Hacker News Reader

Comment by transfire | Hacker News Reader

It certainly makes a lot of sense. Just consider the reduction in crime it could bring about. That alone is nearly enough to make it worth it.

However, 20k is a bit too high. You don't want to discourage people from working altogether. After considerable thought, I think the equivalent of a part-time job at minimum wage makes the most sense.

View on HN

> You don't want to discourage people from working altogether.

20k is basically poverty, you are not going to remove any desires at that level.

> I think the equivalent of a part-time job at minimum wage makes the most sense.

The idea is to make sure that when all else fails, you can still cover the necessities of life, things like eating and a place to sleep. Part-time minimum wage doesn't come close to that.

20k is not poverty. I live in a luxury townhouse on Vancouver Island (aka paradise), paying $600/month for half the rent. My total outgoings are probably about $1200/month, so $20k would be more than enough to live on. Yes, you would pay more in Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver or Victoria, but if you're not working then you wouldn't need to live in those expensive cities.

I think $15k would be a better figure, as it wouldn't let you live so comfortably and therefore there would still be an incentive to go out and work.

McDonalds and Walmart would probably go out of business, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. We would be left with higher end restaurants where people are paid a good salary to work somewhere that they enjoy.

Wait, we should push the poor to spend at Whole Foods and dine at fine restaurants? How is making them spend a significantly higher percentage of their income on food a good thing again?

I think he meant that nobody would choose to work at places like Walmart and McDonalds, when they would be provided the same wage already; not that nobody would eat there.

Though, when people aren't having to work dead-end jobs to survive, maybe they could take time to prepare food properly and cheaply instead of buying "convenient" $5 burgers?

Yes, you have a good point. I think the price of everything would probably go up, so you might find that the basic income is suddenly not enough to live on.

I think it's impossible to know for sure whether basic income would be financially viable unless you actually implement it.

20k will go a long way. If you're single, you can spend 1k/mo on an apartment, which will get you a furnished place with television and wifi in a number of Canadian cities, and even downtown in some bigger cities like Montreal. You can toss $100/wk to groceries which will allow you to eat great food, and use the remaining 5k for renting a car when you need it, traveling, going out, etc.

If you're a couple, double that, $2k/mo will get you a wonderful place to stay. It'll be difficult to build a savings, or to have a few children, but it'll go a long way, and I think it'll highly discourage people from working after graduating.

Now, I don't think everyone needs to work in our society, but that's another can of worms.

> 20k is basically poverty, you are not going to remove any desires at that level.

Your milage may vary. Living in rural Canada, I calculated my expenditures to be under $20,000 last year. I don't feel I'm living in poverty at all (I have a developer's income if I want/need to spend more). My only concern is that $20K would not leave much room to save for the future, but if the income is guaranteed for the rest of your life, perhaps that is less of a concern?

>Part-time minimum wage doesn't come close to that.

Then who do you think is going to do the part-time minimum-wage jobs?

No one. They can just get more money for doing nothing.

Obviously, employers will start paying a lot more for part-time menial jobs, or go out of business. All of a sudden, Canadians will be asking "Why did everything get so expensive?" and "Why can't teens find jobs these days?"

> "who do you think is going to do the part-time minimum-wage jobs?"

If "Basic Income" is implemented the way I understand it, the income from a part-time minimum wage job would stack on top of it (minus some amount of tax).

The idea isn't that you make more by not working. The idea is that you can live (not very comfortably) without working, and that every bit of work you do marginally improves your income and therefore your comfort level. This makes part-time minimum-wage jobs a reasonable target for people who want slightly more amenities than they can afford at the basic income level.

>If "Basic Income" is implemented the way I understand it, the income from a part-time minimum wage job would stack on top of it (minus some amount of tax).

Based on the comments here, I don't think this proposal is for basic income. Rather, if you already make more than 20K, you don't get anything.

Well no, you wouldn't get more money for doing nothing. If you're unemployed with few skills, your options are this:

1) Stay unemployed and live off 20k/yr. 2) Work a min wage job and live off 40k/yr.

Many people will choose option 2.

Also consider the cost of day care, for families of a single parent, or where both parents work. Plenty of numbers in:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf

I lived in urban Vancouver on less than that for years. It wasn't pleasant, but food and housing were never a serious problem. Although, if I had had dependents, I would have needed more.

20k CAD ~= 19k USD ~= 11k GBP ~= 14 EUR

If this was per adult in the UK then I'd be getting a substantial income boost over what I'm earning at present.

These are the UK minimum wage rates: https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

    21 and over:    £6.31
    18 to 20:       £5.03
    Under 18:       £3.72
    Apprentice*:    £2.68

* This rate is for apprentices aged 16 to 18 and those aged 19 or over who are in their first year. All other apprentices are entitled to the National Minimum Wage for their age.

    6.31 * 40 * 52 = £13,124.80 per year  - for over 20s.
    5.03 * 40 * 52 = £10,462.40 per year  - for 18 to 20 year olds.
    3.72 * 40 * 52 =  £7,737.60 per year  - for under 18 year olds.

I have no idea when tax credits or income support or housing benefit kick in. But if you're getting less than this you should probably speak to an advisor somewhere to make sure you're getting everything that you're entitled to.

Lol, yes, doesn't apply to directors ... it's partly by choice, in that we've chosen a lifestyle that prefers family time over income. My point was more to indicate that it's quite possible to live comfortably on these sorts of incomes (we have a mortgage and run a car, have internet and a mobile phone contract, go out on trips, have holidays [not abroad], can afford occasional takeaways and meals out too, we're not destitute).

Thanks for caring enough to give that information though.

I thought minimum wage was around £12k per year. Are you studying and/or only working part time?

11k GBP is close to minimum wage no? May I ask what you do?

This is simply wrong. How can you even say that? A family of four would get $80K, which is certainly not poverty level.

Most implementations I've seen children under 18 don't get the full amount. See a lot of $15k adult $3-5k children under 18.

"You don't want to discourage people from working altogether."

Employers needing employees will have to come up with something better than "come to work or starve" as an incentive. HNers should be familiar with a large number of methods.

It has to be livable on in order to prevent the crime people are forced to do when they aren't making enough to live on though.

Is crime in Canada really motivated by basic subsistence? In developing countries, and in the US this is sometimes the case, but even then, there are "honest" opportunities which aren't that much worse.

There are multiple studies and meta studies presenting a link between inequality and crime. So even if it's not for basic subsistence it does appear that raising the lower end of society up could improve the crime rate. Though I admit that's not a comment on the reason for the crime.

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/2/182.abstract

I don't think 20k is too high. We're burning more money than that per person just to maintain programs to deal with poverty, homelessness, etc.

But those programs only apply to a small proportion of the population. This would apply to everyone.

I just assumed the article didn't address that properly. Simply because that number would be astronomical and not practical. It should only apply to those who require it, under a certain threshold.

It has to apply to everyone or it doesn't work. Otherwise you would see a massive effective marginal tax level at whatever point it was cut off. (Even if ramped down, although to a lesser extent.) What could be done instead is that the entire tax structure is altered so that much of the cost of the basic income is spread over the entire middle and upper range of income tax brackets, such that the middle class end up in roughly the same situation they were before the GBI was introduced.

That's not basic income. Basic income by its definition goes to everyone. That's what makes it an appealing substitute for minimum wage, welfare, etc.

People usually talk about basic income plus an adjustment in tax and the rest of welfare programs, to make it come out neutral for the average person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com