7 ms·

"What UBI skeptical people want to know is where is the proof that we can afford to tax ourselves to pay ourselves, where is the proof that it won't hurt long t

"What UBI skeptical people want to know is where is the proof that we can afford to tax ourselves to pay ourselves, where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, and where is the proof that it doesn't cause inflation. A 120 person 36 month trial program cannot answer any of these questions." Yes, but some skeptics really do object to UBI on moral-based reasons - indolence, buying drugs, laziness, and the joy of work and all that. If it turned out that all the money went to drugs and people got depressed, it would be a good argument against UBI.

baconandeggs 6y ago
Will it? People will just say we need better mental health treatments. I don't think there is a good argument against UBI that they'll accept. But of course, they don't answer the real question which is who's gonna do all the producing? The ones producing are clearly gonna be the ones being taken advantage of on UBI, even if it works 100% as expected.
- zhoujianfu 6y ago
  I wouldn’t really call it “being taken advantage of”.. in a real UBI, you’d only produce something if you were going to get paid enough that you want to do it. Nobody will have to produce anything they don’t want to, now that the UBI removes the fear of where their next meal will come from. I know I personally would still want to produce things to take home MORE than the UBI.
  - tie_ 6y ago
    Well, the UBI money you get would be used to buy something that someone else has produced (an iPhone, a piece of bread, a bottle of wine, etc.). In this sense, the UBI that you are getting represents _goods_ that _someone else_ is producing (and "donating" into the system in the form of taxes). I find this easier to reason about when you take the concept of "money" out of the equation. So,oOption A is that you "donate" more goods into the system than the UBI you are consuming, which is all fine and dandy for the rest of us. Option B is that you are consuming more value that you are donating, which is less fun for the rest. So, some people will need to overproduce in order for the people who under-produce to get their UBI worth of goods. Mind you, this isn't different than the current state of affairs. The big question for me is how would the introduction of UBI ultimately affect that ratio, given that you would be less disincentivized to stay with the underproducing group?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The big question for me is how would the introduction of UBI ultimately affect that ratio, given that you would be less disincentivized to stay with the underproducing group? The “given” is backwards. Compared to existing means-tested welfare systems, UBI funded by additional high-end taxes provides less disincentive to move out of the underproducing group. If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in whole or in part) to offset and reduce minimum wage, it also reduces the barriers to people moving immediately to a less-inderprodicing level, and eventually up and out of the underproducing group.
      - tie_ 6y ago
        > If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in whole or in part) to offset and reduce minimum wage, it also reduces the barriers to people moving immediately to a less-inderprodicing level, and eventually up and out of the underproducing group. You can get rid of minimal wage with or without UBI. In fact Germany just recently introduced minimum wage - there was none before. The lack of it was clearly not regarded as boon to the society. The barrier effect is minimal, if any.
    - zhoujianfu 6y ago
      I agree this is already the state of affairs.. some people generate more goods/services/value than they consume (and build wealth), others do not. I think everything would still work out fine with a UBI because we’d still have the most market forces at play (compared to all other social welfare/safety net/redistribution schemes). If it turns out the UBI is too high, the people who produce will have to raise prices for goods to find equilibrium again. If it’s not, prices will stay the same (or drop). Overall though, it’s the most efficient way to make sure nobody starves, even those who for some reason or other just can’t compete in the future economy. I think once we have a UBI people will look back to the days before it like we look back at the hunter-gatherer days today, “I can’t believe in the early 21st century everybody HAD to work, just to survive!”
