10 ms·

If the government starts giving me enough money each month to subsist while drastically raising taxes on my earnings from employment then I'll simply stop worki

If the government starts giving me enough money each month to subsist while drastically raising taxes on my earnings from employment then I'll simply stop working. I would imagine most people would do the same.

hartator 6y ago
Yes, it’s that simple. It’s already super expensive as is, it’s gonna to be even more when half of the population stop working. We just not rich enough yet.
Angostura 6y ago
You’d imagine that’s what will happen, but you might be surprised.
tomconroy 6y ago
What will you do with your new free time?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > What will you do with your new free time? I'd focus on accumulating non-monetary assets. Board seats, political connections, et cetera.
- cheeseomlit 6y ago
  Smoke pot and play video games while the fed prints me a paycheck. The American dream
graham_paul 6y ago
> I'll simply stop working For a few months maybe. Soon, you will realise that to keep your previous lifestyle (or to simply fill your time with something other than browsing text-heavy sites) you need to work. So you will go back to work. And so will everyone else.
- donw 6y ago
  What happens if a large number of people can not afford a meaningfully better lifestyle than what is possible on a UBI because of the tax increases? (Genuine question, no gotchas here)
  - gowld 6y ago
    Then it's the same as today.
  - graham_paul 6y ago
    Better than what? You seem to forget that while you might be an affluent middle/upper class person, a lot of people out there are struggling really hard to fulfill their primary needs. You realize how many people in the states are poor (lacking primary needs resources) or borderline poor? Yes, some people (plenty of HN users I am sure) might struggle to maintain highly consumerist lifestyles (not sure if that's necessarily bad) but for the majority of people, this will improve their lives for as long as UBI is a thing. All the money spent on fighting social phenomena that is the result of people being unable to or/and having being raised without enough primary need resources to ensure their physical, emotional and cognitive capabilities are not hampered by their poverty will be able to be allocated to better uses?
  - mwfunk 6y ago
    People get a UBI regardless of whether or not they work, that's the 'U' part. So any money you get from working is additional money on top of the UBI. It would be taxed, but it's still more money. It's not like other benefits where once you start earning your own money, you lose the benefit, and thus have to make a choice between not working to keep the benefit and working 40 hours a week to make similar or marginally more money. Or, maybe you're taking that into account already, and are worried about an uncanny valley in between "not working" and "working" where a significant number of people simply don't work because that first rung in the "working" ladder isn't rewarding enough to start climbing the ladder, so they're incentivized to never work. If so, that's certainly a concern, but that would also be an indicator of a failed system that needed to be revised. It goes without saying that any implementation of a UBI system would have to be designed such that that didn't happen, but that's not an intrinsic quality of UBI systems. Tax increases themselves would have to be progressive (as our current tax system supposedly is and always has been) to avoid creating these sorts of discontinuities that would disincentivize people from working. Any functional UBI system would have to take that into account, otherwise it's a failed implementation.
oldsklgdfth 6y ago
The cynic in me is thinking that everyone has an extra $xxxx/month laying around. How do I get people to give me their money? Maybe now that free app idea, can sell for $1 or $2. Maybe know I can charge $3/hour tutoring.
slg 6y ago
Are you currently only working just to subsist? Because most people on HN work much harder than they need to and make much more than they need to just to subsist.
- luckylion 6y ago
  You currently don't have the option to not work. Most people work more than they need to because they realize that the future is uncertain and having savings will be beneficial if there's trouble at some point in the future. Give the same people a trust fund that takes care of them and that they trust to last for their life time, and most will stop working as hard. They may still work, but much less and most likely on very different things.
  - slg 6y ago
