Comment by ThrustVectoring | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThrustVectoring | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ThrustVectoring

>you can't subsidize the many at their own expense and have it result in a positive effect.

You can if it changes local incentives to cause a better overall outcome. For example, a tragedy-of-the-commons situation can be improved by having each over-user give up their share of use to a monopolist whose subsidies replace the lost income.

This is explicitly one of the goals of replacing the current social safety nets with UBI. The social safety net as it stands has some extraordinarily shitty incentives. The effective marginal rate on income can exceed 100% in some situations, where income-based phase-outs of benefits are higher than the extra money you make. When I worked pizza delivery, my boss at one time had to scramble to figure out how to decline a pay raise that made her ineligible for childcare subsidies that cost more than the increase in take-home pay.

>But when you make it universal, my economics intuition says that the effect will be washed out by a commensurate rise in prices.

This is why a university degree isn't what it used to be, IMO, and why I oppose the college subsidies people are talking about. The net effect is that an undergraduate degree basically becomes what a high school degree is right now.

Sorry to be annoying on this topic, but:

This is explicitly one of the goals of replacing the current social safety nets with UBI.

UBI can't replace social safety nets. It's impossible. 12k for every adult is 3 trillion dollars, which almost always assumes cutting other programs. What about healthcare? I bet most would rather have comprehensive health coverage instead of 12k every year, but you can't have both. In the US we have neither.

You'd have to lose safety nets to make UBI work, financially. If you can show otherwise, do you mind explaining it?

part of our high healthcare costs are from not using a universal system. Other Western countries are achieving same or better outcomes with far less costs. I do agree that UBI will not work if we leave some of the things we consider basics now, such as food, housing, or(in my opinion) basic healthcare to be provided by competitive corporations, then we are essentially just going to be putting the money in their pockets

I really wish critiques would go birdseye. We're talking about radically restructuring our economy. Don't hold back.

UBI burden assumes current costs. That's short sighted.

--

Transitioning to single payer (medicare for all) would 1/2 our costs, at least. This is a no brainer, comparing Canada & USA's per capita spending.

I believe, but cannot prove, that adopting capitation model (incentivize wellness vs fee for service, treating disease) would knockoff another 1/2.

I think we'll still pay more than other countries, because we fund so much research, use some much more new tech. Which I wholeheartedly support.

--

Food costs can be brought way down thru better logistics, incentives, thereby reducing food waste. Ending subsidies for corn, wheat, soya, diary would reduce food waste and improve public health. A double win.

--

The USA has more housing than people. If people didn't need to relocate for jobs, allowing people to go to the available housing, per capita spending would also plummet.

No serious plan for UBI comes without progressive tax increases, so that at some income threshold you start paying more in additional taxes than you receive in UBI.

3 trillion isn't anywhere close to the actual cost when you consider this.

What do you mean by safety nets? If you mean economic need-based programs, so something like "if you earn less than X, you get Y for free", UBI generally assumes the elimination of all such programs, so yes, it does assume cutting other programs. In fact one of the goals of UBI is to replace many complicated welfare trap-generating programs with a single non-welfare-trap one, with the advantage of also eliminating the bureaucracy that those need-based programs require.

What I mean is it is no way those targeted programs can be replaced with UBI. If someone is getting 30k of value from an existing or existing welfare programs, cutting it back to 12k removes their social safety net, regardless of the straight cash they get. Worse, if they run out of that, they really have no safety net remaining.

How does UBI take into account mental incompetence, addictions, poor decision-making, bad luck, and bad investments, and where do you draw the line?

Don't a lot of welfare payments have strings attached, with regard to what you can spend it on? UBI explicitly does not, so you can use it for anything you want. If UBI did completely replace the social safety net, and someone gambles/fritters away their basic income and can't get a job to make more, are they allowed to starve (or depend completely on private charity)?

Same way Social Security works - with the exception of federal taxes and criminal judgements, SS payments are largely exempt from garnishment or other actions to seize assets to repay debts. You can't lose your UBI by taking a loan and gambling the proceeds away, because the debtor cannot force you to use UBI to repay the loan.

That makes sense for debts, but how do you handle people who immediately blow their monthly UBI payment and don't have anything left over for food or rent? At least with food stamps, you kind of have to use it on food.

Weekly or even daily payments would cover part of that. You know the amount that should be added to an account each day pretty easily, since it's the same for everyone. If they waste it and still can't afford food or rent, well, at some point you have to make that their problem.

What is the difference between that and me gambling away my salary? It's not like I will get welfare because I gambled away all my money.

Why do you assume people will get less under UBI than they do now?

As everyone gets UBI, at first glance it might seem that the poor will get a smaller piece of the cake, but in reality a person with a good income will just give it back through taxes.

Of course, some specific people might end up being worse off (like a person who gets $30k of welfare), but on average poor people should be better off under UBI. Mainly because they can work and not lose anything.

It's pretty simple the way I see it: the military and associated agencies are ripe for a budget cut.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com