claim "why not just like, let people donate money" because it's a simplistic cliche that appeals deeply to peop…

> we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively Effectively? It doesn't seem to me like most western governments allocate this funding "effectively" at all. How do we increase the accountability?

> Effectively? It doesn't seem to me like most western governments allocate this funding "effectively" at all.

Based on what specific metric? How ought it be allocated? I assume this isn't just some ideological whining.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#729
post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can work for a different employer that extracts a different amount of value. Not necessarily as easily as you can vote for a different politician, especially since you're restricted by your ability to change locations (family, property, heritage ties), or industries. And in this day and age changing employer very well may not at all mean you're changing who's extracting your value or how much. Government meanwh…

> Not necessarily as easily as you can vote for a different politician Voting is easy. Of course that doesn't actually do anything, you're entirely held hostage by the 51%. Unlike switching jobs, which is entirely consensual and determined by you. If you dislike the arrangement you made with your boss you are more than welcome to leave at any moment. If I dislike the arrangement made by 51% of people my only option i…

> you're entirely held hostage by the 51%

Yes, we live in society. You're correct, society has in many ways enslaved you, mostly in ways you aren't aware.

The language you speak, the values you hold, the way you see the world and the people in it, your bone density coming out of childhood, your literacy rate, your vaccination schedule, your perception of normalcy, and so much more, were determined for you when you were born.

Some of these things you can adjust after the fact - learn new languages, adjust your values, learn to read, but you'll then forever be the "native xyz speaker that learned abc," or, "former Christian, now Zoroastrianist" or whatever. You can't really ever leave behind the impact a society had on you.

Everything is deeply interconnected. So this idea that 51% of people are holding you hostage but somehow if you can change jobs then the corporate world is different is fallacious. First, that same 51% must also have determined the legal business environment you're operating in, right? Second, you're enslaved to a much smaller proportion, 1%, the capital holders who hold the majority of the power in a neoliberal democracy through lobbying. They're the reason it's getting more and more difficult for you to engage in collective bargaining with your colleagues, a far more effective strategy to change how much profit is skimmed off your labor than changing jobs.

You think you're enslaved to the 51%? What about your "market rate?" They call it a "labor market," after all, so changing jobs just means getting paid roughly the same amount by someone else, which means the same profit margin being extracted. Unless you think a 10% raise is a meaningful impact when the value extracted from your labor could be as high as 500% or higher, depending on industry and profession?

Just because companies don't collude in writing doesn't mean they aren't colluding when it comes to the topic of our discussion. All are competing to extract more value from your labor, not to try to win you to their side so as to get the happiest workers (barring extreme outliers such as Valve). They don't call it a "race to the bottom" for nothing. The profit motive is a shared fundamental value of all these companies, job hunt all you want, it's the same as changing churches but not the religion, in the end the result will be mostly the same. Works even better as a metaphor if you're Catholic, since in the end the collection tray money always goes to the same place in Italy regardless of the church you attend.

Furthermore, if you're a chemical engineer working in oil and gas, the margin on the profit of your labor is always spent on the same lobbyists who influence your government to let the same 5 companies devastate your natural environment for their profit. The CEO and board is made up of the former or current executive team of other oil and gas companies. If you're a software engineer, that margin is used to get a return on investment for the same 20 something investment firms and accelerators kicking startups back and forth between them.

Now, for petitioning: see if you can convince Bain to stop putting the pressure on your boss to seek hockey stick growth, instead targeting a sustainable gentle linear that'll pay off their investment a few years later, just not 1000x. See if you can even get the phone number of someone there from your boss. Try to convince your boss. Or quit and go work for some other company - see if you can find one Bain hasn't invested in, or a drop in replacement for same with the exact same goals.

If you dislike the way the government is working, you have many options beyond leaving: you can walk into the office of your congressperson, or make a phone call, or attend a town hall meeting (for various levels of government). You can, as mentioned, vote. If you feel held hostage by 51%, you can go try to convince other people on the other side to your way of thinking - much easier than convincing your boss, in my personal experience! You're not even held hostage by 51% anyway, more like 30%, so really you can be more effective by convincing people who already agree with you to actually get out and vote; this is what canvassers do, not try to convince opposition to vote for their candidate, but rather to convince amicable voters to make it to the polls, and help them plan how to do so.

Tax is an easy enemy to pick because you see a number on your tax statement at the end of the year of exactly how much money you gave to the government that year. If you want, you can easily then download a pdf of the budget and see how they spent it. That's the most transparent visibility you'll ever see for a dollar that leaves your pocket - you'll see who collected it, who determined how much should be collected, how it was divided to be spent on exactly what, who divided it that way, and when it gets spent, exactly to whom it finally ended up, and usually how they spent it (such as a construction company for a public works project having strict reporting requirements), and who decided to choose that person too!

Your boss gives you a paycheck and if you're lucky might tell you a little something of the company finances - startups are an outlier here, most people get 0 visibility or insight. If the company is public, you get a little more insight, but no more than anyone else, and it's not as transparent as how your taxes are spent.

Something tells me that if at the end of the year everyone got a form from their employers demonstrating the dollar value extracted from their labor, minus their salary, people wouldn't blink an eye at taxes.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#730
post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The used housing market is merely a reflection of the cost to build new. The majority of the cost of a home in places with shortages is the land, not the home.

Land is more or less worth the same whether it has a used house on it or if you build a new house on it. The trouble remains that the high cost of new construction anchors the cost of used houses.

Construction costs should really have been driven down by the march of technology, but that really hadn't been the case. It's mostly stagnant IIRC. But construction costs doesn't really explain the housing crisis well.
Post reply on HN