This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours • Hacker News Board

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#91

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 9:28 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #83

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "most disabled person" who is not independently wealthy is not going to achieve the same standard of living as the average person. If you need a special vehicle and you can't afford it, you can live across the street from a grocery store and get a job working there. You're basically talking about the "heart transplant problem." Suppose you have zero dollars and no job and you need a heart transplant which will co…

If you are severely disabled it's really not a case of "just live opposite the grocery store and work there". Many disabilities will mean that a person simply can't perform economically productive work at all. If you have a degree of means testing you can afford to provide for these people because they are a relatively small % of the population. In the UK for example we have disabled people who receive more in total…

>If you have a degree of means testing you can afford to provide for these people because they are a relatively small % of the population.

The problem is that they're not, because you're just picking some subset of the population and saying they're more needy than everyone else without actually providing any proof of that. Why aren't the victims of automobile collisions just as needy of that money so that they can buy more expensive safer vehicles? Why don't indigent cancer patients "need" the same level of care that Steve Jobs got?

You can pick some arbitrary subset of the population and say that we can afford to provide for them because they're a small percentage, but you can't pick that population in any just or rational way because everybody needs something -- everybody dies and would benefit if the government had given them more resources to fight the thing that killed them.

> Relying on charity will favor those who can best play that game, which will by definition make things harder for people with certain disabilities, particularly mental disabilities of less "popular" ones.

Charity is exactly as much a "game" as applying for government benefits is. If you feel for the plight of the mentally ill, by all means donate money to the charities that help those people, and join together with everyone who thinks the government should be helping them out of proportion to the rest of the population to do likewise.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#92

Post by anoncowherd » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 10:23 PM UTC

RivieraKid wrote: post #89

anoncowherd wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that 90% of people (100% on HN) understand this. Really? Well, then you should understand that the feedback loop I described alone is enough to make BI unsustainable, and thus not worth pursuing. But it doesn't seem you do. There's another feedback loop too: the more people are just sitting at home, the more will want to join them, and so on. From another comment of yours: >> Do you think that wealth redist…

> Really? Well, then you should understand that the feedback loop I described alone is enough to make BI unsustainable, and thus not worth pursuing. This was probably unclear, but I meant that people understand that goverment gets its money from the taxpayers. > There's another feedback loop too: the more people are just sitting at home, the more will want to join them, and so on. Perhaps, but I personally believe th…

> This was probably unclear, but I meant that people understand that goverment gets its money from the taxpayers.

The guy's point was that money has to come from somewhere, in this case, from taxpayers. The next step, then, is to think about the consequences of confiscating a massive amount of money more than before.

> Perhaps, but I personally believe that this feedback loop is negligable.

Your personal beliefs don't affect the way people behave: they pursue their personal gain. Business owners (ie. tax donkeys) will just fuck off if taxes get too onerous, and people will just stop working if it's just not worth it. Both feedback loops are very real, and will make any BI implementation unsustainable, and again, thus not worth pursuing.

> It's definitely not the exact same thing, one of the differences is that it's what the society democratically decided

You can't base any arguments on The People collectively deciding anything when the fact that taxation is extortion (or robbery) has never even crossed the mind of 99% of all people anywhere. Besides, only you can make decisions for yourself - no one else has the right to do that, because no one else is you. You own your own body, and your actions, and so does everyone else. We're all just individuals - not The Borg.

> Higher aggregate utility is a term I created by myself (and I'm apparently not alone)

Well, what do you think it means?

> 1. Decreasing marginal utility of money.

Does it actually decrease though? Clearly, if you want to eat an apple, the marginal utility of the next one is lower than the first's.

But if you first get 100 dollars, and then get 100 more, are the second 100 dollars less useful to you than the first? Well no, they're just as useful. Even past the point where the amount of money you have is not really meaningful wrt your everyday life anymore, each additional million dollars will increase your "security utility" just as much as the previous one.

