6 ms·

It's one thing for a private citizen to donate money to a Basic Income experiment, it's another thing entirely to legislate the Fed into minting cash for distri

by sova 6y ago

It's one thing for a private citizen to donate money to a Basic Income experiment, it's another thing entirely to legislate the Fed into minting cash for distribution. Basic Income is a necessary future, but the Universal part does not make any sense, and even this is not a Universal experiment, it's a surgical tactical strike. More reasonably at the national level could be a Guaranteed Progressive Income that was doled out below certain economic lines. Putting water on every house just because some homes are burning is a waste of precious water (that in this case also devalues water - to stick with the metaphor).

Waterfall 6y ago
People who make under 20k or so don't pay any taxes already, and often get tax refunds. I like the idea of Milton Friedman's negative income tax as well.
- MathCodeLove 6y ago
  People who make under 20k dont pay taxes and get refunds because they are barely making enough to survive as is.
  - Waterfall 6y ago
    I had no issues. It is not hard in a big city to live on less even without government aid, provided you aren't stupid with purchases. My family lived on less than that for the entire family. Luxuries weren't around and disappointed Christmases happened all the time, but its bullshit to assume that you can't survive.
ptttr 6y ago
It needs to be universal so it doesn't penalize work. If there's any set limit, it'll create pathologies around it like people not taking up a job because it would lead them to loosing money/time.
- sova 6y ago
  Imagine everyone gets half of (Fund Amount - Amount Earned). Let's say the fund amount is 12.5k a year, if you earn 8k you get half of the difference (4.5k/2 or 2.75k). That would put you at 10.75k, closer to the 12.5k amount. If you earned 0, you'd get 12.5k/2 or 6.25k. This sort of "progressive" guaranteed income would satisfy this incentivization-of-work requirement, while still dishing out a fund to people in need.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    It still might not properly incentivize people. If a job is ordinarily worth $16/hr then your effective income for low total hour counts is only $8/hr, which might not be enough to incentivize a person to get the requisite education/training or to put up with unpleasant demands of the job. An employer would have to offer $32/hr to generate $16/hr in value to such an employee.
    - sova 6y ago
      Wages would not be effected by this implementation, just the amount of government aide disbursed to each person. But you bring up an interesting point that it may not incentivize people appropriately, what might work better?
      - hansvm 6y ago
        Any scheme reducing total payout based on other income sources suffers from the same flaw, and it's really just a question of magnitude as a function of income level. I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing (you'd want a real economist for those kinds of questions), but the impact on incentives is unavoidable. If you don't reduce total payout based on other income sources, you're describing UBI (or perhaps paying people extra when they earn money, though at first blush that alternative sounds fraud-prone and unstable).
schwartzworld 6y ago
The problem with means testing is that you eventually have to draw a line and some people who "deserve" help don't get it. I'd rather pour water on every house than accidentally let a few burn down, especially since theres plenty of water for everybody. Nobody questions printing a few 100 billion dollars for the military or a wall street bailout, but when it comes to protecting citizens suddenly we have a country full of accountants. Do you feel the same about other social services? Should the library only lend books to people under a certain income? Maybe if people make over 20k we can charge them to use the playground
- sova 6y ago
  >I'd rather pour water on every house than accidentally let a few burn down, especially since theres plenty of water for everybody. That's demonstrably false, which is where Economics comes from. "Limited Resources and Unlimited Wants." > Nobody questions printing a few 100 billion dollars for the military or a wall street bailout, but when it comes to protecting citizens suddenly we have a country full of accountants. Didn't say anything about Wallstreet or Military until now, what's your question? >Do you feel the same about other social services? That's misleading, as cash handouts are not in the same class. Money is a commodity and a currency. You're conflating two things as one. >Should the library only lend books to people under a certain income? Maybe if people make over 20k we can charge them to use the playground Do you eat books when you go to the library so the next person cannot use them, or do you return them so another human being can ocularize and assimilate the message? If you eat books, your argument is more cogent, but if you return them like every other savage then I don't understand your question. Social services are for society, guaranteed income is for people who don't have income of their own, or not enough to get by. Pardon the snarkiness, but I can draw a Venn Diagram if that helps.
  - schwartzworld 6y ago
    > That's demonstrably false, which is where Economics comes from. "Limited Resources and Unlimited Wants." Money is not a limited resource. > what's your question? It's not really a question. We live in a country where huge amounts of money are spent on Wall Street and the military, and so-called fiscal conservatives have no problem with it. The talk of money as a limited resource ONLY occurs when the conversation is about helping people in need. > Money is a commodity and a currency. Money is not a commodity. You are literally using words that you don't know the meaning of. As to "money is a currency", I think I remember reading that on some pamphlets from the Department of Redundancy Department. > guaranteed income is for people who don't have income of their own, or not enough to get by My point is that means tests like this leave out people who are in need but don't necessarily qualify for the means test, and open the door to additional strawman arguments like "why would anybody work if they are getting UBI". Means testing requires infrastructure and process, both of which cost plenty of money. > If you eat books, your argument is more cogent, "Hurr durr. If I am deliberately obtuse, it'll feel like I won the argument." Translated that for you.
tj-teej 6y ago
Aren't taxes the way to solve that? Isn't it easier to give everyone the money and then when Tax Season happens you just tax it back out of the people who didn't need it?
- sova 6y ago
  Money is lost to friction in the "distribute and tax back" strategy. If you have the technology for a tactical strike, why are you carpet bombing a whole topography?

by sova 6y ago

Waterfall 6y ago

People who make under 20k or so don't pay any taxes already, and often get tax refunds. I like the idea of Milton Friedman's negative income tax as well.