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Open source developers are living in the future without the monthly paycheck. It is delayed because some people on HN have hijacked it.
- TheGrim-888 6y ago
  If we were a space-faring people with automated robots doing space mining, collecting and processing materials, if there was no shortage of resources and nearly everything was automated - then sure, fine, people can have their utopian space-communism, culture-series, setup where everyone gets free money and can have whatever they want, and do whatever we want. But we're so many lightyears away from that situation. Our resources are very much limited. If people don't keep producing, we just stagnate and decay. We're nowhere near the point we need to be.
bbarnett 6y ago
I wish could get an overall rational argument FOR UBI, so I could at least debate it. From what I see, it's madness. The economics make zero sense. For example ; Canada. The Federal Government. (All of this speaks of the Federal Government). https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2019/report.html https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publica... 2019 Federal Revenue? $312B. That's from taxes, income from oil, any and all Federal revenue. Now. UBI. Universal Basic Income. That means everyone over 17 gets it, as an example. That also means it must cover the basics. That you can live on it. That's the whole point of UBI, and being "free to choose career paths", and all that other blather. That, to me, means $2k/month. Maybe that will scale, up AND down, depending upon where you live. But let's just go with $2k/month. Or $24k/year. Stats Canada says, out of almost 40M Canadians, around 30M are 18 and older. What's $24k30M? 720B. So.. the entire Federal Revenue is less than 1/2 of what UBI might cost. Now bear in mind, that there was a deficit* in Canada, about $20B. And there is currently a debt in Canada, of about 1.1T. The GoC will say it's less, 800B, but that's if they 'use assets of 300B and deduct that from actual debt", which is meaningless, because interest on debt is on 1.1T. Right now, 8% of Federal Revenue pays just the interest on that debt. If interest rates go up, say in a year or two.. so goes up that payment. My point is that one year of UBI, would almost DOUBLE the ENTIRE FEDERAL DEBT. A Federal Debt that arose after decades, not one year. If you half UBI? Now it's not basic income, it's just a supplement. And you absolutely, positively can't get that money from taxes. About 25% of people's income is taxed (yes, that's an average), that's gas tax, income tax, federal sales tax, tax on alcohol, and other such things. My point here is, you can't just double the tax. And, the above Federal Revenue? There is a pie chart, just under 50% of Federal Revenue came from personal tax. You could increase taxes on business, but are you going to tax 100% of their profit? Because that still won't cover it. Let's tax the rich you say! Well, most money is invested. For example: https://financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-canadas-3-million-richest-families-have-8-7-trillion-in-assets-but-half-is-tied-in-real-estate https://financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-canadas-3-mill... Note, that's ONLY 8.7 trillion. UBI is 720B for one year. And, what are you going to do? Seize people's real estate? Then what? Sell it again? To whom? Certainly not the people you just seized it from. Are you going to tax ... what? Because, "wealth" is real estate, stocks, companies one owns, land, more. Are you going to seize stocks? Then what? Hold on to them? How does that fund UBI? Are you going to seize companies? Great! Now that software company, valued at 100B, is worth $1, because the original owners are out, and they were the magic, and a government isn't going to be able to run something like that. None of the logic behind UBI seems to make sense to me. I can't see where the cash is coming from. This doesn't even include things like inflation, loss of productivity, or 100 other little things that are "just going to work themselves out".

