Hacker News Reader

Comment by DIVx0 | Hacker News Reader

I really like the simplicity and efficiency of Guaranteed Income. Social welfare is one of the 'costs of doing business' in a modern civilization. Cut the crap and just give everyone basic resources without reservations.

The way I see it if someone really does not want to work, they'll go to great lengths to cheat the system and the government will spend a great deal combating these people. Just giving the bum money will be cheaper for everyone.

More importantly a basic income will free up people who will take jobs just because they have to. This will actually open up jobs for people who want to work hard to rise above the basic level. It will give people freedom to explore things that would not be feasible otherwise. This will generate more art, more music, new science and philosophies.

Perhaps my thoughts are too idealistic but I think its more reasonable than trying to police welfare or telling everyone to just be more bootstrappy.

View on HN

> I really like the simplicity and efficiency of Guaranteed Income. Social welfare is one of the 'costs of doing business' in a modern civilization. Cut the crap and just give everyone basic resources without reservations.

The problem is it simply is not possible or feasible.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines

Poverty line is $11,770.

I'm pretty sure any reasonable person doesn't want to live on that amount of money because it would suck!

So how much does it cost to, say, give everyone $10k/year and thereby guaranteeing everyone who can work would want to?

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

23.1% of the population is under 18.

So .769 is 18+.

318,857,056 is the total population of the US.

(318,857,056.769$11700) = ~2.9 trillion US$

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...

We have about $3.8 trillion in federal revenue.

$985.74 is the cost of Medicare.

$985.74 billion + $2.9 trillion = ~$3.9 trillion

This leaves a $0 budget for literally anything else. To be reasonable, we'd probably need to raise another ~$1 trillion in taxes to sustain something vaguely resembling current government functions [remember, the existing expenditure is already over $3.8 trillion]. Even then, it'd be really iffy.

You would just need to increase the tax rates to pay for it. The us economy is ~$18 trillion so even if you need to raise an extra $2.9 trillion it would be possible. Of course I think it has zero chance of ever being implemented because of politics.

You can't raise 3 trillion in taxes on the US economy to support that kind of program. People would see their taxes double and they'd flip the fuck out.

Most people would not see any net increase in taxes, but the wealthy would certainly see a massive rise - hence why I suggested it is impossible politically.

The wealthy don't have a 3 trillion income for you to tax.

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/

> There is no dispute that income inequality has been on the rise in the United States for the past four decades. The share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012.

https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm

Total household income is only ~13 trillion.

So even if you took 100% of their income, the numbers wouldn't work.

Pretty much the only way to make that work is to tax people down to the $75,000 or so level.

Sure you would have to tax everyone, but once you discount out the actual base income (pay $10,000 or less in tax, get $10,000 in base income) then most people would be ahead.

So now its we have to tax everyone? Okay.

You've basically gotta take half of the household income in the country to make your plan work. That isn't happening.

There are many people here who spend their day job writing algorithms to monitor people's responses to certain stimuli -even down to the individual level - in order profile users and tailor services to ensure that a few advertising cents per person are spent efficiently.

I'm genuinely unable to fathom why when it comes to solving the diverse, expensive and very real problems a social safety net is designed to capture, that "give everyone a fixed large chunk of cash each year" is so widely perceived as the "most efficient" solution on here.

The separate ideal world argument that BI would ensure that people don't "have to" work (unless they're foreign, obviously) obviously flies a little in the face of the efficiency argument too.

>>I'm genuinely unable to fathom why when it comes to solving the diverse, expensive and very real problems a social safety net is designed to capture, that "give everyone a fixed large chunk of cash each year" is so widely perceived as the "most efficient" solution on here.

I don't know if it's the absolute most efficient, but I suspect it's a lot more efficient than the current collection of social safety nets - especially assuming the tax agency is already decent at doing it's job, giving everyone a few hundred dollars a week is pretty easy to administer, and can be taxed back from higher earners easily. If instead you have multiple decision trees about who gets particular benefits and who doesn't, you suddenly need a bureaucracy, and those are always expensive.

Fundamentally I want my society to feed, clothe, and house people who can't manage to do it themselves for whatever reason. At that level it's not that diverse; does it matter if someone is disabled, drug addicted, chronically unemployable, a single mother with no support, a refugee, whatever? They can't come up with rent and food money, let's give it to them.

Bureaucracies cost a lot. Paying a subsistence level income to everyone who is economically inactive would cost a lot more. I mean, in the UK there's currently around 9 million economically inactive working age people who pay no tax, are not registered as looking for work and yet could theoretically claim BI, vs less than 2 million people who've to registered as unemployed and looking for work that actually get out-of-work benefits. That difference pays for a lot of bureaucrats, at least some of whom are supposed to do useful things in finding people work or training as well.

And yes, it matters hugely whether someone is disabled, a single mother or a whatever, because their rent and food money needs are likely to be quite different.