    It isn't a binary option between work and not work. Most people on HN make much more money than they need to subsist. If the goal is to only subsist, there is an option to reduce hours worked in exchange for reduced pay. The exact form that could take varies as not everyone works at a company that would support either a shorter workday or workweek. However other options exists that don't rely on your employer such as taking regular sabbaticals or a very early retirement. There are also numerous financial options available to you such as annuities or insurance if you are worried about protecting yourself from unforeseen financial hardships.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > If the goal is to only subsist, there is an option to reduce hours worked in exchange for reduced pay. No. You need to factor in the future. The whole passive income/early retirement crowd is a great example of it. They want to create regular income (from projects/businesses or investments) to allow them a simple life for all of their future years, while they go do whatever they please. Few people do that, because it typically entails working much harder today so you don't have to work as much or at all tomorrow. If you removed the hurdle or working harder today, many people would choose that route. > There are also numerous financial options available to you such as annuities or insurance if you are worried about protecting yourself from unforeseen financial hardships. Absolutely. And you need to pay for those. To do that, you need to earn more than you currently need to subsist.
Mayzie 6y ago
The idea is that everyone receives a basic income, equivalent to a (hopefully) updated minimum wage. Then if people want extra money for luxuries, then you work a job which will pay you on top of your standard basic income. I imagine most people would continue working.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > everyone receives a basic income And, by definition, everybody who earns higher than the median wage will also receive a tax increase higher than the basic income they're being given "back".
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    I don't think there is a strict definition, but there certainly would be a threshold in the bracket where taxes > UBI, but what is your point? That UBI is therefore worthless for everyone, because some people won't get it, in effect? There are many variations, but one benefit of continuing its issuance even if someone is in a high tax bracket is unemployment - one of many services that could go away if UBI were in place. If I make $200k, and lose my job, I don't apply for unemployment - I just get the UBI for that month to pay for expenses.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  Even assuming that the vast majority of people would keep working to maintain their standard of living, there are major issues with UBI: 1) The incentive to enter the workforce is greatly reduced. Every high-school graduate would have the means to shack up with a few of their buddies and live the college lifestyle indefinitely. I'm currently a productive adult, but only because there was no alternative. UBI is an alternative. 2) The nest-egg required to retire is greatly reduced. If a married couple is saving up for retirement with a retirement income of 60K, they're currently need $2,000,000 to retire (pre social security). If that same married couple is receiving 12K each in UBI, the required nest-egg is almost halved to $1,200,000. That means couple can retire a decade earlier than they previously could. This will see millions of people retiring during what would have been their most productive (i.e. tax-payingest) years. 3) Much like a shorter work week, UBI will be a tremendous competitive disadvantage for US goods and services. When the labor market inevitably shrinks, wages will necessarily rise. This will a competitive drag on exports of US goods and services. I'm not saying that these things are bad. They sound great for the individuals in question. But they will eventually hollow out the workforce.
WalterBright 6y ago
If the government provided food, shelter, and video games, I expect quite a few people would see no purpose in working. Also the surfers and backpackers.
- seph-reed 6y ago
  Good for them. The point of work is to not have to anymore so you can follow your passions. We've invented machines that can do basically everything it takes to support human life. Seems like there should be a lot more people following passions now.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > We've invented machines that can do basically everything it takes to support human life. It's not about "support human life" as in "3000kcal a day". Nobody wants that. They want a comfy human life. We can do that as well, only we need other humans to work to make that happen. Still, good for them if enough people are found to voluntarily work more so they can work on self-actualization and enjoy hedonism.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > We've invented machines that can do basically everything it takes to support human life. We have? We have machines that can do everything it takes to grow food, prepare it, ship it where it's needed, with no humans? We have machines that can build houses, cars, bicycles, and other forms of transportation, with no humans? We have machines that can make our clothes and all other necessary items with no humans? We have machines that can fix all our crumbling infrastructure with no humans? I think you are drastically underestimating the amount of human work that is needed just to keep the basic functions of society working. Let alone to provide all the nice to have things that we all want.
    - viklove 6y ago
      If we really still want them, the law of demand will help us out. The price will go up, and people will start working to be able to afford it. If it turns out that we don't actually want smartphones, new jeans, Starbucks coffee, etc -- then that's great too. We'll end up with a lot less pointless consumption and people can spend their lives chillin' with their buddies!
hooande 6y ago
