Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordnacho | Hacker News Reader

I actually like the basic income idea, though I hadn't arrived at it from an automation perspective.

If you're guaranteed money, you do away with the marginal effects of means-tested benefits. Basically, if you're a low income earner it can happen that you face a very high effective tax rate, in many countries. If you're guaranteed money, you don't have this marginal tax problem; you can sit on your ass or work for a bit of extra money. If you already make more, take it as a tax allowance.

This in turn means you do away with the means testing system. No more forms to fill out; no more mandatory courses that do nothing but line the pockets of the course provider. No more looking over people's shoulders to see if they're cheating. No more pressure on doctors to write iffy diagnoses.

There are of course issues with this system. For instance what do you do about immigration?

View on HN

This in turn means you do away with the means testing system. No more forms to fill out; no more mandatory courses that do nothing but line the pockets of the course provider.

But then how do you buy votes to get elected? Decreasing government power and discretion is never a good idea, because it makes it harder to reward your lobbyists and donors.

> There are of course issues with this system. For instance what do you do about immigration?

I am guessing that it will need to be implemented globally or at least regionally (e.g North-America, Europe, etc). Every country according to their possibilities.

I'm curious why you think this would be necessary. If UBI was for citizens only and it was funded by consumption, visitors would end up paying into it and then would have to petition for reimbursement (much like I have to do when I visit countries with VAT in Europe). Many folks won't bother because the amounts are small.

As far as immigration, they'd need a job to survive here much like they do today and only once they achieve citizenship would they be eligible for UBI. I wouldn't see this changing much from today.

That is probably correct. It is not like achieving citizenship is easy.

More importantly the math doesn't work out. Some people have way more costs because they're disabled, sick, have a large number of kids.

What's the problem with that? You have an NHS-like system for the sick, and you pay basic income for kids, too. (Perhaps at half the adult rate for people under 18?)

The most important part of a universal basic income, in my opinion, is to not provide it for people under 18, otherwise, you're incentivizing people to have more children (which in many macro cases is a good thing, but in practice in the US would probably have immediate negative impacts).

In reality, birthrates in every developed country have crashed below extinction level; providing an actually universal basic income might help reverse that.

But if that's not going to be the case, if 'universal' is going to be a lie, then I'm opposed to the whole concept. Our society has too much bullshit ageism as it stands. The current social welfare system, flawed as it is, is better than bringing in more.

What makes 18 special?

These two perspective are almost irreconcilable.

Those supporting the current system think that it triages need and allocates more to those with more needs. The basic income way of thinking doesn't consider this, everyone gets the same. Everyone getting the same is essential

I lean towards the latter, I think the benefits system is an expensive and ineffective way to triage needs. EG, rent allowance. If we could have a basic income set at a level above the median benefits for non workers, almost everyone would be better off, but not everyone.

Some people would be worse off, unless you take the highest possible benefits and use that as the basic income, but that's unaffordable.

The thing is, I think that the state is very far from meeting people's needs and assuming full responsibility for it. There are right now people who should be eligible or are eligible for some benefit, but aren't getting it. The State can help. It can minimize problems, but it can't solve them fully. I think charities, families and such also need to play a role. I think the idea that the state can make sure people's needs are met is just false. A lot of the triage mechanisms are about pretending that it is, not ensuring that it is.

But there are those without other help, that have no other way of supplementing income that have additional costs. These people will be worse off. Other people will be better off. I think the bigger win should inform the decision, but this is unlikely.

> These two perspective are almost irreconcilable.

Not really. There are many aspects of the current welfare state system, and there's no reason that some features couldn't be replaced with a UBI, while some situationally-tested features could be retained. The relative costs and effectiveness of various testing methods aren't all the same -- e.g., the adverse incentives of means-testing aren't present with, say, targeting aid based on medical diagnosis. One could replace means-tested programs with UBI but not other targeted programs. UBI can be conceived as replacing all targeted programs, but it doesn't have to be, and it especially doesn't have to do so all at once.

> If we could have a basic income set at a level above the median benefits for non workers, almost everyone would be better off, but not everyone.

Whether that's true or not depends on how you fund the UBI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com