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

Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 140 posts

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#81

Post by vsareto »

umvi wrote: post #74
vsareto wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it lit a fire under my butt and I was highly motivated to start sharpening my computer industry skills, doing side projects, etc. in case it didn't work out and I had to find a "real job" (and it didn't work out). I don't know if that will fit a lot of people's idea of thriving (it's highly personal). That's really survival skills so you don't end up homeless. Some really do thrive on chaos, uncertainty, and not bei…

> Others don't need that, they can improve themselves for the sake of improving. Chaos and uncertainty keep them from focusing on improving. So the question is, what % of people are like that, and what percentage are like me (complete security I didn't really have to work for robbed my motivation). If only a small % of people become more productive in free complete security, and the majority become less productive un…

Let's say that you failed to gain the skills necessary get a job back then. Would you prefer the worst case scenario of having UBI vs not having UBI? Do we subject some people to homelessness to keep other people motivated?

My thoughts are those people can find something else to drive them. I bet at some point you will likely get bored or depressed of simply playing video games and watching anime all day and you'll seek out challenges for yourself.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#82

Post by missedthecue »

petermcneeley wrote: post #79
missedthecue wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you took all the money from all the billionaires, and we're assuming frictionless transaction and 100% liquidity, you can't afford it for more than a couple years. The money just runs out.

USA gpd per capita is ~60k a year right? And your saying 12k per year per capita is impossible?

It's certainly possible to tax the average person $1050 monthly in order to pay that average person $1000 every month, but i really just don't see the point. There are just not enough rich people to transfer $2.5 trillion from annually.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#83

Post by vkou »

LaEc wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is a generous tax credit. The Fed is printing money by their lending operations, devaluing the dollar in the process.

Let us assume that your concerns about devaluation come true. Let us say that Poor Man has $10,000 and Rich Man has $10,000,000. Devaluation of dollar by 10% means poor man loses $1,000 and Rich man loses $1,000,000. Who loses out more under devaluation?

Poor man typically doesn't have $10,000, what they have is $10,000 and a $200,000 debt.

And not all inflation is created equal. With QE, the printed dollars never make it to Main street, they end up inflating asset prices, while the price of butter stays the same. Whether that's a good thing is an exercise for the reader.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#84

Post by scabbycakes »

LaEc wrote: post #68
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

Elimination of the price mechanism eliminates a key way to sort out who truly needs healthcare (or whatever service). Consider a safe elective knee surgery. If you knew it was paid for by the government, you would just sign yourself up for the surgery for even the slightest ache. If there was a copay, you might reconsider unless your pain was actually painful enough to warrant it. Ask any Brit about NHS waiting times…

I can agree on the points you made about the system not having any need to be efficient, a government ran system is just not able to be lean - but as far as people just getting whatever they can for the heck of it, that's probably not the case.

Just from personal experience, I don't have copays or much in the way of direct monetary costs (I'm not American) and it's not like I'm out there grabbing free drugs and surgeries. There's a cost other than money to everything, time and effort and rehabilitation and fear of the unknown and so on. As another example my retired parents have messed up knees and hips but they don't feel it warrants the hassle/risk even though it'd not cost them anything to have surgeries, there's more to it than just financial consideration.

Health savings accounts doesn't seem that great though - I don't know if I'll ever have health issues so if I'm socking away $x00/month I'm removing that from the economy betting against my health. Assuming a somewhat capable health care system I'd rather pay that amount to the government in taxes so they can leverage it now for someone else and if my time comes, then I don't have to worry about dollars and cents and what I can afford.

Also if the government had the money from everyone now in the form of taxes instead of individuals socking it away, it'd be more able to purchase equipment and hire doctors well in advance and the local hospital may have better capacity to cater to my needs.

Just my two cents.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#85

Post by lcall »

To the extent that we remove the connection between choices and consequences, we harm everyone. This applies in so many ways.

This includes things like lifestyle, including habits, striving to learn & build good family ties, honesty, choosing to pursue education and service, more than just entertainment and pleasure (but with appropriate balance), trustworthiness, avoiding self-destructive behaviors, etc etc. All which greatly affect employability!

But if we make it easily survivable to live on the wrong side of those...what do we encourage? At ever-greater cost to everyone... Think we have a drug problem now?

Some consistently very bad experiences with medicare's and SSA's organizational incompetence (as reflected in ability to provide remotely useful information over many weeks and months, etc) make me definitely not want the federal government to take ever-more resources and control of our economy and lives.

I do believe we are responsible (before God, and if one doesn't believe, then at least to our consciences) to care wisely for one another, and with personal sacrifice to do so -- but not by force.

