Hacker News Reader

Exactly, and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. So if someone still gets all the aid they do today and $1K per month, then there is more money to spend but are there more people who want to work where that money is spent?

I think it likely that this would cause low end job wages to rise, not necessarily increase employment.

Certainly any job that only offers "do this and we give you enough money to barely live" will have to pay more.

Or no, since the person will already be receiving enough to live.

Well, the price of goods and services will go up because everybody suddenly has more money and the owners of the businesses that sell those goods and services have just had their taxes doubled, so we're back to square one anyways.

I worry about this too. Who cares if you have more money if it has less buying power per dollar? This is also why I worry about drastically higher minimum wage. Poor people have more money but all the places they spend it have higher costs that lead to higher prices. Rich people don't spend the majority of their money at Wal-Mart so it affects them less. EITC and other tax reductions on the poor seems more effective and doesn't reduce buying power.

>Who cares if you have more money if it has less buying power per dollar?

People who are broke care. Some money is always better than no money.

Increased demand for some goods will create competition and prices will stay the same or fall. Commodity goods providers don't have pricing power so they can't raise prices without losing sales to competitors. There is also the "menu cost" which is the resistance of businesses to react in real time to economic events. A restaurant won't reprint menus everyday and the $1.99 cleaner won't change prices very often.

In addition. The total money supply isn't growing, it is being redistributed to people more likely to consume. The velocity of money will increase but the total amount won't. This will keep prices relatively stable.

But the wages they pay to workers have gone down.

Most proposals do away with welfare programs, reducing enforcement costs with it. No need to ensure a person is unemployed and looking for a job or unable to work due to a medical condition.

Sure, but the cost of enforcing who receives benefits is orders of magnitude less than the cost of paying $12k net of income taxes to the large number of working age people who for whatever reason (usually existing wealth or partner/parent income) aren't currently interested in working.

This isn't just common sense; the data on working age economically inactive people, working age economically inactive people receiving benefits and admin costs is free and open for most countries.

There is good indication this reduces income disparity, create more opportunities for entrepreneurship (you can quit your job or go part-time while you do your thing) and, in general, more people consume more. The incentive to work more is there: with a sensible basic income you and your family won't starve and you won't need to work yourself to death, but you may want to have a nice vacation from time to time. With better economic security your freedom to move to better paying markets is increased.

The only reason not to back an idea like this is how much the top earners will be able to evade paying their part, overburdening those who can't dodge taxes as efficiently.

> and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs.

Which is quite surprising because every, and I mean every, UBI proposal talks up how much money we'd _save_ because welfare would be eliminated. I just don't see how that's possible, because inevitably there are going to be a lot of people with real or self-imposed crises crying about how they don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, and what is the government going to do, tell them "tough shit, you should've managed your UBI better"? Uh, I doubt it. We'll end up stuck with welfare programs as a UBI safety net and then people will inevitably game the system by crying broke every single month.

This whole thing is such a ridiculous leftist fantasy, the biggest giveaway is that it completely ignores basic human behavior.

One wonders which humans you surround yourself with to consider that "basic human behavior".

Trying to maximize earnings is basic human behavior, sorry to break it to you. Welfare scams occur regularly, and that's before UBI.

And you're dodging the bigger question: I'm on UBI and my money runs out, can't afford to feed the kids. Multiply that by at least several thousand people every month. Now what?

Same as now. You don't get more food stamps just because you ran out.

The difference is it's earmarked money today. There's no potential to spend your food money on a phone and then claim you can't buy food at the end of the month.

Most countries just give cash to people without income, they don't bother with a separate food program. That seems to work fine.

How can maximising earnings be basic human behaviour when 'earnings' have only existed for a few thousand years, a tiny fraction of the history of our species?

Food banks exist already, why would UBI change that.

And the right's fantasy? Everyone has a right to a gun, but we can't trust them with money.

