Hacker News Reader

> I personally don't trust my government (US) to implement this properly without any special niches carved out for someone.

This is already the case. Except this solution eliminates a lot of the existing opportunities for corruption by generally simplifying the model.

> There will absolutely be people who abuse the system and use this money to not cover their required expenses and use it for a variety of things they don't need.

It's a thousand bucks- pretty hard to live large on 1k. Besides, comparing the issue of poor people abusing handouts to corporate welfare is molehills to mountains. If your concern is abuse having a detrimental impact on the society as a whole, don't look at poor people.

> It's a thousand bucks- pretty hard to live large on 1k. Besides, comparing the issue of poor people abusing handouts to corporate welfare is molehills to mountains. If your concern is abuse having a detrimental impact on the society as a whole, don't look at poor people.

Absolutely, I agree that the corporate welfare is absurd and I was completely against the bailouts. I'm not singling out poor people but rather abusers of the system. I completely understand needing welfare to help you get you back on your feet after being let go from a position. I would also hope that people can budget better in the case of no work for a while.

I'm curious about your worry over abusers of the system. Maybe it's the conditions I've lived in, but I always got the sense that abusers of systems where greatly exaggerated. I don't have any hard data to point to, but I thought people like welfare abuseres where a small enough part of the problem as to be effectively inconsequential?

> Except this solution eliminates a lot of the existing opportunities for corruption by generally simplifying the model.

But you're just assuming that this exact plan gets implemented, and then gets followed.

You would prefer the current welfare system, which requires the government to make decisions about who gets what money, to a system that is designed to require zero judgement on the part of any government officials?

Never trust a government plan that says "we're going to add this new program, and replace these others", because the latter will never actually happen. The creation of the new program and the deletion of the old would need to happen in exactly the same bill.

I think your objections are reasonable, but miss the point of what basic income is trying to accomplish. Basic income is a more libertarian answer to the problem that all people share some basic needs. The success of failure of the system should considered overall.

I am sure that, if it were implemented, there would be many exceptions and special cases. I don't agree that all those exceptions or special cases would be bad or to serve "special interests." EX: severely disabled people may retain the services they used to receive through discontinued social assistance programs as it would be unrealistic to support their increased needs out of the same pool everyone uses (as we've already decided their increased needs should be supported).

I also expect there would be people who mis-managed the money, just as there are those who mis-manage the support they receive through the current US social net.

However, considering how hellishly complex the current systems are, my gut feeling is that both the problems you outlined above would be reduced. The straightforward nature of such a program would make it vastly easier for people to access the services they get for their money.

The question you should really ask is if BI seems like a better answer than the current system.

P.s. I'm not sure how I feel about BI, but I think your objections aren't the biggest worry.

I'm baffled why any libertarians support basic income. It's basic wealth redistribution. It's forcing those who work to financially support those who don't work at threat of jail time.

I'm assuming your comment is rhetorical, right?

Why would you assume that? I did add the word "any" in case you thought I was saying libertarians in general support BI.

The additional word makes it a lot clearer. We're on the same page.

I am not a libertarian, though I don't think all their ideas are bad.

I agree it doesn't look like a policy they would support, but I think they get there using the following axioms. 1) It's better for me if there is a functioning common society 2) People will do anything to survive 3) People without sufficient resources will gain them however they can, often inefficiently 4) I eventually pay for externalities

These assumptions lead to the conclusion that it's in their interests to have an efficient system to fulfill the basic needs of everyone. There's some grim logic that say that killing people would be cheaper, but most people are repulsed by it and it's often not true in practice.

libertarians would be (and are) completely opposed to basic income! Basic income is basically a monetary redistribution, which aligns more with socialism than anything else.

> libertarians would be (and are) completely opposed to basic income!

Many libertarians are not.

> Basic income is basically a monetary redistribution

OTOH, for many libertarians, its a more liberty-preserving one than means-tested welfare programs that it would replace.

> which aligns more with socialism than anything else.

While in the US, libertarianism is often associated with right libertarianism, and socialism is often associated with Soviet-style communism and other authoritarianisms, libertarian socialism is a real thing.

>Many libertarians are not.

Libertarian socialism is real, but does not represent the most popular use of the term libertarian. I'd also say the same thing for anarcho-capitalism, which is also often put under the libertarian umbrella.

> Libertarian socialism is real, but does not represent the most popular use of the term libertarian.

Libertarians who are not opposed to basic income are not exclusively libertarian socialists. To understand this, its useful to understand that BI isn't on top of existing programs, it replaces programs that involve government making more choices about who gets benefits, and what form those benefits take.

It's not "more libertarian" at all, since it goes against the complete idea of libertarianism. Income redistribution goes against everything that libertarians believe.

> There will absolutely be people who abuse the system and use this money to not cover their required expenses and use it for a variety of things they don't need.

And judging by any recent history, availability of easy money, specifically, availability of guaranteed easy money will encourage vendors to sell products as "free to you, just sign these papers turning over the next 9 months of your basic income to us".

A big thing I've heard stated is that basic income would basically have to be completely untouchable. You couldn't sign it away, it couldn't be garnished, you can't lose it in divorce, nothing. You just get this check and that's it.

  > My second problem with this is those who mismanage their 
  > money. There will absolutely be people who abuse the 
  > system and use this money to not cover their required 
  > expenses and use it for a variety of things they don't 
  > need.

