Live data from Hacker News

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

dailymail.co.uk

91–100 of 140 posts

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

#91
post #42

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…

> What people need to thrive is security the knowledge that if unfortunate events outside of their control happen, that they will be helped to the degree that society is able I don't know if I believe this. It's unpopular, but I think being completely secure may have some negatives. For example, drawing upon my own life experiences, I found it hard to find motivation to be productive when I was completely secure in a…

Your viewpoint is "unpopular" because it's entirely anecdotal and survivor bias (you're posting here indicates you are at least not in a pure survival state).

Taking one's "common sense" anecdotes and applying them to society as a whole is where things get problematic. For the latter you need data and analysis to guide you as well as common sense.

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

#92
post #88

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. 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.

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

Progressive taxation doesn't work that way. The whole idea is that some would pay in more than they take out; in some cases, far more.

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

#93
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Federal guaranteed student loans have nothing to do with UBI.

If you say so.

> 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.

Really? I find it very easy to imagine, since IIRC student loans can be spent not only on tuition but on living expenses — and it seems to be possible to spend it on anything you want, even though you're not supposed to do that. [1] But I'm out of touch in that area, so my experience could be out of date.

The NPR piece that I cited above discussed research indicating that for-profit college tuition costs were strongly influenced by the availability of guaranteed student loans.

> UBI incentivizes price discovery

I suppose that's possible. But analogously, the availability of employer-provided health insurance seems to disincentivize price discovery.

[1] https://studentloanhero.com/featured/what-can-i-spend-studen...

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

#94

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.

By really applying taxation to rich?

Or a tax on natural resources, extracted from America. Instead of a few people owning the mineral rights to everything underneath the country, you make American oil, coal, natural gas, sunlight, wind, nuclear energy something the people own. It's something that already happens in part of America, and it works in Europe. Supplement it with a VAT on luxury items above a certain threshold (yachts, jewelry, property) and a sin tax against sugar and other drugs. Cap it off by replacing agriculture subsidies with the tax break + a "heath discount" on the purchase end of the transaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...

I would even advocate taking it a step further, and replacing HSA's and Social Security with individual savings accounts, a la Singapore. Approved purchases (up to a certain amount of rent, food stamps like foods, medical expenses) qualify for tax free or subsidized purchase (this is mostly psychological, giving people a "discount" vs depositing more money in their account, but it can also steer their behavior.) The government invests a certain amount in each person, and then they can contribute an additional amount from payroll. Segregate the money into two tiers, allow money in the "long term" side of the account to grow through some kind of investment, but minimize or eliminate the choice of how it is invested. Cap per year spending on everything except medical. Make it closer to a CD than SP500 investment. Everybody gets the same glide, per a single factor such as age or retirement date. Returns are guaranteed. Allow certain penalized/taxed hardship withdrawls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund

Plan: America First Sovereign Fund (mineral/luxury/sin tax), deposits into Forced Savings Account at USPS, which includes a tiered account that subtracts the qualifying part of a purchase from Savings Account, the rest gets charged to a Debit/Credit card on file. Allow the reverse, where Chase, WF, BoA, Citi can link their cards to your Savings Account, and automatically deduct qualifying purchases from it. Allow opt in for digital receipt tracking, or receipt scanning a la expensify, so you don't have to maintain records of purchases for disputes. If you use your bank card, you control what records are forwarded and stored in your USPS account.

This does five things. It pays for the program. It gives everybody some individual responsibility to manage their account, while helping them save. It steers their purchases towards healthy. It gives everyone access to a public bank account that is tax exempt. It lets them not have to manage multiple swipes at the register.

Finally, I'd advocate for a hybrid FTC/AG managed consumer protection service. Sort of a Consumer Reports / Wirecutter service on steroids that's easy for everyone to track their purchases, warranties, and to comparison shop with. A single place for product recalls, safety warnings, price comparisons, and information regarding what the best purchase to make is.

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

#95
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Food stamps generally do not allow purchasing hot food or a wide variety of foods that are not considered essential (there is some variation in policies, however). Remove those restrictions, and it would be better.

You would still have the problem that it wouldn't actually provide food for everyone or some people would end up losing the money because they're frugal.

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

#96
post #91
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What people need to thrive is security the knowledge that if unfortunate events outside of their control happen, that they will be helped to the degree that society is able I don't know if I believe this. It's unpopular, but I think being completely secure may have some negatives. For example, drawing upon my own life experiences, I found it hard to find motivation to be productive when I was completely secure in a…

Your viewpoint is "unpopular" because it's entirely anecdotal and survivor bias (you're posting here indicates you are at least not in a pure survival state). Taking one's "common sense" anecdotes and applying them to society as a whole is where things get problematic. For the latter you need data and analysis to guide you as well as common sense.

UBI is an unproven pie-in-the-sky pipe dream with no strong evidence in its favor (since it has never been adopted, at scale, by a nation or city-state). All of the UBI studies and experiments are highly controlled, small scale, and don't take into account human behavior that happen in real life (greed). Let's see some UBI experiments that fail for once by telling the participants to take advantage of each other however they can, richest man at the end wins.

Shouldn't that make UBI unpopular as well? Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.

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

#97
post #42

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…

> What people need to thrive is security the knowledge that if unfortunate events outside of their control happen, that they will be helped to the degree that society is able I don't know if I believe this. It's unpopular, but I think being completely secure may have some negatives. For example, drawing upon my own life experiences, I found it hard to find motivation to be productive when I was completely secure in a…

> Historically, all we needed to thrive was the promise that hard work, creativity, or both, would be proportionally rewarded.

Well, a "cushy military job" isn't really a place where hard work and creativity are rewarded. I'd regard that as a more plausible cause for that lack of motivation, as opposed to simply being secure in one's basic needs.

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

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think your arguing against some position that I am not even suggesting. You think im saying "if we took the money of billionaires we would have enough to give the whole country 1k/month forever"

Im suggesting that there is enough money when you think in totality so this is merely a question of how comfortable you are with redistribution. Your saying 2.5 trillion annually; ok thats only like 12% of GDP. It is also completely logical that in the 21 century that only about 10% of value generated is enough to keep everyone fed clothed and sheltered.

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

#99
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 surge…

> 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.

A pretty safe bet, seeing as most people's health gets quite a bit worse over time.

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

#100
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Federal guaranteed student loans have nothing to do with UBI. If you say so. > 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. Really? I find it very easy to imagine, since IIRC student loans can be spent not only on tuition but on living expenses — and it seems to be possib…

> the availability of employer-provided health insurance seems to disincentivize price discovery.

That I certainly agree with.

Post reply on HN