So it's highly doubtful that money has decreasing marginal utility, and it's unclear where it might kick in. Maybe you'd like to explain what you mean, and why it's meaningful considering what we've just covered?

> 2. Low income jobs are usually harder, less respected and less enjoyable.

So what? Gain experience, and new skills, and get a better job?

> 3. Progressive taxes decrease inequality. This has many positive effects on society.

You're engaging in Socialist thinking. There's no class warfare (without the State, at least), and it's perfectly fine for anyone to get rich through pleasing their customers or just working hard etc.

You have your property, and others have theirs. That's it. You have no right to take anyone's stuff by force, and vice versa. This is important. Even police officers are just humans like you and me, and have the exact same rights as us.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#93

Post by weddpros » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #87

weddpros wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a logic problem with Basic Income. They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI) But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time. Instead they should think either : 1- it won't change a thing 2- it won't change a thing (so why do it?) OR 1- it will help me earn mor…

> There's a logic problem with Basic Income. No, there's not. At least, if there is, its not the one you claim. > They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI) Who is "they"? > But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time. They can both be true if the benefits plus (red…

So you'll agree that there IS a problem IF the left wing is pushing towards BI: reducing administration (or state) footprint is more libertarian than anything. It's only credible if libertarians ask for BI... How funny!

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#94

Post by weddpros » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82

streptomycin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, rich countries already have welfare systems and hardly anyone would support completely eliminating them. So people are already paid to breathe. The question is how to do so while minimizing perverse incentives.

Exactly. The problem right now is that if you have no job, you get government assistance. If you get a job, you lose the government assistance, so a job that pays $1200/month only allows you to keep $200 in your pocket because you've lost $1000 in government benefits by taking the job and no longer "needing" the assistance. We've created a de facto 80+% marginal tax rate on the working class vs. being unemployed, whi…

I don't agree with you. If you find a job at 1200$/m you keep 1200$/m in your pocket, not 200... The real problem is if you get paid 80% of that for breathing, because of government assistance!

When you want to help some industry, you'll give subventions to it. It should be no surprise that subventions to unemployment lead to more unemployment!

France (where I live) has a track record : we almost have basic income (it's called RSA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_activ...), unemployment rate is >10%, taxes are record high and growth is NaN.

Recently, I heard a lady (29 yo) tell me that her 1700€/m salary was not enough to compensate for the loss of social assistance. She decided to resign... but 1700€/m is the MEDIAN SALARY in France! 50% earn less than that!

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#95

Post by weddpros » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 10:48 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #80

weddpros wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I'm jobless, and I make 1000/m. If I find a job that pays 1100 : - with BI I'll make 1100. That's the value of work. - without BI I'll make 100 + 1000. The value of work is 100. With BI, people will think "I don't want to work for 100/m" (you know, it's the gov that pays the other 1000/m). You'll hear people say "I'm paid 1000 just to breathe, why work for 100?". It you want to limit this problem as much as possi…

I think with basic income you would get $2100.

Sorry, no.

And it's a good thing: imagine the inflation rate if salaries were raised by up to 100% overnight...

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#96

Post by weddpros » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 11:02 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #84

weddpros wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a logic problem with Basic Income. They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI) But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time. Instead they should think either : 1- it won't change a thing 2- it won't change a thing (so why do it?) OR 1- it will help me earn mor…

You're assuming that all that matters is the amount someone earns. If people care about more than just their on-paper income, then they can think: 1: it won't change my income now, but will save me from having to jump through ridiculous, demeaning and counter-productive requirements added to the current welfare program in an attempt to punish "undeserving" receipients. 2: it won't change my income now, but will provi…

1- I don't need to find a job anymore 2- It doesn't really matter if I lose my job, let's take some "vacation"

A bit more about myself : I'm self employed in France, and I earn less than the minimal wage (because I pay 46+% in taxes). But I'm not entitled to any unemployment benefit if I stop working. I would greatly benefit from a 1000€/m Basic Income, but I KNOW it's unfair because someone else will have to pay for it. I KNOW I have to work to earn a living.

