5 ms·

> Very heart warming article, glad to hear about empirical evidence that basic income leads to fruitful, productive lives. But of course it does because there

> Very heart warming article, glad to hear about empirical evidence that basic income leads to fruitful, productive lives. But of course it does because there is a Big White Friendly Brother supplying the money. If it was coming from Kenya's budget, these people would have to be taxed at a higher rate just so there is enough money to distribute as basic income.

kragen 9y ago
While I think it is important to note the racist tone of your comment, I am not going to respond to it directly, because I do not think I can do so civilly. Factually speaking, the money involved would be about 16% of Kenya's GDP, which would indeed be a very substantial tax hike. If it had to be supplied by the village itself, rather than Kenyawide, it would presumably be a proportionally even larger burden; if it had to be supplied by the EAC or by Kenya and its neighboring countries, it would also be a proportionally even larger burden. (Perhaps a useful point of comparison is that the Kenyan Defense Forces cost 5.3% of GDP.) On the other hand, eliminating poverty entirely in exchange for only 15%–20% of taxation seems like it would be a pretty good deal; it falls far short of the costs of providing a Scandinavian-style welfare state. In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP. A substantial fraction of the US military budget also needs to be counted as poverty-reducing giveaways — whether to individual people for whom a job as a soldier is a path out of poverty, or to the military-supported industries that employ a substantial fraction of the US population. The US armed forces directly amount to 3.3% of US GDP, US$597B, but there's another half-percent split between DHS and DoE.
- pakitan 9y ago
  Whoa, eliminating poverty entirely...that's a leap almost equivalent to a hyperspace jump. I've seen actual economists, proponents of UBI, making much more modest assumptions. At the very least rents and house prices in poor neighborhoods will go up, negating the benefit of UBI. > In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP Yes, and you want to dismantle them and share that sum among everyone in the form of basic income. That would mean you'd be taking money from people who actually need it, to give to people who need it less. To counter that, you'd have to increase everyone's taxes just so the former welfare recipients aren't worse off. Of course, the taxes won't be raised just enough to offset the newly gained income, it will have to be raised more, probably substantially more because there will be people who haven't qualified for welfare before but will receive the UBI. My post has no racist tone, you're seeing something that isn't there.
  - dang 9y ago
    Kragen is right. "Big White Friendly Brother" was obviously race-baiting, and the first sentence of your comment was both acerbic and gratuitous—exactly what we don't want here. We ban accounts that post flamebait, whether racial or otherwise, so please don't do this again. If you'd instead read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and really take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it. As you'll see, it means a lot more than editing flamebait out, though that's definitely required.
    - pakitan 9y ago
      OK, I can understand how it can be taken the wrong way but for the record it was a nod to the "white savior complex", rather than an attempt to insult Kenyans.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  > In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP Double-check your numbers, mate. The US GDP is more than $15 trillion.
  - kragen 9y ago
    Of course you're right. That should have read, "Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97T per year," just as you say. Thank you for the correction!
- AdrianB1 9y ago
  You cannot ever eliminate poverty because the baseline (definition of poverty) is moving with the results: if poverty was having nothing to eat a few hundred years ago to not able to buy a car every 5 years and have a vacation abroad in our days (this is how it is defined in Europe), then in 200 years not having a hyperspace yacht will be poverty and you will struggle to provide it to everyone. Probably not gonna happen. My grandparents did not have electricity most of their lives and they were considered wealthy - my grandpa did prison time under the communism regime because he was considered a bourgeois (he was a war refugee, but in 10 years of hard work he owned a small mill). Living in their house with electricity would not be enough in our days to be above the poverty line. You are chasing a moving target, tied above your barrel.
  - kragen 9y ago
    No, that isn't what poverty is. Poverty is being at the mercy of people who don't care about you for your necessities to flourish as a human being before you die. It's true that how much it costs to avoid this — if it can even be avoided with money — depends on where you live; here in Buenos Aires, I don't need a car to get around, because I can take the bus anywhere in the city for €0,44, or a taxi for perhaps €8 if I'm in a hurry. There are plenty of cultural events that are free or very cheap. When I lived in the US, I had to have a car, and that was more expensive. (I did try commuting by bicycle and public transport, but it wasn't very practical.) Public universities here are free, but few people can afford the time off work to study. Poverty is vulnerability. Poverty is helplessness. Poverty is weakness. Poverty is not a lack of money; it is a consequence of a lack of money in a money-driven society.

