Hacker News Reader

> it's literally the very goal of UBI to reduce (or even eliminate, in the case of "full" basic income) the need to hold a job just to have enough income to merely survive

Without significantly raising taxes on the people who decide to continue to work, how can this be paid for? Genuine question.

Why do you rule out raising taxes on people who do work? Does that lead to a logical impossibility of some sort?

I mean, do you really have an incentive to work if 90% of the money is going to taxes which pay for the other people not working? Obviously not, that’s a terrible deal.

And if it’s that hard to find employees, companies will just have to pay a LOT for labor, most of which still goes to taxes, but also causes prices to go up because the company’s costs are so high. Which causes COL to increase because all products have higher costs. Which means “basic” income needs increases, driving up costs, etc etc.

> I mean, do you really have an incentive to work if 90% of the money is going to taxes which pay for the other people not working? Obviously not, that’s a terrible deal.

It's not obvious at all; in fact the tax percentage is meaningless on its own. People get too hung up on tax rates instead of focusing on purchasing power and quality of life. It's almost like adding zeros to the currency. The only thing that matters is your purchasing power (which comes from your net income), not your gross income or what percentage tax that corresponded to. Like if (in today's economy) you pay me $10M/year and I have to pay 90% of that in taxes, I would happily work for you. If you pay me $10k/year, I wouldn't even work for you if my "tax" rate was -100%.

Is there a way to make the math work out? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe it's impossible, maybe it's practical, or maybe it would come with so much baggage that we'll prefer the status quo. What I do know is that the people who declare the answer is obvious consistently arrive at that conclusion by artificially constraining the problem in some way that is not implied by the premises, like "you can't raise taxes significantly", or "you can't touch defense spending", or "we won't decrease healthcare costs", or numerous other things.

>It's not obvious at all; in fact the tax percentage is meaningless on its own. People get too hung up on tax rates instead of focusing on purchasing power and quality of life.

1. in an economy where 30% (or whatever) of people aren't working and the remaining are getting taxed higher % of their income to fund the people who are not working, how is the living standard of the people who are working go up?

2. A sense of "fairness" factors into this as well. People are known to reject "unfair" deals, even though the said unfair deal would still give them strictly positive values.

1. They try to find higher paying jobs to earn more money to raise their living standards. Which is exactly what people who want higher living standards would do right now. I'm not sure I understand your question.

2. The "fairness" that's relevant here is a function of (say) "net income/expended effort", not "tax rate". People get mad that others who put similar effort earn a lot more net income than them, not a lot more gross income.

I think the issue though is that one can not look at money in this situation. A higher paying job means you are more productive, at least to whoever is employing you. It maybe, imo will be, the case that the few people who remain cannot increase the amount of goods and services they produce to provide for the rest of the population.

For example, if before UBI a worker on average was producing one car, and assuming that after UBI half the working population quits their job, that worker now needs to produce two cars for everyone to maintain their standard of living. Except since that additional car must go to the UBI recipient, in other words his income was taxed, his quality of life does not go up despite becoming more productive. So either he needs to become more productive through than one more car so that he can raise his own standard of living, or he just won’t do it.

The rational play is to live off UBI and diamond hands speculative assets, not find a better job. The reason is that with UBI you can believe enough other people will be doing the same, leading to speculative bubble after speculative bubble.

Why would you assume there is enough funds left over to be able to speculate on assets?

Why would you assume there’s not?

Given any amount of UBI people will be able to fix their costs below that and put the rest toward speculation.

I don’t know of a way to fix UBI right at cost because there is so much variability for a person’s costs.

There might be some small amount of leftover for a few of the population, but I doubt it would be much to speculate with other than on scratch off lotteries.

Presumably, UBI would be a single number nationwide. For example, a politically acceptable minimum quality of life in the middle of Mississippi or whatever is cheapest. There is no worrying about people’s variable costs. If they want to live somewhere more expensive, they work for it.

> 1. They try to find higher paying jobs to earn more money to raise their living standards. Which is exactly what people who want higher living standards would do right now. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Where will these higher paying jobs come from? Are they coming from automation or by virtue of UBI being implemented? If it's the former, if I'm 2x more productive, why should I have to give up 0.8x of that productivity to non-workers? Moreover, why should I stay in a jurisdiction that taxes me the productivity gains, as opposed to another jurisdiction that lets me keep all the gains?

>2. The "fairness" that's relevant here is a function of (say) "net income/expended effort", not "tax rate". People get mad that others who put similar effort earn a lot more net income than them, not a lot more gross income.

Is there any research to suggest that people only care about net income/effort rather than gross? It seems pretty obvious in this thread that at least some people are care about the gross income/effort, as evidenced by the disdain of people on UBI as lazy weed smokers.

Isn't this why states like California have higher tax rates than the rest of the nation?

How is this any different from other social programs like Social Security or Welfare?

> do you really have an incentive to work if 90% of the money is going to taxes

There's no reason the tax rate would have to hit that number, or anywhere close to that number. I'd like to see math that supports it. Most math I've seen suggests a far more modest increase in taxes.

UBI is generally thought of as a solution to rising AI. The taxes would come from the corporations generating income from AI and redistributed towards the people, in a sort of "fake" market economy, because the alternative is that the rich own all assets and their economy grinds to a halt because consumers don't have money to buy the corporations' goods anymore, which also causes the corporations to fail too.

lol yeah the guy up there who uses the example of a worker now needing to make "two cars" is very short-sighted and kinda misses the point overall, I can't think of an industry that is a better example of human beings regularly being replaced by machines than manufacturing.

I think the reason youd want to rule this out is because of democracy and the unwillingness of workers to pay UBI to non-workers.

I don’t see a situation where people would be comfortable where workers pay more taxes so people can choose not to work.

There’s not enough billionaires (yet) to tax at 90% to cover this.

I think a more reasonable approach to UBI is to reduce costs for staple goods to such a low rate that it doesn’t cost as much and the need to work is reduced without raising taxes or introducing a freeloader problem. This is positive outcome of AI and cheap energy (think Star Trek).

Genuine answer: Either tax the stuffings out of everyone, or "money printer go brrrr".

If you spend your time around artists and engineers you might think that freeing people from their jobs will lead to a modern-day Italian Renaissance but if you knew the people I knew growing up you’d realize that the need to go to work is the only thing keeping them from being even more violently alcoholic than they already are.

Brave New World addressed this by classifying members of society into “alpha,” “beta,” “gamma,” etc.

The lower classes just worked and took drugs (soma) so they could withstand working.

Of course Huxley was writing sci-fi but it does fit into human nature of kind or messing around if possible. Look at chimps… they basically just gather food, sex, and lounge about. We aren’t too far evolved from chimps.

Huxley's Island is his counter-point to the world of BNW. In it they take drugs for enlightenment. He creates a society inspired by Confucian meditation as well as through the economic lens of Henry George. Henry George advocated for a UBI(what he called citizen's dividend) funded through the taxation of land values.

I think this alpha and beta framing is a useful one. I just watched the John Carmack keynote where he is talking about the Oculus operating system, and in it he is seething that the team around him is not valuing simple and piling complexity and its resulting slowness. In a world where only the people who were truly interested in innovation were working with him, I expect that the accidental complexity would be minimized, and the efficiency of his work would go through the roof even more than it has. Trying to make everyone as productive as possible turns out to have large negative effects on those who are as driven for innovation and those people are so productive that this is a net loss long term.

I love how it's just admitted at this point that the endgame is just "more people smoking weed all day" except for those that have ambition.

I personally know several 1000+ GitHub projects where the author is a hugee stoner. A non trivial amount of code from WFH engineers is written while they are blazed.