MathCodeLove 6y ago
People who make under 20k dont pay taxes and get refunds because they are barely making enough to survive as is.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  I had no issues. It is not hard in a big city to live on less even without government aid, provided you aren't stupid with purchases. My family lived on less than that for the entire family. Luxuries weren't around and disappointed Christmases happened all the time, but its bullshit to assume that you can't survive.

ptttr 6y ago

It needs to be universal so it doesn't penalize work. If there's any set limit, it'll create pathologies around it like people not taking up a job because it would lead them to loosing money/time.

sova 6y ago
Imagine everyone gets half of (Fund Amount - Amount Earned). Let's say the fund amount is 12.5k a year, if you earn 8k you get half of the difference (4.5k/2 or 2.75k). That would put you at 10.75k, closer to the 12.5k amount. If you earned 0, you'd get 12.5k/2 or 6.25k. This sort of "progressive" guaranteed income would satisfy this incentivization-of-work requirement, while still dishing out a fund to people in need.
- hansvm 6y ago
  It still might not properly incentivize people. If a job is ordinarily worth $16/hr then your effective income for low total hour counts is only $8/hr, which might not be enough to incentivize a person to get the requisite education/training or to put up with unpleasant demands of the job. An employer would have to offer $32/hr to generate $16/hr in value to such an employee.
  - sova 6y ago
    Wages would not be effected by this implementation, just the amount of government aide disbursed to each person. But you bring up an interesting point that it may not incentivize people appropriately, what might work better?
    - hansvm 6y ago
      Any scheme reducing total payout based on other income sources suffers from the same flaw, and it's really just a question of magnitude as a function of income level. I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing (you'd want a real economist for those kinds of questions), but the impact on incentives is unavoidable. If you don't reduce total payout based on other income sources, you're describing UBI (or perhaps paying people extra when they earn money, though at first blush that alternative sounds fraud-prone and unstable).

schwartzworld 6y ago

The problem with means testing is that you eventually have to draw a line and some people who "deserve" help don't get it. I'd rather pour water on every house than accidentally let a few burn down, especially since theres plenty of water for everybody. Nobody questions printing a few 100 billion dollars for the military or a wall street bailout, but when it comes to protecting citizens suddenly we have a country full of accountants. Do you feel the same about other social services? Should the library only lend books to people under a certain income? Maybe if people make over 20k we can charge them to use the playground

sova 6y ago
>I'd rather pour water on every house than accidentally let a few burn down, especially since theres plenty of water for everybody. That's demonstrably false, which is where Economics comes from. "Limited Resources and Unlimited Wants." > Nobody questions printing a few 100 billion dollars for the military or a wall street bailout, but when it comes to protecting citizens suddenly we have a country full of accountants. Didn't say anything about Wallstreet or Military until now, what's your question? >Do you feel the same about other social services? That's misleading, as cash handouts are not in the same class. Money is a commodity and a currency. You're conflating two things as one. >Should the library only lend books to people under a certain income? Maybe if people make over 20k we can charge them to use the playground Do you eat books when you go to the library so the next person cannot use them, or do you return them so another human being can ocularize and assimilate the message? If you eat books, your argument is more cogent, but if you return them like every other savage then I don't understand your question. Social services are for society, guaranteed income is for people who don't have income of their own, or not enough to get by. Pardon the snarkiness, but I can draw a Venn Diagram if that helps.
- schwartzworld 6y ago
  > That's demonstrably false, which is where Economics comes from. "Limited Resources and Unlimited Wants." Money is not a limited resource. > what's your question? It's not really a question. We live in a country where huge amounts of money are spent on Wall Street and the military, and so-called fiscal conservatives have no problem with it. The talk of money as a limited resource ONLY occurs when the conversation is about helping people in need. > Money is a commodity and a currency. Money is not a commodity. You are literally using words that you don't know the meaning of. As to "money is a currency", I think I remember reading that on some pamphlets from the Department of Redundancy Department. > guaranteed income is for people who don't have income of their own, or not enough to get by My point is that means tests like this leave out people who are in need but don't necessarily qualify for the means test, and open the door to additional strawman arguments like "why would anybody work if they are getting UBI". Means testing requires infrastructure and process, both of which cost plenty of money. > If you eat books, your argument is more cogent, "Hurr durr. If I am deliberately obtuse, it'll feel like I won the argument." Translated that for you.

tj-teej 6y ago

Aren't taxes the way to solve that? Isn't it easier to give everyone the money and then when Tax Season happens you just tax it back out of the people who didn't need it?

sova 6y ago
Money is lost to friction in the "distribute and tax back" strategy. If you have the technology for a tactical strike, why are you carpet bombing a whole topography?