very few people wish to subsist. most humans want a lifestyle that is similar to or better than that of the people that they socialize with
- jpindar 6y ago
  And most women want successful men. (You can think that that's a bad thing, but your thoughts won't change it.)
lukemichals 6y ago
> taxes on my earnings Yangs proposal was a VAT, which wouldn't be a tax on your earnings. Am I off here?
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  So it's regressive? Even better..
  - lukemichals 6y ago
    Direct from yangs site (https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/) > This VAT would vary based on the good to which it's applied, with staples having a lower rate or being excluded, and luxury goods having a higher rate. That's the beauty of a VAT. It can be tuned to reach the desired result.
    - gnicholas 6y ago
      > That's the beauty of a VAT. It can be tuned to reach the desired result. But who will do the tuning? My guess, as a former corporate tax lawyer, is that it would be done by industry lobbyists, seeking preferential treatment for their clients' products.
      - eanzenberg 6y ago
        Well, duh. How else do communists exert control and power?
      - chillacy 6y ago
        Yea that's the problem with tuning these things, same with tarrifs, just leads to companies having a rational reason to spend money on lobbyists. IMO the VAT would be much simpler as a flat tax than trying to tune it, but it's not as popular with people who then complain when the price of goods go up (despite the fact that you'd have to be spending something like $120k a year in order to offset the losses of a 10% VAT with 100% pass-through (in Europe it's only 50%) with a $12k/year UBI)
jedberg 6y ago
Every experiment in UBI says otherwise. Direct cash grants usually lead people to do more work, because now they can do the work they enjoy. Also, look around groups of wealthy people. The ones who don't have to work anymore. Sure, some of them live a life of leisure, but many of them still work, because they get bored otherwise.
- bzb3 6y ago
  There are lots of jobs people don't enjoy. Who's going to do those? If they raise the salaries and start getting applicants, who's going to buy the much more expensive produce? They'd have to increase the amount of ubi, and there you have inflation.
  - eanzenberg 6y ago
    The robots, obviously! /s
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Non-citizens don't get UBI, so it would fall to immigrants. That's in fact the biggest issue with UBI -- it creates a de-facto class system.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Automation, immigrant, increase pay.
  - formercoder 6y ago
    Some fold, some raise wages, some invest in automation. Inflation is possible, but not guaranteed.
  - asdff 6y ago
    You are assuming a business and industry is a god given right. If a business fails to get applicants, they need to raise wages or relocate to where there is labor. If they need more income to pay for these workers then they will charge more. If the price they charge for their goods or services is too high for the given level of demand, the business will just fold. And that's OK, there area a lot of parasitic zombie companies around that could use a culling, wasting peoples working years doing inane tasks rather than starting a project of their own and innovating. As they say, imagine if Mozart never held a violin but was busy working double shifts flipping burgers for 30 years instead.
jpindar 6y ago
You do you, but... chicks dig guys with good careers. (You may think that's a bad thing, but it's still true.)
golf1052 6y ago
I doubt people could afford fancy tech gadgets on UBI. As others are saying most people would continue working because they want to achieve more. Do you really think Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates would quit what they're doing because of UBI? UBI just gives you more options, yes you can stop working and pursue passions which I think would be great if more people did that. You could also maybe get a less demanding job and volunteer more.
aisengard 6y ago
You know, I thought so too, but I would probably instead just work _less_, maybe half time for half pay, I dunno. Seems like a great way to transform how we think about work and the economy. Fewer hours, when it's by choice, are pretty much always a good thing.
grecy 6y ago
> If the government starts giving me enough money each month to subsist .... then I'll simply stop working Australia has been doing it for decades. They have low unemployment. Your hypothesis is not borne out in real life.
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  They clearly state you have to be looking for a job. [1] [1] https://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-volume-1/9-11-unemployment-benefits-minimum-wage https://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-volume-1/9-11-unempl...
  - grecy 6y ago
    Yes. You click a button or fill in a form to say you were. Done. It's obviously not full-blown UBI, but it's certainly a form of BI, and I think it very clearly dis-proves many of the "supposed" problems that a UBI will create like massive inflation, people lazing about not working, everyone doing drugs, etc. etc.
3131s 6y ago
Then you're lazy and have no sense of dignity, congrats! Now give all these poor people a chance to prove that they're not like you, and many will.

