A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing • Hacker News Board

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#771

Post by Aoyagi » Wed, May 04, 2016, 9:06 AM UTC

alehander42 wrote: post #622

Aoyagi wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well since you just bulked Czechia, Poland and Germany into one group, I can understand how you fail to see it. Since you mentioned Germany, I'll use that. A Czech earns about a third of what a German earns. But everything costs more or less the same (except for housing, but the difference certainly isn't multiples). Gasoline costs the same (and much more than in US), vast majority of consumer goods costs the same, f…

Oh, I did it intentionally. I live in Bulgaria and the situation is similar. However my definition of 2nd world is just different, that's all.

Well, of course, I consider it more of a tongue-in-cheek term, heh.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#772

Post by aminok » Wed, May 04, 2016, 9:22 AM UTC

Buge wrote: post #764

aminok wrote: post #757

Entrenching authoritarianism should NOT be the next big thing. Compulsory basic income requires throwing people who refuse to hand over currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are kept in small enclosures, and often develop mental illness, and suffer physical and sexual abuse. Techies should not support such a dark, authoritarian vision for the future.

I don't understand your comment. By "hand over currency they receive in private trade" are you referring to taxes? Taxes already exist without basic income. The punishment for tax evasion does not necessarily have to increase because of basic income.

Yes. Specifically, I'm referring to taxes on income and sales. A basic income would most likely require taxes to increase and at the very least will make us more dependent on these taxes.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#773

Post by rorykoehler » Wed, May 04, 2016, 10:19 AM UTC

lackingcaffeine wrote: post #147

rorykoehler wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This could mean a substantial number of people are neither creating wealth through work or taxable business. How is this any different than what we have currently? It could be argued that many employed persons are currently destroying wealth through unethical practices encouraged by profit/rent seeking that is prevalent in contemporary economy. A basic income as you have noted will also allow for people to open 'goo…

I don't agree that anything close to a majority a people are working unethically or for unethical ends. Most people are doing jobs that have some economic and societal function. This system works so well because if the product you are offering isn't needed by society then it can't exist. I'm just wondering what the consequences of this subversion will be. If everybody opens a "good business" that doesn't make a profi…

There are currently plenty of things that are needed but are not profitable so they are not delivered and also plenty of things that are wanted and delivered by the market but not needed. Unfortunately the market is not a fix all for humanity.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#774

Post by sokoloff » Wed, May 04, 2016, 10:59 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #337

gjm11 wrote: post #99

This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…

Can't we just taper it "on" and see what the effects are? For instance, in the first year everybody gets 10% UBI, second year 20% UBI, etc. until 100% UBI. If by year 10 the economy still functions as desired, we keep UBI. Otherwise we taper it off again.

You lose support from many people if the plan doesn't include dismantling massive government agencies responsible for other support/giveaway programs.

You can't dismantle those until you're at the 90+% range of any reasonable UBI payout.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#775

Post by nitroxxls » Wed, May 04, 2016, 11:02 AM UTC

Taxation Is Theft. NO ONE will take my money without my consent to sponsor millions of LAZY people. There are dozens of countries without taxes. You will not get a penny from me.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#776

Post by nitroxxls » Wed, May 04, 2016, 11:04 AM UTC

USA = COMMUNISM

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#777

Post by sokoloff » Wed, May 04, 2016, 11:08 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #320

theseatoms wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be more precise by only excluding actual dependents.

Ah, this is a great point. Yes, I agree. My point is nobody should collect basic income for anyone else. The prison system shall not collect it on behalf of prisoners. Creditors (even the IRS) shall not garnish it. No one collects it in behalf of detained/imprisoned/kidnapped people. There shall be no back pay. If you could have gotten basic income but didn't accept it last year, you can't get that money this year. (…

How long until prisons start charging room, board, and security fees that just coincidentally amount to the UBI payment?

For "true" criminals, I believe that's economically fair, but it raises terrible questions about incentives for the guy caught with a joint.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#778

Post by sokoloff » Wed, May 04, 2016, 11:25 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #314

yummyfajitas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just wealthier people who will be worse off - it's everyone. Basic income is known to create a large disincentive for work. In previous experiments (Mincome) labor supply dropped by about 10% - double what happened during the great recession. This means that fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. No matter how much money you give to peop…

Aren't you assuming that leisure time is worthless there? Suppose country A consists of 99 peasants and 1 plutocrat. The peasants work full-time and the plutocrat consumes their entire economic output living a life of fabulous luxury. Country B consists of 100 people who work part-time and live simple lives that they can afford. Country A produces more goods and services and has a higher GDP than country B - let's sa…

In some ways, yes, country A2 is better off. I personally would much rather work hard and take vacations by airplane to experience other parts of the planet than to work half as hard and have my only leisure options be within a walking/biking radius of where I was born, lived, and died.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#779

Post by djd20 » Wed, May 04, 2016, 11:28 AM UTC

brightball wrote: post #236

gjm11 wrote: post #99

This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…

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…

The main issue with giving people basic income/kid is that people will have lots of kids to get more money and ... do nothing with it other than watch tv and eat chips. They won't spend it on their kids.

There are a tonne of examples exactly this happening in the UK where a single mother has 6 kids and £50k income from various govt child support schemes. The kids learn from their mum that they have to have lots of kids to get free money.

Don't get me wrong - I think this is an excellent idea overall, but as it is with these things, it can't be oversimplified.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#780

Post by sokoloff » Wed, May 04, 2016, 11:29 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #182

pjc50 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not simple arithmetic, because the normal economy doesn't count - cannot assign - a value to work done for yourself or your family. Someone going out to work and paying a large fraction of their income for child care is counted, whereas someone staying home and looking after their children is not. Only the first has value in an economic sense. Is it the only work that has value in a moral sense?

Sure it does. A highly skilled working mother produces $X value per hour, and she can afford to spend $Y In contrast, the unskilled woman who might otherwise work in day care only produces $X value/hour. By taking the unskilled woman out of the labor force, you've destroyed $Y - $X of value.

The highly skilled working mother can only spend less than (1 - marginal_tax_rate) * (1 - employer_profit_margin_on_labor) * $X on an hour of child care.

It was this exact calculation (and a high marginal rate) that led my own highly skilled wife to conclude that it wasn't worth working when we had our second child.