> I just don't see how that's possible, because inevitably there are going to be a lot of people with real or self-imposed crises crying about how they don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, and what is the government going to do, tell them "tough shit, you should've managed your UBI better"?

In the UK, many welfare payments go directly to the person, so this wouldn't be a new issue.

Many of them are designed really just to ensure a floor people don't drop below, but combined with exceptionally high marginal tax rates and odd conditions. The marginal tax rate in many cases is 100%, and can be above this.

> In the UK, many welfare payments go directly to the person, so this wouldn't be a new issue.

Not sure what you mean by this. The issue is that currently welfare payments are earmarked: this money can only be used for rent, this money can only be used for food, etc. By eliminating our existing welfare programs, as is the case with every UBI proposal, we would instead be giving a single check and saying "manage this money wisely and pay your expenses." The problem is that when the money isn't earmarked for a specific purpose you can't be sure that the basic necessities are actually paid for before the money runs out. Just ignoring the fraud angle (spend all the money and claim an emergency makes you unable to pay for rent), how do you deal with someone having a _real_ emergency, having to spend all their UBI, and then being unable to pay for rent? Tell them tough shit? That's not what's going to happen.

> Not sure what you mean by this. The issue is that currently welfare payments are earmarked: this money can only be used for rent, this money can only be used for food, etc.

I mean this is often not the case in the UK. We don't have food stamps and housing benefit is afaik generally paid directly to the person, not the landlord.

> Tell them tough shit? That's not what's going to happen.

That's what happens now, whether the person gets money from a job or from any kind of benefits. Why should it change? It's called 'Basic Income', not 'Basic Relax All Your Needs Will Be Met'.

It's not really a ridiculous leftist fantasy, it was originally a conservative idea as an alternative to the welfare state. And as for what to do when people say they can't afford X, you raise the payouts so they can (if they really can't afford it).

The propensity to work is more of a social matter than an economic one. Also, most people today in the lower economic classes are over worked. I remember when I was working out of a temp agency with someone who had been working three jobs (two full time and one side job). I'm not sure the exact reason for this other than he had a child and his wife was also working part time herself. It's just scary to imagine that people think working is a virtue onto itself. I'd rather pay a marginally higher tax rate to make sure people don't work more than 40 hours a week and were able to get their basic needs (housing, food, healthcare). At least then there wouldn't be the chronic issues that poverty brings to drag down the economy as a whole.

> - There is zero effect on propensity to work

OTOH, imagine parents that today can't be present to raise their kids may have the option of dropping one of their jobs to be with their family.

Or someone wasting their time working at one of 10 fast food places that are all right next to each other that no longer has to do that. How much is that job, or even that entire business, really contributing to the economy?

Fast food? Actually, literally feeding people? It's contributing a lot to the economy.

It's not like anyone is going to starve it a few of these places close. Once you factor in the negative health effects and the wasted potential of everyone staffing the place, I think the negative impact a basic income policy would have on the industry could actually be a good thing in the long run.

If you consider top-tier fast food chains have an average gross revenue > ~$2M and profits ~$100K, then that means The vast majority of that $2M is being dumped back into the economy in the form of purchasing supplies, equipment, and labor.

The other benefit for those not employed by or involved in the restaurant's supply chain is cheap and convenient food.

And let's not forget the elephant in the room: inflation. The real value of that money will disappear over night.

But it is detach from location. People can move if land becomes to expensive, unlike now, where land is tied to jobs.

> where land is tied to jobs.

With additional pressure when both parents work and can't survive with one of them unemployed - they lack the freedom to seek better positions elsewhere because they are limited to both having jobs all the time.

You believe 12k a year basic income will make people work less ?

We are constantly told that 7.25/hr isn't enough to live on, but people find a way to do so at the moment. 7.25 $/hr * 2000 hrs/year = 14500 which isn't far off from 12000. If the choice was between working for that and not working, I think the choice is easy.