hartator 6y ago

Yes, it’s that simple. It’s already super expensive as is, it’s gonna to be even more when half of the population stop working. We just not rich enough yet.

Angostura 6y ago

You’d imagine that’s what will happen, but you might be surprised.

tomconroy 6y ago

What will you do with your new free time?

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> What will you do with your new free time? I'd focus on accumulating non-monetary assets. Board seats, political connections, et cetera.
cheeseomlit 6y ago
Smoke pot and play video games while the fed prints me a paycheck. The American dream

graham_paul 6y ago

> I'll simply stop working For a few months maybe. Soon, you will realise that to keep your previous lifestyle (or to simply fill your time with something other than browsing text-heavy sites) you need to work. So you will go back to work. And so will everyone else.

donw 6y ago
What happens if a large number of people can not afford a meaningfully better lifestyle than what is possible on a UBI because of the tax increases? (Genuine question, no gotchas here)
- gowld 6y ago
  Then it's the same as today.
- graham_paul 6y ago
  Better than what? You seem to forget that while you might be an affluent middle/upper class person, a lot of people out there are struggling really hard to fulfill their primary needs. You realize how many people in the states are poor (lacking primary needs resources) or borderline poor? Yes, some people (plenty of HN users I am sure) might struggle to maintain highly consumerist lifestyles (not sure if that's necessarily bad) but for the majority of people, this will improve their lives for as long as UBI is a thing. All the money spent on fighting social phenomena that is the result of people being unable to or/and having being raised without enough primary need resources to ensure their physical, emotional and cognitive capabilities are not hampered by their poverty will be able to be allocated to better uses?
- mwfunk 6y ago
  People get a UBI regardless of whether or not they work, that's the 'U' part. So any money you get from working is additional money on top of the UBI. It would be taxed, but it's still more money. It's not like other benefits where once you start earning your own money, you lose the benefit, and thus have to make a choice between not working to keep the benefit and working 40 hours a week to make similar or marginally more money. Or, maybe you're taking that into account already, and are worried about an uncanny valley in between "not working" and "working" where a significant number of people simply don't work because that first rung in the "working" ladder isn't rewarding enough to start climbing the ladder, so they're incentivized to never work. If so, that's certainly a concern, but that would also be an indicator of a failed system that needed to be revised. It goes without saying that any implementation of a UBI system would have to be designed such that that didn't happen, but that's not an intrinsic quality of UBI systems. Tax increases themselves would have to be progressive (as our current tax system supposedly is and always has been) to avoid creating these sorts of discontinuities that would disincentivize people from working. Any functional UBI system would have to take that into account, otherwise it's a failed implementation.

oldsklgdfth 6y ago

The cynic in me is thinking that everyone has an extra $xxxx/month laying around. How do I get people to give me their money? Maybe now that free app idea, can sell for $1 or $2. Maybe know I can charge $3/hour tutoring.

slg 6y ago

Are you currently only working just to subsist? Because most people on HN work much harder than they need to and make much more than they need to just to subsist.

luckylion 6y ago
You currently don't have the option to not work. Most people work more than they need to because they realize that the future is uncertain and having savings will be beneficial if there's trouble at some point in the future. Give the same people a trust fund that takes care of them and that they trust to last for their life time, and most will stop working as hard. They may still work, but much less and most likely on very different things.
- slg 6y ago
  It isn't a binary option between work and not work. Most people on HN make much more money than they need to subsist. If the goal is to only subsist, there is an option to reduce hours worked in exchange for reduced pay. The exact form that could take varies as not everyone works at a company that would support either a shorter workday or workweek. However other options exists that don't rely on your employer such as taking regular sabbaticals or a very early retirement. There are also numerous financial options available to you such as annuities or insurance if you are worried about protecting yourself from unforeseen financial hardships.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > If the goal is to only subsist, there is an option to reduce hours worked in exchange for reduced pay. No. You need to factor in the future. The whole passive income/early retirement crowd is a great example of it. They want to create regular income (from projects/businesses or investments) to allow them a simple life for all of their future years, while they go do whatever they please. Few people do that, because it typically entails working much harder today so you don't have to work as much or at all tomorrow. If you removed the hurdle or working harder today, many people would choose that route. > There are also numerous financial options available to you such as annuities or insurance if you are worried about protecting yourself from unforeseen financial hardships. Absolutely. And you need to pay for those. To do that, you need to earn more than you currently need to subsist.

