5 ms·

Another way to look at this is tax money that the government would have spent is now spent by the citizenry directly. Giving people money rather than, governme

by deepnet 11y ago

Another way to look at this is tax money that the government would have spent is now spent by the citizenry directly. Giving people money rather than, government, banks or as corporate tax breaks is a novel way to redistribute wealth - in direct oppositition to the paralysing bailout / austerity cycle much of Europe is suffering from. The surprising sucess of Bush's economic stimulus cheques shows money distributed this way stays local longer stimulating economic activity in small business which provide long term employment and community investement - entrepreneurs are in great part the wealth of nations. This removes the poverty trap, alters everyones risk profile for startups, and future proofs an economy against robocalypse - looking forward to seeing this in action.

sharemywin 11y ago
I doubt taking money from the disabled and the elderly and giving it to able bodied people is going to "help" them out of poverty.
- efes 11y ago
  I've had friends and acquaintances in multiple countries who've had to choose not to do things because they risked no longer qualifying for disability and other programs that they were dependent on. Once you are in you tend to stay in because these programs inevitably victimize those who try to leave and fail. Giving everyone a little backup makes for a better society where people can take the risks they should take.
  - sharemywin 11y ago
    My grandmother is 83 years old and gets about $1200/mo to live on. So, your saying her lazy ass needs to go get a job when her check goes down to $800 so I can have an $800. it makes no sense. a negative income tax makes a lot more sense and you can set it up so the marginal tax rate doesn't discourage people from working.
    - drdeca 11y ago
      I'm confused. Aren't basic income and negative income tax equivalent? x-m(x-c)=x-mx+m*c Of course, that gets more complicated when it isn't a flat tax, but I would think that for those in the lowest tax bracket, it would be equivalent, because within that bracket it would be flat?
    - efes 11y ago
      I suspect that much like in Switzerland, many politicians are looking at something demanded of them that they wish to sabotage and are craftily pitting current social net recipients against it is one way to do that. I think the unfinished process of publishing and voting on it is meant to address that. I'd be arguing from the opposite side, where you both get the ~$1200 in universal income if that is a normal pension amount, and then I'd expect the average HN reader to end up paying a little more in additional taxes than they get in income under a universal income plan. But over time, I think it will raise all ships. There are many ways to implement that, but I think universal income has a better opportunity to remain intact and increasing once pushed through. Plans that try to achieve fairness through more complex benefits and scales tend to end up in tatters because they offer opponents a lot of surface area and ways to implement a thousand cuts where few people feel a connection to each individual part.
- polymatter 11y ago
  many vulnerable people don't know what they can qualify for and what they can't. especially if they are not particularly literate as many adults are not - especially if they have a non-native background. many vulnerable people don't claim even if they know they qualify because the whole process is demeaning. sometimes when you have lost everything, you desperately hold onto your dignity, even if that isn't profit-maximising. real people (as opposed to idealised economic agents) are like that. many vulnerable people can't claim because they slip through the cracks. the process of verification can be intense, especially as the public demand absolutely no benefit cheats meaning everyone is treated as a fraudulent with a lack of empathy or compassion. many vulnerable people have no incentive to save money (since that might disqualify them from receiving benefits in the future). this is similar to what happens with company budgets. you need to spend all that money or you won't get it next year when you might actually need it. tl;dr its complicated. the end result depends on a ton of externalities.

by deepnet 11y ago

sharemywin 11y ago

I doubt taking money from the disabled and the elderly and giving it to able bodied people is going to "help" them out of poverty.

efes 11y ago
I've had friends and acquaintances in multiple countries who've had to choose not to do things because they risked no longer qualifying for disability and other programs that they were dependent on. Once you are in you tend to stay in because these programs inevitably victimize those who try to leave and fail. Giving everyone a little backup makes for a better society where people can take the risks they should take.
- sharemywin 11y ago
  My grandmother is 83 years old and gets about $1200/mo to live on. So, your saying her lazy ass needs to go get a job when her check goes down to $800 so I can have an $800. it makes no sense. a negative income tax makes a lot more sense and you can set it up so the marginal tax rate doesn't discourage people from working.
  - drdeca 11y ago
    I'm confused. Aren't basic income and negative income tax equivalent? x-m(x-c)=x-mx+m*c Of course, that gets more complicated when it isn't a flat tax, but I would think that for those in the lowest tax bracket, it would be equivalent, because within that bracket it would be flat?
  - efes 11y ago
    I suspect that much like in Switzerland, many politicians are looking at something demanded of them that they wish to sabotage and are craftily pitting current social net recipients against it is one way to do that. I think the unfinished process of publishing and voting on it is meant to address that. I'd be arguing from the opposite side, where you both get the ~$1200 in universal income if that is a normal pension amount, and then I'd expect the average HN reader to end up paying a little more in additional taxes than they get in income under a universal income plan. But over time, I think it will raise all ships. There are many ways to implement that, but I think universal income has a better opportunity to remain intact and increasing once pushed through. Plans that try to achieve fairness through more complex benefits and scales tend to end up in tatters because they offer opponents a lot of surface area and ways to implement a thousand cuts where few people feel a connection to each individual part.
polymatter 11y ago
many vulnerable people don't know what they can qualify for and what they can't. especially if they are not particularly literate as many adults are not - especially if they have a non-native background. many vulnerable people don't claim even if they know they qualify because the whole process is demeaning. sometimes when you have lost everything, you desperately hold onto your dignity, even if that isn't profit-maximising. real people (as opposed to idealised economic agents) are like that. many vulnerable people can't claim because they slip through the cracks. the process of verification can be intense, especially as the public demand absolutely no benefit cheats meaning everyone is treated as a fraudulent with a lack of empathy or compassion. many vulnerable people have no incentive to save money (since that might disqualify them from receiving benefits in the future). this is similar to what happens with company budgets. you need to spend all that money or you won't get it next year when you might actually need it. tl;dr its complicated. the end result depends on a ton of externalities.