We (almost) have Basic Income in France, it's called RSA (450€/m). That's why I'm paying 46+% taxes. That's social taxes, not income taxes (almost 50% of the population in France don't pay income taxes).

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#97

Post by jiggy2011 » Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 12:05 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #91

jiggy2011 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are severely disabled it's really not a case of "just live opposite the grocery store and work there". Many disabilities will mean that a person simply can't perform economically productive work at all. If you have a degree of means testing you can afford to provide for these people because they are a relatively small % of the population. In the UK for example we have disabled people who receive more in total…

>If you have a degree of means testing you can afford to provide for these people because they are a relatively small % of the population. The problem is that they're not, because you're just picking some subset of the population and saying they're more needy than everyone else without actually providing any proof of that. Why aren't the victims of automobile collisions just as needy of that money so that they can bu…

I mean people who can't do the basics such as feed or clothe themselves without assistance, not people who want a better car.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#98

Post by streptomycin » Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 12:07 AM UTC

weddpros wrote: post #94

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The problem right now is that if you have no job, you get government assistance. If you get a job, you lose the government assistance, so a job that pays $1200/month only allows you to keep $200 in your pocket because you've lost $1000 in government benefits by taking the job and no longer "needing" the assistance. We've created a de facto 80+% marginal tax rate on the working class vs. being unemployed, whi…

I don't agree with you. If you find a job at 1200$/m you keep 1200$/m in your pocket, not 200... The real problem is if you get paid 80% of that for breathing, because of government assistance! When you want to help some industry, you'll give subventions to it. It should be no surprise that subventions to unemployment lead to more unemployment! France (where I live) has a track record : we almost have basic income (i…

I think you're confused about the difference between a basic income and a guaranteed minimum income. What you are describing is the latter, but what we are advocating is the former.

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#99

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 1:17 AM UTC

weddpros wrote: post #93

dragonwriter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a logic problem with Basic Income. No, there's not. At least, if there is, its not the one you claim. > They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI) Who is "they"? > But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time. They can both be true if the benefits plus (red…

So you'll agree that there IS a problem IF the left wing is pushing towards BI: reducing administration (or state) footprint is more libertarian than anything. It's only credible if libertarians ask for BI... How funny!

> So you'll agree that there IS a problem IF the left wing is pushing towards BI

I didn't say anything that resembles that, no.

> reducing administration (or state) footprint is more libertarian than anything.

"Left wing" and "libertarian" are not opposed, and improving efficiency in achieiving left wing policy goals is not at all a view point incompatible with the left wing.

Heck, improving efficiency of government isn't incompatible with left or right wing, or libertarian or even authoritarian philosophies. Even authoritarian conservatives would probably prefer that, to the extent that liberal goals are going to be addressed by government at all, they ought to be addressed by the least wasteful means possible (if only so as to maximize resources available for authoritarian approaches to conservative goals.)

Re: This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

#100

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 6:36 AM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #97

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you have a degree of means testing you can afford to provide for these people because they are a relatively small % of the population. The problem is that they're not, because you're just picking some subset of the population and saying they're more needy than everyone else without actually providing any proof of that. Why aren't the victims of automobile collisions just as needy of that money so that they can bu…

I mean people who can't do the basics such as feed or clothe themselves without assistance, not people who want a better car.

You're making an emotional argument. Let me try. Why are you condemning the single mother whose job has no access to mass transit and who can't afford to live within walking distance, who therefore has to drive a death trap and endanger her life and the lives of her children?

The problem is that we have limited resources. We can't save everyone. And making emotional arguments gets in the way of doing the most good. Why is it better to spend money on nurses to change the bed pans of the mentally ill than to spend it giving opportunities to those who want to go to medical school, who may one day ultimately cure them?