The problem that basic income tries to address is that the super rich can't possibly spend enough on stuff that they don't need to generate the kind of economic activity that's required to keep large parts of the population in business and employed. Basic income's solution is to create more consumers. Even those who mismanage their basic income are generating economic activity.

This is one of the most insane and backwards things I've heard all day.

Edit (added my thoughts):

Person A works long hard hours to achieve something. Person B does not. Person A subsidizes person B. I don't agree with that. It's called robbery.

It's that simple.

I downvoted you. I'm interested in reading counterarguments rather than comments like this.

Thanks for owning up to it. I figured I'd get a few ;)

More "detail" added above.

Way to back that up with an actual reason.

  > Person A works long hard hours to achieve something. 
  > Person B does not. Person A subsidizes person B.

I'll leave aside whether there's a direct coorelation between hard work and income... Your example presumes that Person A has the opportunity to do hard work in exchange for a financial reward. The worry is that there's no work for Person A at all, because there's not enough consumer demand to employ him, because nobody else has a job either, because the few people who do have money are quite comfortable with what they have already and don't spend enough to keep many employed.

> I must be the only one who thinks basic income is insane.

No, you have plenty of company. A basic income that isn't based on merit is a political hot potato for reasons that should be obvious.

> I personally don't trust my government (US) to implement this properly without any special niches carved out for someone.

That's one problem, but a bigger problem is that, for those who have jobs they don't like, or who think working for a living is beneath them, this offers an incentive for narcissism.

> At the end of the month if they don't have any money left how will they cover their necessary expenses?

Oh, that's easy -- more basic income. :)

On the last point, if people don't buy the basics, then they literally have nothing to fall back on. This is the goal. Because everyone gets this basic amount of money, there would be no reason for someone to go without the basics except that they choose to. For once society at large would be able to actually say that a persons situation is completely of their own making.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this idea (though I think it would be far less harmful than the system we have now...IMO, a person should never be made worse off economically by choosing to work, and that's exactly what our current system produces), but in any case, the "people will blow the whole check and have no money left at the end of the month" argument doesn't seem like a good one to me. Any such system is almost certainly going to be card-based, not check-based. There's no reason why 1/365th of the annual amount couldn't be deposited to the card every day, rather than dropping in a big slug of cash once a month. Transaction costs would be slightly higher, but not by much (the government should be able to negotiate really, really good rates for transactions, and they're already getting pretty cheap).

Yeah, there are still going to be some people who go out and buy beer every morning. You can't fix everything. "Not perfect" isn't really an argument either, unless the person making it has a demonstrably perfect alternative.

"There will absolutely be people who abuse the system and use this money to not cover their required expenses and use it for a variety of things they don't need. At the end of the month if they don't have any money left how will they cover their necessary expenses?"

If someone is provided the resources they need, and still cannot make their life function, they need some kind of help other than "more resources." Being more able to identify these individuals and provided more targeted assistance is actually one of the positive things about a BI program.

"On paper this sounds great" That pretty much sums up almost every single government wealth-redistribution program ever.

It's oh so easy for us all to play arm-chair "fix-the-world" with other people's money. Yet, I don't see anyone proposing a voluntary and opt-in solution to any of these problems. It's all, "screw you, you're paying for it".

Well, except for the freedom-loving individuals in the anarcho-capitalist and libertarian community. They seem to be on the right track when it comes to giving people choice.

>>>It's all, "screw you, you're paying for it".

No, it's "we're all paying for it". I'm in a high enough tax bracket that I wouldn't benefit (financially) from a basic income, and neither would the vast majority of my friends and relations. I'm still in favour of one, because I think it's better for society overall.

Voluntary and opt-in programs are ludicrous for taxation. The benefits produced by the spending of those tax dollars are universal; roads, healthcare, public education, law and order, etc. are critical to a functioning society and would fall apart if anyone could just choose to freeload off those of us with sense.

Why is it that libertarians never consider it government wealth redistribution when one has government employees with guns come around and point them at people on a piece of earth that a piece of paper at a government office says one have an exclusive right to?

Especially when that piece of earth is on, say, the other side of the country from the person the piece of paper says owns it.

That's a form of government wealth redistribution that most libertarians seem to be a fan of.

I think you need to go look up the definition of Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism. Hint: It's not the definition you find on MSNBC/Fox/CNN/whatever.

I think you're trying too hard, and 'no true scotsman' fallacies don't really help your "argument".

>"'no true scotsman' fallacies don't really help your "argument"." I'm afraid you're going to have to elaborate on this one. Perhaps if you elucidated your point, I'd be able to rebut it.

You're claiming the libertarians the person you replied to aren't (real) libertarians by implication that the group he was referring to aren't (real) libertarians. It's like a christian claiming a lutheran doesn't practice christianity, i.e., it's a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Pretty much every libertarian I know of believes the state should enforce property law.

In anarcho-capitalism, people apparently have property rights to land that "he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him", per Wikipedia. Property rights defined on this basis (which is to say, none, as there is no such land in the real world) would somehow be enforced by private courts, maybe with use of force by everybody when everyone agrees with each other, somehow? What.

And what would the alternative to basic income be? Letting the unemployed starve?

That was easy to answer when low-level jobs were available, because most people take pride in having gainful employment, even it it involved putting hamburgers into a bag. But those low-level jobs are drying up, so the old remedies and incentives aren't going to work any more.

The solution isn't at all obvious. I will say this -- anyone who comes up with a workable solution that passes muster with the various political forces at work, will deserve his or her resulting fame.