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

Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#91

Post by gergles »

raldi wrote: post #18
powertower wrote: post #9

Having negative income tax brackets for those that: 1. Work + 2. Declare their income (i.e., file tax returns) + 3. Make below X amount ... is more financially reasonable and has the benefit of keeping the person working/trying/moving . In this system, as an example, someone making below 30K year would gets the difference between what they make and the 30K mark given to them. Otherwise, the only other solution is to…

Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

Speak only for yourself, please.

I paid close to 50% of my income in income and payroll taxes last year. I live in the US and am not in the top marginal federal tax bracket. I feel I am taxed more than adequately when compared to other economies that provide a much greater service level for their citizens.

The problems in the US are not on the supply side, they are on the demand (government spending) side, and simply - they are on the military complex side.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#92

Post by dragonwriter »

gergles wrote: post #91
raldi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

Speak only for yourself, please. I paid close to 50% of my income in income and payroll taxes last year. I live in the US and am not in the top marginal federal tax bracket. I feel I am taxed more than adequately when compared to other economies that provide a much greater service level for their citizens. The problems in the US are not on the supply side, they are on the demand (government spending) side, and simply…

The top marginal income tax bracket isn't the place where you pay the highest combined income + payroll tax, since the the larger part of tax is capped and it is otherwise flat, not progressive.

If your paying close to 50% combined, it probably means you'd pay less, as a percentage, if you made more. Getting close to 50% total rate is hard.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#93

Post by steveitis »

Inflation is currently controlled by adjusting the amount of new money printed to back up loans given to large banks.

Instead of printing new money in this way, we could just give the new money directly to the citizens.

Quick napkin math shows that every person in the US would have gotten a check every year all the way back to the 30's (some years smaller than others), without needing to raise taxes at all. In fact cancelling some of the welfare programs made unnecessary by this system would likely result in lower taxes.

Loans would be more expensive, but more expensive loans seems like a small price to pay for basically ending homelessness and hunger.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#94

Post by learnstats2 »

asuffield wrote: post #36
nevinera wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But the presence of a large group with a consistent fixed income would incentivize the building of large-scale low cost apartments - those don't exist currently outside of major cities (where 'low cost' is substantially higher), because the demand isn't there.

There is no shortage of incentive for that in most of western Europe - such property is significantly profitable. The reason why not much gets built is because (a) cheap housing blocks results in ghettoisation, which most governments try to prevent with mixed-dwelling planning requirements, and (b) local residents invariably object to any planning request for housing more low-income people near them.

I've seen enough uncompleted estates and empty unsellable new buildings over time to suspect that such property is significantly risky.

Maybe such property is significantly profitable today, but we can't be sure by the time the building is complete.

I suspect it's more likely a simple business decision: the profit doesn't outweigh the risk.

In London, construction companies work hard to avoid the commitment to affordable housing and pay councils bribes to overcome that. Why would they need to pay councils off if this was a profitable option for them?

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#95

Post by akhatri_aus »

ThomPete wrote: post #88
akhatri_aus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you could get rid of spending on roads, police, foreign relations, defense, regulatory oversight? It's a jump to assume crime would disappear with basic income and police would no longer be needed. Also expenditures where economies of scale can be achieved are better off as government expenditures as an individual would get nowhere near the cost effectiveness (healthcare, education) or the incentive t…

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating. Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO.

I think there is an opposing argument to the benefits you claim could be achieved. By having free income, there is less of an incentive to work, there is actually a large chance productivity would drop, not increase!

Also, keep in mind you need funds to run the tax collection system to collect taxes to fund the basic income scheme. On a theoretical basis you may have a point but I don't see its that easy or possible in reality. I for one would just use the basic income to live and roam the world without giving anything back (since this is what I'm incentivised to do).

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#96

Post by ZenoArrow »

I really like the general idea of basic income, but I don't think it's the right time for it now. The only reason I say that is that we need to address the destabilising effects of the banking sector before money is ready to use as a means of providing a safety net.

Control over the money supply ensures that prices can settle, which means that the income you earn (through UBI or otherwise) can give the basic quality of life we want to ensure all have access to. However, at the moment, the increase of money in circulation is largely driven by banks, who serve profit over people.

Solve the banking issue, and you'd have removed a road block for UBI as well as freeing up the capital to do it.

Alternatively, I like the idea of 'basic food' and 'basic shelter' that were mentioned elsewhere in these comments. They'd probably be easier to push through, as well as providing tangible benefits for those in need.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#97

Post by ebiester »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #80
ebiester wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. A basic income doesn't mean that you have enough to fulfil all dreams. There will still be reasons to earn more income, especially with those who are capable of delivering value. 2. There is a fundamental assumption that we are at a technological stage where work can be automated. If there are not enough jobs that someone a standard deviation below average intelligence can fulfil, we could be coming upon a societa…

What's interesting about your point 3. is that it speaks to these archetypes we have defined for people. We have so ingrained in our minds that a person's value to society is defined by his/her economic contribution in the traditional sense (i.e. via a job or business ownership), that we assume that a person who does not work has no value by definition. In fact, they are even morally deficient. So, how can they possi…

There's even more to it -- it's that the only thing of value to society is that which can be traded for money.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#98

Post by greggyb »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #66
tomcam wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that deeply in that idea, then turn it into a startup. Put your own money into it and I'm sure you'll see truly interesting results!

The money saved is in police time, emergency health care, etc. so you'd need a way for a private enterprise to claim the savings that result from housing the homeless to make this market work.

In a large city these are all city services, which implies that a startup could work with the city as the customer.

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#99

Post by DiabloD3 »

douche wrote: post #62
rquantz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard someone talk about Maine as bleak. Seems like most people who live there or are from there love it. Are you really saying poverty in Maine eclipses the Deep South?

Purely anecdotal, but I took a roadtrip through southern Appalachia a few years ago, and the parts of West Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina that I went through reminded me so much of rural Maine that it wasn't funny. Maine is really two different states. There is southern Maine, centered on York and Cumberland counties (basically the Portland metro area), and then there is the rest of the state. The other half…

I agree with this. When people say "Hey, what about Portland" I tell them, no, Portland and Kittery are actually part of New Hampshire since they seem to get all the actual benefit.

Like, you know how when you travel between states, theres the major highways, and theres tons forest, and no actual towns or anything for miles? It isn't like that from NH into Portland, it IS like that from Portland into Augusta or on the way up to Bangor.

Oh, and as for all the paper mills? We're killing those off. And our one large major employer that isn't in Portland/Kittery? Its rumored that since Jackson Lab couldn't open a big new location here in Maine and opened it in Flordia instead, they're moving their existing location here down to Florida too (and with that, probably thousands of jobs will go with it between the people that work there and the people that support those people in that community).

Its like, can we just leave the US and join Canada already?

Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive

#100

Post by maxerickson »

ThomPete wrote: post #88
akhatri_aus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you could get rid of spending on roads, police, foreign relations, defense, regulatory oversight? It's a jump to assume crime would disappear with basic income and police would no longer be needed. Also expenditures where economies of scale can be achieved are better off as government expenditures as an individual would get nowhere near the cost effectiveness (healthcare, education) or the incentive t…

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating. Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO.

Administrative costs aren't all that high:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-federa...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

Making the spending a couple percent more effective doesn't really even start to pay for spending 10x.

So administrative savings aren't actually all that important a consideration when it comes to a basic income (Put it this way: the programs at the first link could have 100x their current administrative costs and still cost considerably less than a basic income).

Replacing contingent benefits with a basic income should be a positive, it's just that the expected change can't be all that large compared to the numbers required for even a small basic income.

Post reply on HN