kragen 9y ago

While I think it is important to note the racist tone of your comment, I am not going to respond to it directly, because I do not think I can do so civilly. Factually speaking, the money involved would be about 16% of Kenya's GDP, which would indeed be a very substantial tax hike. If it had to be supplied by the village itself, rather than Kenyawide, it would presumably be a proportionally even larger burden; if it had to be supplied by the EAC or by Kenya and its neighboring countries, it would also be a proportionally even larger burden. (Perhaps a useful point of comparison is that the Kenyan Defense Forces cost 5.3% of GDP.) On the other hand, eliminating poverty entirely in exchange for only 15%–20% of taxation seems like it would be a pretty good deal; it falls far short of the costs of providing a Scandinavian-style welfare state. In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP. A substantial fraction of the US military budget also needs to be counted as poverty-reducing giveaways — whether to individual people for whom a job as a soldier is a path out of poverty, or to the military-supported industries that employ a substantial fraction of the US population. The US armed forces directly amount to 3.3% of US GDP, US$597B, but there's another half-percent split between DHS and DoE.

pakitan 9y ago
Whoa, eliminating poverty entirely...that's a leap almost equivalent to a hyperspace jump. I've seen actual economists, proponents of UBI, making much more modest assumptions. At the very least rents and house prices in poor neighborhoods will go up, negating the benefit of UBI. > In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP Yes, and you want to dismantle them and share that sum among everyone in the form of basic income. That would mean you'd be taking money from people who actually need it, to give to people who need it less. To counter that, you'd have to increase everyone's taxes just so the former welfare recipients aren't worse off. Of course, the taxes won't be raised just enough to offset the newly gained income, it will have to be raised more, probably substantially more because there will be people who haven't qualified for welfare before but will receive the UBI. My post has no racist tone, you're seeing something that isn't there.
- dang 9y ago
  Kragen is right. "Big White Friendly Brother" was obviously race-baiting, and the first sentence of your comment was both acerbic and gratuitous—exactly what we don't want here. We ban accounts that post flamebait, whether racial or otherwise, so please don't do this again. If you'd instead read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and really take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it. As you'll see, it means a lot more than editing flamebait out, though that's definitely required.
  - pakitan 9y ago
    OK, I can understand how it can be taken the wrong way but for the record it was a nod to the "white savior complex", rather than an attempt to insult Kenyans.
Cyph0n 9y ago
> In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP Double-check your numbers, mate. The US GDP is more than $15 trillion.
- kragen 9y ago
  Of course you're right. That should have read, "Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97T per year," just as you say. Thank you for the correction!
AdrianB1 9y ago
You cannot ever eliminate poverty because the baseline (definition of poverty) is moving with the results: if poverty was having nothing to eat a few hundred years ago to not able to buy a car every 5 years and have a vacation abroad in our days (this is how it is defined in Europe), then in 200 years not having a hyperspace yacht will be poverty and you will struggle to provide it to everyone. Probably not gonna happen. My grandparents did not have electricity most of their lives and they were considered wealthy - my grandpa did prison time under the communism regime because he was considered a bourgeois (he was a war refugee, but in 10 years of hard work he owned a small mill). Living in their house with electricity would not be enough in our days to be above the poverty line. You are chasing a moving target, tied above your barrel.
- kragen 9y ago
  No, that isn't what poverty is. Poverty is being at the mercy of people who don't care about you for your necessities to flourish as a human being before you die. It's true that how much it costs to avoid this — if it can even be avoided with money — depends on where you live; here in Buenos Aires, I don't need a car to get around, because I can take the bus anywhere in the city for €0,44, or a taxi for perhaps €8 if I'm in a hurry. There are plenty of cultural events that are free or very cheap. When I lived in the US, I had to have a car, and that was more expensive. (I did try commuting by bicycle and public transport, but it wasn't very practical.) Public universities here are free, but few people can afford the time off work to study. Poverty is vulnerability. Poverty is helplessness. Poverty is weakness. Poverty is not a lack of money; it is a consequence of a lack of money in a money-driven society.