Hacker News Reader

Comment by rinchik | Hacker News Reader

Ugh the whole idea of UBI scares me. It sends me shivers. The idea of shifting responsibility for a personal well being from a person to a governmental entity is really, really, really scary.

It will cost us larger government apparatus, more tangled, deeper bureaucracy, black hole for taxes, and is definitely something I wouldn't wish upon us.

IMHO, UBI teaches dependency, and is extremely politicized. And very, very easy to sell by corrupt politicians for votes (power). Once they have that power, how certain are you they wont use your dependency and wield this power against you?

View on HN

In a world where there were no existing welfare programs, I can see UBI discouraging work and increasing bureaucracy.

But almost every UBI/Negative income tax proposal that's serious wants to _replace_ existing disparate welfare programs with UBI.

The advantages of doing that replacement would be:

1. lower bureaucracy since we would just hand over checks to folks rather than doing all kinds of checks to see if they are eligible

2. every person would be treated the same way, we would get rid of welfare cliffs in benefits

You are stating a very decent, theoretical proposition I can agree with.

The problem is that this version/proposition works only in "isolated system" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system) i.e. "ideal theoretical environment", green field project, if you will.

Unfortunately, it can not happen in the real-world scenario. Existing welfare programs (80% of which, strictly in my personal opinion, is a politicized misgovernance), and dependency those have promoted are already deeply rooted in the brains of our population. 1000s of bureaucrats are employed with these programs that will not step down, people's minds and dynamics is a whole differen variable: In no way single Jessy with 5 children would agree to the same benefit as Susanne with only 2.

Also when Government was any good at anything? What we will end up with is a whole new governmental branch sucking on taxes with a set of newly emerged corrupted bureaucrats.

Well, I'll just say you have to separate the analysis of the policy proposal, from what kind of actual policy we would end up with given political constraints.

A similar critique of whether it's politically feasible could be made of any other proposal, including, say, a libertarian one where every existing welfare program is gutted.

> Also when Government was any good at anything?

Depends on who you ask, I guess.

> But almost every UBI/Negative income tax proposal that's serious wants to _replace_ existing disparate welfare programs with UBI.

Would this replace social security?

Taking away the the struggle to live is great for the human psyche. There's plenty of evidence that being in poverty creates a mental trap. When you're worrying about the roof over your head or food on the table, you're less concerned about your career or education. There's also the damaging long term mental affects of poverty such as impulsive buying, and the health effects such as poor diet, diabetes and obesity.

The biggest issue with UBI is mass unemployment. With ML threatening to take 40% of all jobs in the future it will be the perfect storm. It would create a massive, permanent, underclass. With no way to introduce capital into an economic system via labor, the only people able to make money will be landlords and business owners. It will be our current societal issues, only amplified to the next extreme. Landlords and business owners will see increasing UBI as dangerous, as buying land or creating a new company would be a threat. So they'll do their best to keep UBI at the level of being able to live, and not grow.

One of the arguments for UBI is a decreased bureaucracy because there is not a requirement to verify conditions on its recipients.

> your dependency and wield this power against you?

If there are conditions placed on the payment, it is not UBI.

It is also laughable to think that citizens of a large modern country are not already heavily dependent on the services supplied/organized by theri governments.

People would still be free to work and gain income that way... UBI doesn't force anyone to be dependent on the government.

I'm not sure why you think there would be a deeper bureaucracy. UBI would be way easier to administer than the current mishmash of welfare programs since there's no need to determine who qualifies or to what extent - everyone gets the same thing.

You are already depending on your government for roads, safety, health, laws, the military etc. So UBI is nothing new.

The funny thing is that if people wanted to implement some version of this without the government, they could. Take all the people who support UBI (there seem to be a ton of them online), have them pool a percentage of the income, and redistribute it evenly among the participants. The pool of participants could grow according to the success of the program. No government intervention required...and completely voluntary.

The arguments I've heard against it always seem to suggest that the proponents don't actually want to give any of their income (only the "rich" should), or that it will only work if the government does it everywhere all-or-nothing style.

The fed a private entity controls the printing and distribution of money into the system. The government gave them this power back in the early 1900s.

The government can easily print more money or have the FED do it for them. I'm sure there needs to be a balance in how much more vs taxes. Taxation is just a mechanism of control as is the current system. Wages in a lot of ways are slavery. You don't work you starve to death. You do work but don't work 2 jobs in some areas you starve to death.

You don't work on the plantation you starve to death or get beaten to death - it amounts to the same thing.

I for one would like to do away with taxes and the IRS as well. Instead we should have a VAT or sales tax system that would also ensure anyone visiting the country would pay. We could have an ID card so citizens get a lower tax -thus negating a lot of the anger/resentment about non-american's in the country.

Sales tax could adjust 1-2% each year based on balances and surpluses. Since all would pay the tax without deductions/etc more money would come back. The tax would ALSO apply to all spenditures i.e. hourly wages is taxed at the same 10% or whatever it is, investments taxed at 10% when placed, and the investee pays when paying back. If money exchanges hands there's a tax by the recipient of that money (not private exchange) but consumer-to-business, employer-to-employee, business-to-business. We also should up estate taxes, and land/property taxes in order to get the fair share from the wealthy.

With the sales tax though there's no filing except for businesses/employers for most things. People just don't think about it.

With UBI, sales tax, and universal healthcare combined we get rid of the following bloated bureactratic systems: IRS, Welfare facilities, Housing Assistance, VFA (give veterans a higher pay | universal healthcare), Medicare/Medicaid (Streamlined into one org at least), Insurance Companies Medical Billers Lawyers that deal with healthcare/insurance issues Local/State welfare and ancillary services Homeless Shelters (Make the only requirement for UBI be you have a place to live and are not homeless. Checks can be mailed to a physical address only).

I may be missing a few agencies...but I'm sure we could easily get rid of 5-10 million needless jobs. Lucky for them they all get basic income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com