Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

I think we should just call it what it is a dividend. We have crossed a point where handing off 10% of everyone's income allows for a reasonable minimum standard of living. But, because progress is always going to cost some people more than others we need to align incentives.

Sorry, I know your a world class doctor, but Auto Scan (TM) just does a better job.

The important thing to remember is that % for a given standard is dropping over time. If 1% is enough to reach the current US standard then it's going to be really hard to say no.

PS: I don't think we will take this global any time soon. But, we could. World GDP is 106 dollars per person per day. 10% of that is 10.06$ per person per day. 80% of humanity lives on less than 10$ per day.

View on HN

The numbers seem to work for the US.

A 10% income tax increase redistributed to all US households would be ~$11,000 per household, which is right about what the poverty line is for 1 person. If your household makes less than $110k you get a tax cut, above $110k you will be paying more to prevent social unrest.

All numbers in Billions and for 2014

Total earned income $14,700

Total income tax $1,000

--------------------------

                    $13,700

10% = $1,370

Total US households .125

basic income per household 1370/.125 = $11,000

I think suggestions reduce low income tax breaks and other social welfare programs while introducing a BI. ~11k per year could be close to net tax neutral.

EX: A flat tax at the highest rate would adds ~2,745$ to everyone above of the first tax bracket $9,275/yr, next tax bracket is hands out 6,980$, together that's a 9,725$ benefit for everyone making over $37,650/yr already being baked into the tax code.

On top of that you get things like HUD, education grants etc. Not to mention the 60+ million people getting Social Security.

PS: Not that I think the odds are good in the US any time soon. But, we are facing a lot of systemic issues which could promote a huge range of reforms.

An alternative framing: if we doubled the size of the income tax, we could pay each person $4300 / year.

Could you expand on "align incentives" a little more please?

Why would I, a rich person, pay 10% of my income in the US when I can simply claim citizenship of another (business focused) country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine it can happen again.

Most people aren't willing to give up their citizenship that easily. We can see that because they already do pay more than 10% of their income.

Because if you're still in business, you might still make more money in the U.S. due to other superior resources available here. For example, there might be greater creative output from well-paid workers who receive basic income and profit sharing, and this could lead to better overall returns for business owners. Obviously not all types of businesses would do well, but hopefully the ones that would thrive would be businesses we're more interested in seeing thrive.

Because there's no "simply" about it. Go ahead, mentally walk yourself through how that plays out for the rich person. Please account for all assets and potential tax liabilities. Factor in the means of production for the rich person to stay rich, and what happens when that person is no longer a U. S. citizen. All done? Oh, forgot to tell you, there's a dozen other things you didn't even know about, but the country of your previously-held citizenship will be along shortly to helpfully remind you.

That, and where else are you going to go that is more "business-focused"? Suppose you find such a place; what trade-offs are made to live there?

At some point the poor are better off starting a revolution than being stuck at the bottom. We are heading to a future where most people are going to be poor because an average person with an average education is going to be unable to find a job.

That's a very good point. It's getting much harder for a non-college-educated person to get a job. Thank you for explaining that further.

Agitation comes when there is light at the end of the tunnel, it does not happen when there is complete darkness. That's to say the poor need the hope that change (revolution) will result in better things. They also need buy in from the better off (who would have the resources to stave off any revolution). People don't revolt for the sake of revolting there has to be an expected (positive) result at the end.

Slave revolts suggest otherwise. The important thing to remember is even if you win, revolts are incredibly expensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com