Mayzie 6y ago

The idea is that everyone receives a basic income, equivalent to a (hopefully) updated minimum wage. Then if people want extra money for luxuries, then you work a job which will pay you on top of your standard basic income. I imagine most people would continue working.

commandlinefan 6y ago
> everyone receives a basic income And, by definition, everybody who earns higher than the median wage will also receive a tax increase higher than the basic income they're being given "back".
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  I don't think there is a strict definition, but there certainly would be a threshold in the bracket where taxes > UBI, but what is your point? That UBI is therefore worthless for everyone, because some people won't get it, in effect? There are many variations, but one benefit of continuing its issuance even if someone is in a high tax bracket is unemployment - one of many services that could go away if UBI were in place. If I make $200k, and lose my job, I don't apply for unemployment - I just get the UBI for that month to pay for expenses.
marcusverus 6y ago
Even assuming that the vast majority of people would keep working to maintain their standard of living, there are major issues with UBI: 1) The incentive to enter the workforce is greatly reduced. Every high-school graduate would have the means to shack up with a few of their buddies and live the college lifestyle indefinitely. I'm currently a productive adult, but only because there was no alternative. UBI is an alternative. 2) The nest-egg required to retire is greatly reduced. If a married couple is saving up for retirement with a retirement income of 60K, they're currently need $2,000,000 to retire (pre social security). If that same married couple is receiving 12K each in UBI, the required nest-egg is almost halved to $1,200,000. That means couple can retire a decade earlier than they previously could. This will see millions of people retiring during what would have been their most productive (i.e. tax-payingest) years. 3) Much like a shorter work week, UBI will be a tremendous competitive disadvantage for US goods and services. When the labor market inevitably shrinks, wages will necessarily rise. This will a competitive drag on exports of US goods and services. I'm not saying that these things are bad. They sound great for the individuals in question. But they will eventually hollow out the workforce.

WalterBright 6y ago

If the government provided food, shelter, and video games, I expect quite a few people would see no purpose in working. Also the surfers and backpackers.

seph-reed 6y ago
Good for them. The point of work is to not have to anymore so you can follow your passions. We've invented machines that can do basically everything it takes to support human life. Seems like there should be a lot more people following passions now.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > We've invented machines that can do basically everything it takes to support human life. It's not about "support human life" as in "3000kcal a day". Nobody wants that. They want a comfy human life. We can do that as well, only we need other humans to work to make that happen. Still, good for them if enough people are found to voluntarily work more so they can work on self-actualization and enjoy hedonism.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > We've invented machines that can do basically everything it takes to support human life. We have? We have machines that can do everything it takes to grow food, prepare it, ship it where it's needed, with no humans? We have machines that can build houses, cars, bicycles, and other forms of transportation, with no humans? We have machines that can make our clothes and all other necessary items with no humans? We have machines that can fix all our crumbling infrastructure with no humans? I think you are drastically underestimating the amount of human work that is needed just to keep the basic functions of society working. Let alone to provide all the nice to have things that we all want.
  - viklove 6y ago
    If we really still want them, the law of demand will help us out. The price will go up, and people will start working to be able to afford it. If it turns out that we don't actually want smartphones, new jeans, Starbucks coffee, etc -- then that's great too. We'll end up with a lot less pointless consumption and people can spend their lives chillin' with their buddies!

hooande 6y ago

very few people wish to subsist. most humans want a lifestyle that is similar to or better than that of the people that they socialize with

jpindar 6y ago
And most women want successful men. (You can think that that's a bad thing, but your thoughts won't change it.)

