Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_real_me | Hacker News Reader

I strongly suspect that the lion's share of UBI would go directly to landlords or existing property owners.

This is true, which is why UBI would have to be combined with housing reform. Both are doable and needed.

One of my favourites is to encourage cooperative housing and to have the government become a landlord itself, but with rents capped to a share of income. This way, the government would have an incentive to make the system more efficient and to make more and better public housing, as the money would go back to the government budget and they would be able to lower taxes as a result. At the same time, the private housing market will have to compete. The idea of allowing the government to make a reasonable profit as measured by outcomes to the consumer is very successful for many endeavors, and it makes it very unpopular to cut public services as it would necessitate a tax increase. We have done this in Quebec with Hydro-Quebec and, unlike many crown corporations, it has resisted privatization, while still providing the best prices to the consumer in the world for electricity, without any subsidies (as it generates net profit for the government), and many very good jobs.

Beyond this, it has caused cascading positive externalities not only in Quebec but throughout the world - as it has pioneered mass production techniques of LiFePO4 battery technology that is now becoming dominant for EVs, greatly improved brushless hub motor technology which is now used in many low-cost EVs, and facilitated the construction of renewable energy projects.

This however requires a large change in ideology, as current neoliberal and neoconservative dominant ideologies not only refuse to admit the fact that the government can provide a better overall service than the free market, but are deathly afraid of allowing state owned enterprises to compete with private businesses as a matter of principle. This limits the scope of solutions to many problems.

>but with rents capped to a share of income. This way, the government would have an incentive to make the system more efficient and to make more and better public housing, as the money would go back to the government budget and they would be able to lower taxes as a result.

Can you explain this a bit more? What would be their sources of income other than rents? I am not able to follow your efficiency argument.

The more efficient these rentals are run, the higher the profit the government makes. The more money the government makes, the less they need to tax and the more services they can provide, and the more votes you get. If they don't run these well, people will leave to the private sector, reducing government income, which would then have to cut services and raise taxes, losing them votes. So there is a strong incentive to run the service efficiently.

Hmm, it seems like you're suggesting setting up a system where the private and public sectors keep the other in-check, with incentives to make sure it happens. But I see some practical points of concern, e.g. in most rent-controlled housing, the rent (eventually) gets to be much lower than the private market - thus removing pressure that customers will leave. Also, historically most governments seem to have no trouble getting votes even as their services become more and more inefficient over time. I guess I just don't see it working as you described. But its quite possible that I'm just too cynical! :)

Like it happens with current salaries. The problem is not universal income but an economic system that rewards rent seeking.

Why stop at 'Basic income'? Why not 'Basic Housing', 'Basic Food' and others?

The basic idea behind income instead of housing/food is that individuals are better at figuring out their needs than the state.

Well in the US governments should do more to ensure cheap housing exists, and that groceries are available.

But providing it for free is less optimal than a basic income.

Either way it's a pretty direct tradeoff. Basic Housing and Basic Food would mean that a much smaller Basic Income would do a similar job.

Good point. As production technology improves alongside automation, bringing us closer towards a post-scarcity civilization, society will be able to make more guarantees, as they are materially trivial to create.

Yes, most developed countries have programs for affordable housing and food supplements. UBI helps with that as well.

This is what the military does. Of course, you’re expected to work.

Income Basic Allowance for Housing Basic Allowance for Sustenance

Would they get any more than the status quo?

I suspect the extra support may translate to decreased profits for landowners. Tenants would have more time and money to file maintenance issues and represent themselves in the legal system, which would cost landowners. In Ontario it costs $50 and takes a lot of time and energy to file a complaint to the LTB. Tenants would also have more ability to change their situation in response to abuse, shop around for a better deal on housing, etc.

In many U.S. states you need not even bother going to court, because of robust "implied warranty of habitability" statutes and precedents. A person who experiences real habitability issues such as no heat, no cooking fuel, doors or windows that don't close and lock, etc after notifying landlords and waiting a reasonable time (which is as short as 24 hours in the case of no heat) can simply hire someone to fix it and deduct the actual cost from rent. It would be on the landlord to initiate legal action, if they disagreed with the outcome. The tenant has no obligation to go through courts.

In Ontario,Canada you can pre pay for repairs, but you aren't allowed to deduct those amounts from rent. Here, you would need to front $500+ or whatever to have the work done, and then pay $50 for a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing booking (which have been delayed months). Then you need to show up, prove the work was needed, that the landlord had enough time to do it and didn't, and that you minimized the costs.

(A joint tenant advice, contracting and paralegal brokerage might be a good business in this area. But do I really want to make myself a major enemy of all the scummy landowners? Noooope.)

Municipal offices will intervene on their own to ensure things like heating are taken care of. In Waterloo the minimum allowed temp is 21C or 70F. In my experience with this city's offices, they will take care of this almost immediately (immediately respond to form on website via email asking for evidence of sub 21C settings, then call the landlord and request the temp be increased etc.)

This sounds like it would quickly devolve into a very socially unstable state.

For every legitimate complainant, there’d be a hundred entitled moochies with nothing better to do than work the bureaucracy to their own benefit, entirely at the cost of the few remaining people actually doing any work.

One, why waste $50 on a complaint which won't have any effect?

Two, the bureaucracy actually should help with the real moochies. In Ontario Canada tenant protections are crazy and it can take 6+ months for a landlord to evict a non-paying tenant. The official resolution for landlords is to ask the bureaucracy for help.

(The non-official resolution is promoting ignorance about tenant protection laws, legitimately or illegitimately making use of the "family moving in" loophole, and hopefully not any more.)

UBI makes it a lot easier to move someplace cheaper rather than being forced to live where the jobs are.

Wouldn't those prices spike with supply/demand though?

Maybe if everyone moved to the same low cost of living area and tried to achieve the same densities as the high cost of living areas for some inane reason. Realistically the increase in demand in any one area would be negligible - Tulsa isn't going to become a happening place.

No, UBI does not spawn new people to life.

Oh, it very much can "spawn new people" - all those couples that always wanted a second/third child but couldn't financially afford it will now be able to :)

Not to mention all those illegal immigrants storming the borders.

Not if it was paid for by a tax on rental income. 100% tax on everything over the equivalent mortgage payment on the property would be a lovely cap on rent values.

There's not an objective number for that. But if we assume there is, then you are simply guaranteeing that no rentals will exist, because landlords pay higher taxes than a resident mortgagor, and they have overhead.

Only if you ignore the appreciation on the investment asset (eg the house). That's most of the reason to rent out a house - for the future sale of the property. This would just mean landlords would need to buy the maintenance costs until they sell up.

There are some benefits to being a tenant, but your proposal would basically make it impossible, since your landlord would have to be losing money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com