Unless this program were to completely eliminate welfare spending, then you'd likely end up with people choosing not to work because they don't need to. This of course assumes that purchasing power doesn't change with the massive influx of cash into the economy.

A small percentage of the workforce is actually paid minimum wage and most get a better job once they have had the entry level experience. The idea that minimum wage should sustain an entire working life is a fringe one.

Considering that much of the democratic presidential platform this previous election cycle, I would have to disagree with the assertion that this view is a "fringe one."

Basic survival cannot force a person to work more than full time.

If you want to eliminate the possibility of people who don't need to work choosing not to work, you should be in favor of a 100% estate tax before you should be against UBI. Make it impossible for children to inherit enough wealth to live without working, and get those lazy parasites into the workforce where they belong!

(or you could look at what happens when people are actually presented with realistic options for escaping the cycle of minimum-wage poverty, but that's a few steps of consciousness-raising away from where you currently are)

People can choose to work or not. I just don't want to be stuck with the consequences of it. The word parasite means that they are increasing their well-being by reducing another individual's well-being.

The number of children who are able to live off of their parents / grandparents money and don't work at all is so finite that it isn't really worth mentioning. Alongside that, they are a net gain for the economy.

Think about it - you have vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases, and no impact to the labor force by them working. I may not agree with their decision to not work, but I really couldn't care less whether they do what I agree or not.

Also, a 100% estate tax would do one of two things: 1) create a disincentive for wealth accumulation as their is nothing to do with it afterwards thereby reducing their overall output 2) force those people into different investment vehicles where they can pass their wealth to their children as a "gift" prior to their passing.

That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though. For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down, or the funds that could have gone to their grandchildren's college is now funneled into the government, or other similar act of smallish amount of funds being siphoned off by the federal government.

So you've just advocated literal trickle-down economics here.

You are aware of the historical/empirical problems with it, yes?

Not trickle down, just that 1) there is a difference in economic impact between those who choose not to work and live off of inheritance vs. those who choose not to work and live off of government assistance, and 2) 100% estate tax has no relation to UBI.

The stated objection was that if people don't have to work, they'll choose not to.

If that's perceived as a problem, we already have that happening right now and aren't doing anything about it -- a complete confiscatory estate tax would solve it, though!

> vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases

Which feed people in remote countries minimum wage at best and keeps what looks like slavery at worst while it generates handsome profits for others who brought in very little value.

> create a disincentive for wealth accumulation

Which is actually a great thing: all that money will hit the economy much sooner.

> force those people into different investment vehicles

Like giving their offspring an education that'll allow them to pursue well paid positions. Gifts are also taxed and an exponential tax on their market value would be a smart thing. Also, they can be sure their children, no matter how deplorable, won't starve.

> That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though

So these people who make insane amounts of money while pressuring down compensation for the rest of society will bear most of the burden. Seems only fair.

Also, keep in mind these people are far too powerful now to freely give up their advantages. These ideas have the potential of getting very, very ugly.

> For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down

Regular people won't be affected, only a fraction of the richest 1%:

> a maximum amount, varying year by year, can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes:[2] $5,340,000 for estates of persons dying in 2014[3] and 2015,[4] $5,450,000 (effectively $10.90 million per married couple) for estates of persons dying in 2016.[5] Because of these exemptions, only the largest 0.2% of estates in the U.S. will pay the tax.[6]

> If the choice was between working for that and not working, I think the choice is easy.

You need to consider the humanitarian aspect of forcing someone to work multiple jobs and very long hours to avoiding starvation and sleeping on the streets.

If paying more taxes is the price to know no kid will sleep hungry and no family will have to live on the streets, I'll gladly do it. I don't care if they will or will not show up to work (I bet most will, because 12000+7000 is more than 12000).

If you think it's gonna stay at 12K you're dreaming. This is literally the most direct way for politicians to buy votes.

As someone who made about that much a year recently, absolutely. I wouldn't have just sat on my ass though. I would've been able to go to school instead of wasting years of my life working minimum wage just to get by.