I also believe, with a fair amount of observation and study among myself and family, that things resembling forcible socialism (or the fed. government solving everyone's problems instead of being strictly limited to its constitutional role) are also harmful to everyone and have been proven many times to be a disastrous failure (Soviets, Venezuela, etc etc).

Charity by force is wrong and foolish, from Christian principle, long historical observation, and (to me at least), logic.

Charitable service done voluntarily by individuals, organizations, families, communities, maybe even states who can then learn from each other what works vs. not, can be wonderful, and I and many others have seen it work in long-term multifaceted practice. But when we force a system on everyone -- bad things happen, in the short and long run.

We can go out and do good and solve problems, by joining with others, using persuasion and fundraising, creating jobs programs (not federal), promoting good ideas, seeing what has worked well elsewhere, but not by forcibly taking control of others people's money (which represents their time and energy, planning and preparation) and thus a loss of freedom for all. Every crisis should not be an excuse to expand control by some, over others.

I have written many more details about this & related subjects at my web site, which is in my profile.

I very much hope we can promote principles over politics, such as: earned trust matters; opportunity, honesty and the Golden Rule matter; charity is important, charity by force is wrong, and breaking the link between choices and consequences harms everyone.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#86

Post by r00fus »

hyperpape wrote: post #31
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

Healthcare is reasonable, but the right way to provide people food is to give them money. Otherwise, you can't possibly provide a useful service. People choose to spend more or less on food, eat different things, etc. If I want to spend a lot on food, that's my choice, but I should give up something else. Or if I decide to eat rice and lentils multiple times a week, I should be able to save money. Even more important…

Why are food stamps (but universal, not means-tested) not a good solution?

They allow basics to have controlled pricing, and increased availability, while preventing abuse of the system (ie, alcohol purchases).

Having dispensaries (or dispensary-specific items in a general store) where you can use your food stamp money would leverage a working system we have now.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#87

Post by akvadrako »

dctoedt wrote: post #58
munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

Cheap or free money tends to get captured by for-profit service providers, who raise their prices accordingly. Example: The upward spiral of for-profit college tuition cost is widely thought to have been driven in large part by the availability of federally-guaranteed student loans and Pell grants. [0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2018/12/13/672952507/does-more-federal-a...

Federal guaranteed student loans have nothing to do with UBI. It's hard to argue that college fees would have gone up so much if the government just gave a fixed $10000/year loan to every student-age citizen and let them spend it on whatever they want.

In an important way they are opposite: UBI incentivizes price discovery; government backed college loans decentivize it.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#88

Post by ardy42 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #46
jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

How was $1000/month for anyone over age 18 supposed to be funded? Without exact details answering such, do voters believe this is more than seeking voter-attention. Are there actual plans of implementation whose economics/numbers work? I see people discuss such but never see answers.

They do not give answers because it is very clear with a simple calculation that this is unaffordable in addition to serving no purpose. Giving $1000 a month to 210 million people costs $210 billion a month, $2.5 trillion a year. I believe that the annual federal tax revenue is about $3.4 trillion.

> They do not give answers because it is very clear with a simple calculation that this is unaffordable in addition to serving no purpose.

> Giving $1000 a month to 210 million people costs $210 billion a month, $2.5 trillion a year.

> I believe that the annual federal tax revenue is about $3.4 trillion.

If you're going to implement a UBI program (or any kind of large-scale social democratic benefits program), taxes will be increased to pay for it.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#89

Post by mytailorisrich »

ardy42 wrote: post #88
mytailorisrich wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not give answers because it is very clear with a simple calculation that this is unaffordable in addition to serving no purpose. Giving $1000 a month to 210 million people costs $210 billion a month, $2.5 trillion a year. I believe that the annual federal tax revenue is about $3.4 trillion.

> They do not give answers because it is very clear with a simple calculation that this is unaffordable in addition to serving no purpose. > Giving $1000 a month to 210 million people costs $210 billion a month, $2.5 trillion a year. > I believe that the annual federal tax revenue is about $3.4 trillion. If you're going to implement a UBI program (or any kind of large-scale social democratic benefits program), taxes…

"just increase taxes" does not work in the real world (especially here it would be close to doubling taxes) and still does not answer why you would want to hand money to everyone across the board.

It also sounds a little circular: Increase people's taxes so that you can use the income to give money back to them.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#90

Post by ardy42 »

war1025 wrote: post #59
mister_hn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By really applying taxation to rich?

In almost all instances, the readership of this site would count under "the rich" for the purposes of government programs.

> In almost all instances, the readership of this site would count under "the rich" for the purposes of government programs.

However, there are different degrees of "rich" (which, if you want to quibble, can include things like having a yard full of chickens and plenty of time to read [1]). The taxes to pay for expanded social benefits should fall progressively across that whole range.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc

Post reply on HN