Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicallee | Hacker News Reader

how pissed would everyone be if one of these people became a millionaire through working on some business while using Finland's cash handout to finance it.

even though the taxes from that is exactly what would make the whole program absolutely free - and is the basic point behind a UBI. It really is "free" for the country.

A proper test of UBI has to make it available to everyone.

View on HN

Why would anyone be pissed? If someone else does well how does that hurt you?

People are jealous and have been pretty good at coming up with reasons why certain people don't deserve nice things for quite some time.

By taking your hard earned money away to fund such schemes (taxes, you know?)

So, people will be angry that someone stops net receiving tax money and starts net paying tax money (relative to the services they receive)?

Don't get me wrong, I know full well many people are irrational and petty - but aren't these people that'll find some other irrational detail to get angry about?

Being angry that a cheap system for welfare helps someone get off welfare makes no sense. Especially if one disagree with having a welfare system?

This is the same question pg asked about income inequality in general; if IPO'd founders or hedge-fund managers are mind-bogglingly-rich, why would that piss off anyone else? How does that hurt them?

And yet people are and would be pissed.

The fact that are super rich is awesome. The fact that there is millions of people without health care and access to good food and education is a real problem.

Well, there is limited amount of resources. So when someone buys a big house, someone else must have a smaller house.

That's only true if your country is completely covered in houses up to the maximum possible height of buildings. I'm not aware of any such country (or even city or town -- possibly Singapore or Hong Kong come close).

You assume that limiting factor for houses is land, but in real world it's infrastructure, especially transportation.

Fine, housing and roads. I'm still wondering which country the OP lives in where both housing and infrastructure are so dense that "when someone buys a big house, someone else must have a smaller house."

Because they drive up the cost of living for everyone else by consuming more stuff than they need and distorting the economy in the process.

I think the comment refers to the fact that under a lottery many others would not have the opportunity.

They would pay capital gains tax upon the sale of their business, and contribute a ton to the treasury. That would be awesome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com