That's the traditional wisdom, and why it took so long for direct cash payments to become popular in philanthropy. The result is a little counterintuitive, depending on your intuition. The data show that free money works extraordinarily well at elevating the poor: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...

I'd support including children in a basic income scheme at a reduced level (so $400/month for a child, $900/month for an adult, as a very rough example). Aside from extra kids, I don't see it as necessary to adjust the benefit amount

Also, my idea of a basic income would be for everyone in the country (every citizen and permanent resident at least) to receive it, non-optionally. No applying, no means test, nothing. You get $X direct deposited every week or two. For high income people it get taxed back (and more), of course. So it's not just to those who are economically inactive, it's to everyone.

And sure, we should help people find useful work and all that. But it can be separate than giving them money for basic living expenses.

I'm not sure all those advertising cents per person are really effectively spent, either. I'd say the expertise is mostly into getting the advertisers to spend that money.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/a-danger...

It's most efficient under the constraint that we probably don't want to force citizens to submit to advertising-style pervasive monitoring by the government welfare authorities just to eat.

Surely there's a happy medium between assuming that every minute difference in an individual's clickstream is valuable data to which can be mined for insights to optimise for certain behavioural responses on the one hand, and assuming that any effort spent setting parameters for giving people free money is bound to be a futile and wasteful endeavour on the other?

Though frankly, $xxxxx from the government for signing up to pervasive monitoring would still be a better deal than anything I've ever been offered as a result of interacting with an ad tracker or promised by the brave new world of the IoT.

You're the one who started with the advertising analogy. I just combined that kickoff with the tendency of government to ratchet power and control once granted. You may think it's a slippery slope, I just see a logical basis for assumption.

Look at the welfare cliff http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-...

The situation is worse in my home country (Spain): I know too many people that doesn't want to work because they would lose benefits.

It's not about giving away more, but giving it equally. Income taxes can "take back" money from people that don't need it.

Basic income is neither a necessary nor a sufficient criteria for eliminating welfare cliffs though.

Welfare cliffs can be eliminated quite effectively by tapering welfare payments, and can remain (and potentially be made worse) after a BI is introduced if there are still some [household] income-linked subsidies or tax breaks available.

> I'm genuinely unable to fathom why when it comes to solving the diverse, expensive and very real problems a social safety net is designed to capture, that "give everyone a fixed large chunk of cash each year" is so widely perceived as the "most efficient" solution on here.

Economists widely agree that cash transfers are more efficient at improving welfare for the poor than transfers-in-kind. It's one of the less controversial statements in the field. "Give everyone a chunk of cash once a year" is probably not the most efficient manifestation of the concept just because peoples' behaviors tend to be different if they receive regular reliable income vs irregular income (see the permanent income hypothesis), but when it comes to the choice of giving the poor cash or services, just giving them cash is widely preferred.

>Economists widely agree that cash transfers are more efficient at improving welfare for the poor than transfers-in-kind. It's one of the less controversial statements in the field.

I find that baffling based on San Francisco's experience. When the city replaced its "in kind" services with cash, for the most part the homeless people went out and spent the cash on booze and drugs.

The cash system was such an obvious failure Gavin Newsom was able to build his political career on converting the system back to the "in kind" type.

The US is in the bottom half[1] of the education rankings which might impair good decisions. The rest of the world* has a much better functioning health care structure for lower income people as well, medical conditions that may impair their ability to make good decisions.

[1] rank 36/65: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10488555/O...

* developed world, obviously.

Oh, that's the easy question. It's the most efficient solution because of politics. Anything with complex rules will be (or better: is) gamed and the money will disappear (to varying degrees, depending on the host country).

I'm infinitely curious about these kind of projects. As you and other said, current systems are so full of waste and people investing so much efforts into tricking it. I can envision a lot of good outcomes. That said I really don't know how the culture will align. So much in human history was defined by your role, your work etc etc. Now if you're not contributing to others in a market will you be seen as valuable ? how will people relate to each others now that there will be less "classes". I also believe survival pressure is mostly needed for people to exist fully; todays system pressure is too chaotic and suboptimal, but removing too much pressure may lead to muddy waters.

> now that there will be less "classes"

How do you think that this would translate to less "classes"? I know some number of humans, and based on this limited experience, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of "makers" and "takers" class dynamics emerge.

Less pyramidal schemes in people relationships. Also less need to earn money, to feel rich.

Usually things had a tendancy to increase differences, if you were in need, someone who had a headstart could use you and make profit. You earned a little while he gained too. Increasing it's position in the same way, more capital, more opportunities to hire, create business.

If someone really doesn't want to work, then they're probably not going to make a very good worker. Why force them to get a job if they're going to be a drag? I think the vast majority of people want to work just to keep busy and make their lives interesting. At least, that's what people tell me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com