3 ms·

Interestingly, Friedman, and I think Hayek as well, supported a universal basic income. Friedman called it a negative income tax, but its the same premise. I t

Interestingly, Friedman, and I think Hayek as well, supported a universal basic income. Friedman called it a negative income tax, but its the same premise. I think a lot of laissez-faire capitalists would get behind that idea, if it was coupled by the permanent abolition of all other welfare programs and most labor regulations. It's definitely an idea I can get behind. It would require some constitutional amendment for both sides to trust each other enough.

jessaustin 11y ago
One reason why many such characters would support basic income is that it would ostensibly remove the provision of benefits from the overview of the bureaucracy. That's the same reason that many others would not support it. I'm very tempted to throw in with the former, except that I worry about the follow-on effects of basic income. Would a basic income just be a windfall for landlords, as they all increased rents by some large percentage of the average basic income? Or would the formerly-urban formerly-poor head for the hills, now that they could budget over the long term without relying on urban amenities? This would be a windfall for a different set of landlords and real estate investors, but it would drastically change the nature of 80% of the communities in the nation. That's not even to consider the wealth effects on markets more elastic than housing. It would be a grand experiment, but somebody would start crying.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  I think a gradual phase-in of the basic income, and a corresponding phase-out of existing programs, would avoid the pains of a sudden change.
  - mike429 11y ago
    Great string of comments, interesting that Friedman supports basic income. If anyone wants to read my comment far down below and answer any points you disagree with that'd be super welcome! (it starts with "With this comment I'm answering both PG's post and an answer to his post that can be read here: http://cryoshon.co/2016/01/02/a-response-to-paul-grahams-art..." http://cryoshon.co/2016/01/02/a-response-to-paul-grahams-art...)

jessaustin 11y ago

One reason why many such characters would support basic income is that it would ostensibly remove the provision of benefits from the overview of the bureaucracy. That's the same reason that many others would not support it. I'm very tempted to throw in with the former, except that I worry about the follow-on effects of basic income. Would a basic income just be a windfall for landlords, as they all increased rents by some large percentage of the average basic income? Or would the formerly-urban formerly-poor head for the hills, now that they could budget over the long term without relying on urban amenities? This would be a windfall for a different set of landlords and real estate investors, but it would drastically change the nature of 80% of the communities in the nation. That's not even to consider the wealth effects on markets more elastic than housing. It would be a grand experiment, but somebody would start crying.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I think a gradual phase-in of the basic income, and a corresponding phase-out of existing programs, would avoid the pains of a sudden change.
- mike429 11y ago
  Great string of comments, interesting that Friedman supports basic income. If anyone wants to read my comment far down below and answer any points you disagree with that'd be super welcome! (it starts with "With this comment I'm answering both PG's post and an answer to his post that can be read here: http://cryoshon.co/2016/01/02/a-response-to-paul-grahams-art..." http://cryoshon.co/2016/01/02/a-response-to-paul-grahams-art...)