Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#81

Post by gwright » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 11:37 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #70

BigDaddyD wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.

So you think it makes more sense for the government to force companies to pay a minimum wage? How is that a free market? Yet without a minimum wage, poverty in the US would be tremendous. Wouldn't the market be freer if we slowly replaced that minimum wage with UBI (i.e. decrease minimum wage and increase UBI over time). The market would then be free to set prices more accurately because there would be a lower artifi…

> So you think it makes more sense for the government to force companies to pay a minimum wage? How is that a free market? Yet without a minimum wage, poverty in the US would be tremendous.

That is an assertion/opinion, not a fact. You are also confusing a problem (poverty) with a solution (minimum wage). There are many other ways to tackle poverty that don't involve distorting labor markets with minimum wage. There is also a strong argument to be made that a minimum wage that is above market prices hurts low-skilled workers by making it illegal for them to be employed.

Personally I'd rather have the challenge of supporting people with low-paying jobs vs the challenge of supporting people with no job at all.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#82

Post by mkstowegnv » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 12:46 AM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #26

visarga wrote: post #2

Every political faction has an "idea" about UBI. That's the core of what's wrong with UBI. People don't want their income to be subject to political whims, and change every election cycle. The problem is that, before automation, people had something to trade for their daily necessities - their work. Work was tied to each individual and that empowered people. Now, with automation, people will have nothing else to offe…

In reality, subsistence farming is a terrible way to live-- have you ever been to a country like nicaragua or el salvador?

Anecdata: from my travels in indigenous areas in various parts of the world, and from my experience with organic farmers in the US (not really comparable I know), I would say that the variance is high. With modern medicine and transportation (to bring some produce and things such as handicrafts to market for supplementary income) in some climates and soils the life of subsistence farmers is not at all terrible. Many involved make materially more rewarding choices when they can, but (and again I know this is not really comparable) I know successful PhD scientists (one a biologist and another a physicist) who gave it all up and became organic farmers in the mountains in the SE U.S. and are happy for the choice they made.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#83

Post by ebalit » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 3:04 AM UTC

BigDaddyD wrote: post #57

Kevin_S wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc. > Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it. Dude... you're just framing it differently. You can easily look at UBI and taxes as they currently are as moneys from individuals that go into a larg…

I'll try and be more specific. If there are ten people in a country and money is dispersed in this way: Bottom 2 each have $10 Middle 6 each have $20 Top 2 each have $50 I would support a system that takes say... 10% from everyone. Bottom 2 are taxed $1 each == $2 Middle 6 are taxed $2 each == $12 Top 2 are taxed $5 each = $10 They then put all of the money in a "pot" to be spent on a military. This benefits everyone…

Riches have more to gain from a working society and more to loose from a failing one.

Or as Adam Smith puts it: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

In that sense, it's quite natural that the richer you are the more you contribute.

It's interesting that in your example you seem to tax wealth and not income. I don't know of any country in which the tax system is based around wealth and not income.

And indeed, a flat tax on wealth would probably be the fairest tax, but I imagine that it's a lot harder to do than taxing income or consumption.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#84

Post by lastyearman » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 5:57 AM UTC

gwright wrote: post #80

lastyearman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich have nothing to do with UBI. It's the middle class, or new machines/automation, that we can only take from. Lets do a little thought experiment. Lets forget money and make some assumptions. First, lets assume that after UBI the total amount of work done does not change. Then lets assume that after UBI the poor does not work any harder and certainly neither does the rich (do the rich even work at all?). So if…

You are assuming a static system in which wealth transfer is a zero-sum game. Unfortunately that isn't the world we live in. It is entirely possible that administrative systems to transfer wealth could utterly destroy the economy (for example, Venezuela). In particular I'm at a loss to understand the arguments for UBI that assume the system could/should provide a sufficient income for everyone to 'live' independent o…

In Scandinavia everyone is already guaranteed a certain amount of income by law. If you can't get it by working, then it is provided by welfare. I don't see UBI being any different.

But you're right. I don't know how people in the US would react. Maybe they would see it as an evil tax from rich to poor and never accept it. However, I'm arguing that it doesn't have to come with any extra tax burden.

There is an UBI experiment starting in Finland in 2017. If it proves to be successful, then I have no doubt that it will be implemented elsewhere too.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#85

Post by jeremyt » Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 12:24 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #53

jeremyt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? An upper income taxpayer in California pays 39.6% federal, 10% state. On top of that there are sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment benefit insurance, the 3.4% Medicare surcharge, car registration taxes and fees, transfer taxes on assets, and estate taxes when you die. Explain to me how that doesn't add up to more than 50%?

Mitt Romney paid 14% in 2011, so I'm certain there are ways around paying the full price.

Mitt Romney paid 14% federal, that doesn't include state. And the person I was responding to said that there is "nobody" paying more than 50%.

FYI, he paid 14% federal because most of his money came from carried interest which is taxed like dividends. The 14% is only after the same income is taxed at the corporate level at 35%.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#86

Post by toomuchtodo » Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #51

toomuchtodo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference. Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.

I don't think we actually disagree? I meant "better number" as in "far more representative than the jobless-and-looking rate". I objected to calling it the "unemployment rate" without caveat, because that term usually refers to jobless-and-looking and therefore threatens to cause confusion.

HN was throttling me, preventing from me responding, but I believe you're correct and we're not disagreeing. Apologies for that!

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#87

Post by singhblom » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

BigDaddyD wrote: post #43

lastyearman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone benefits from a strong middle class and not-too-poor class. Including you. Also I believe there is an argument to be made that more equal society is better for everyone involved.

I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.

I don't think anyone would ever argue that a government should do things it shouldn't. The most common disagreement is not if the government should do more than it should, but what exactly it should do. :P