lukemichals 6y ago

> taxes on my earnings Yangs proposal was a VAT, which wouldn't be a tax on your earnings. Am I off here?

eanzenberg 6y ago
So it's regressive? Even better..
- lukemichals 6y ago
  Direct from yangs site (https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/) > This VAT would vary based on the good to which it's applied, with staples having a lower rate or being excluded, and luxury goods having a higher rate. That's the beauty of a VAT. It can be tuned to reach the desired result.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    > That's the beauty of a VAT. It can be tuned to reach the desired result. But who will do the tuning? My guess, as a former corporate tax lawyer, is that it would be done by industry lobbyists, seeking preferential treatment for their clients' products.
    - eanzenberg 6y ago
      Well, duh. How else do communists exert control and power?
    - chillacy 6y ago
      Yea that's the problem with tuning these things, same with tarrifs, just leads to companies having a rational reason to spend money on lobbyists. IMO the VAT would be much simpler as a flat tax than trying to tune it, but it's not as popular with people who then complain when the price of goods go up (despite the fact that you'd have to be spending something like $120k a year in order to offset the losses of a 10% VAT with 100% pass-through (in Europe it's only 50%) with a $12k/year UBI)

jedberg 6y ago

Every experiment in UBI says otherwise. Direct cash grants usually lead people to do more work, because now they can do the work they enjoy. Also, look around groups of wealthy people. The ones who don't have to work anymore. Sure, some of them live a life of leisure, but many of them still work, because they get bored otherwise.

bzb3 6y ago
There are lots of jobs people don't enjoy. Who's going to do those? If they raise the salaries and start getting applicants, who's going to buy the much more expensive produce? They'd have to increase the amount of ubi, and there you have inflation.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  The robots, obviously! /s
- jedberg 6y ago
  Non-citizens don't get UBI, so it would fall to immigrants. That's in fact the biggest issue with UBI -- it creates a de-facto class system.
- matz1 6y ago
  Automation, immigrant, increase pay.
- formercoder 6y ago
  Some fold, some raise wages, some invest in automation. Inflation is possible, but not guaranteed.
- asdff 6y ago
  You are assuming a business and industry is a god given right. If a business fails to get applicants, they need to raise wages or relocate to where there is labor. If they need more income to pay for these workers then they will charge more. If the price they charge for their goods or services is too high for the given level of demand, the business will just fold. And that's OK, there area a lot of parasitic zombie companies around that could use a culling, wasting peoples working years doing inane tasks rather than starting a project of their own and innovating. As they say, imagine if Mozart never held a violin but was busy working double shifts flipping burgers for 30 years instead.

jpindar 6y ago

You do you, but... chicks dig guys with good careers. (You may think that's a bad thing, but it's still true.)

golf1052 6y ago

I doubt people could afford fancy tech gadgets on UBI. As others are saying most people would continue working because they want to achieve more. Do you really think Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates would quit what they're doing because of UBI? UBI just gives you more options, yes you can stop working and pursue passions which I think would be great if more people did that. You could also maybe get a less demanding job and volunteer more.

aisengard 6y ago

You know, I thought so too, but I would probably instead just work _less_, maybe half time for half pay, I dunno. Seems like a great way to transform how we think about work and the economy. Fewer hours, when it's by choice, are pretty much always a good thing.

grecy 6y ago

> If the government starts giving me enough money each month to subsist .... then I'll simply stop working Australia has been doing it for decades. They have low unemployment. Your hypothesis is not borne out in real life.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
They clearly state you have to be looking for a job. [1] [1] https://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-volume-1/9-11-unemployment-benefits-minimum-wage https://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-volume-1/9-11-unempl...
- grecy 6y ago
  Yes. You click a button or fill in a form to say you were. Done. It's obviously not full-blown UBI, but it's certainly a form of BI, and I think it very clearly dis-proves many of the "supposed" problems that a UBI will create like massive inflation, people lazing about not working, everyone doing drugs, etc. etc.

3131s 6y ago

Then you're lazy and have no sense of dignity, congrats! Now give all these poor people a chance to prove that they're not like you, and many will.