baconandeggs 6y ago

Will it? People will just say we need better mental health treatments. I don't think there is a good argument against UBI that they'll accept. But of course, they don't answer the real question which is who's gonna do all the producing? The ones producing are clearly gonna be the ones being taken advantage of on UBI, even if it works 100% as expected.

zhoujianfu 6y ago
I wouldn’t really call it “being taken advantage of”.. in a real UBI, you’d only produce something if you were going to get paid enough that you want to do it. Nobody will have to produce anything they don’t want to, now that the UBI removes the fear of where their next meal will come from. I know I personally would still want to produce things to take home MORE than the UBI.
- tie_ 6y ago
  Well, the UBI money you get would be used to buy something that someone else has produced (an iPhone, a piece of bread, a bottle of wine, etc.). In this sense, the UBI that you are getting represents _goods_ that _someone else_ is producing (and "donating" into the system in the form of taxes). I find this easier to reason about when you take the concept of "money" out of the equation. So,oOption A is that you "donate" more goods into the system than the UBI you are consuming, which is all fine and dandy for the rest of us. Option B is that you are consuming more value that you are donating, which is less fun for the rest. So, some people will need to overproduce in order for the people who under-produce to get their UBI worth of goods. Mind you, this isn't different than the current state of affairs. The big question for me is how would the introduction of UBI ultimately affect that ratio, given that you would be less disincentivized to stay with the underproducing group?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The big question for me is how would the introduction of UBI ultimately affect that ratio, given that you would be less disincentivized to stay with the underproducing group? The “given” is backwards. Compared to existing means-tested welfare systems, UBI funded by additional high-end taxes provides less disincentive to move out of the underproducing group. If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in whole or in part) to offset and reduce minimum wage, it also reduces the barriers to people moving immediately to a less-inderprodicing level, and eventually up and out of the underproducing group.
    - tie_ 6y ago
      > If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in whole or in part) to offset and reduce minimum wage, it also reduces the barriers to people moving immediately to a less-inderprodicing level, and eventually up and out of the underproducing group. You can get rid of minimal wage with or without UBI. In fact Germany just recently introduced minimum wage - there was none before. The lack of it was clearly not regarded as boon to the society. The barrier effect is minimal, if any.
  - zhoujianfu 6y ago
    I agree this is already the state of affairs.. some people generate more goods/services/value than they consume (and build wealth), others do not. I think everything would still work out fine with a UBI because we’d still have the most market forces at play (compared to all other social welfare/safety net/redistribution schemes). If it turns out the UBI is too high, the people who produce will have to raise prices for goods to find equilibrium again. If it’s not, prices will stay the same (or drop). Overall though, it’s the most efficient way to make sure nobody starves, even those who for some reason or other just can’t compete in the future economy. I think once we have a UBI people will look back to the days before it like we look back at the hunter-gatherer days today, “I can’t believe in the early 21st century everybody HAD to work, just to survive!”
searchableguy 6y ago
Open source developers are living in the future without the monthly paycheck. It is delayed because some people on HN have hijacked it.
TheGrim-888 6y ago
If we were a space-faring people with automated robots doing space mining, collecting and processing materials, if there was no shortage of resources and nearly everything was automated - then sure, fine, people can have their utopian space-communism, culture-series, setup where everyone gets free money and can have whatever they want, and do whatever we want. But we're so many lightyears away from that situation. Our resources are very much limited. If people don't keep producing, we just stagnate and decay. We're nowhere near the point we need to be.

bbarnett 6y ago

I wish could get an overall rational argument FOR UBI, so I could at least debate it. From what I see, it's madness. The economics make zero sense. For example ; Canada. The Federal Government. (All of this speaks of the Federal Government). https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2019/report.html https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publica... 2019 Federal Revenue? $312B. That's from taxes, income from oil, any and all Federal revenue. Now. UBI. Universal Basic Income. That means everyone over 17 gets it, as an example. That also means it must cover the basics. That you can live on it. That's the whole point of UBI, and being "free to choose career paths", and all that other blather. That, to me, means $2k/month. Maybe that will scale, up AND down, depending upon where you live. But let's just go with $2k/month. Or $24k/year. Stats Canada says, out of almost 40M Canadians, around 30M are 18 and older. What's $24k30M? 720B. So.. the entire Federal Revenue is less than 1/2 of what UBI might cost. Now bear in mind, that there was a deficit* in Canada, about $20B. And there is currently a debt in Canada, of about 1.1T. The GoC will say it's less, 800B, but that's if they 'use assets of 300B and deduct that from actual debt", which is meaningless, because interest on debt is on 1.1T. Right now, 8% of Federal Revenue pays just the interest on that debt. If interest rates go up, say in a year or two.. so goes up that payment. My point is that one year of UBI, would almost DOUBLE the ENTIRE FEDERAL DEBT. A Federal Debt that arose after decades, not one year. If you half UBI? Now it's not basic income, it's just a supplement. And you absolutely, positively can't get that money from taxes. About 25% of people's income is taxed (yes, that's an average), that's gas tax, income tax, federal sales tax, tax on alcohol, and other such things. My point here is, you can't just double the tax. And, the above Federal Revenue? There is a pie chart, just under 50% of Federal Revenue came from personal tax. You could increase taxes on business, but are you going to tax 100% of their profit? Because that still won't cover it. Let's tax the rich you say! Well, most money is invested. For example: https://financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-canadas-3-million-richest-families-have-8-7-trillion-in-assets-but-half-is-tied-in-real-estate https://financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-canadas-3-mill... Note, that's ONLY 8.7 trillion. UBI is 720B for one year. And, what are you going to do? Seize people's real estate? Then what? Sell it again? To whom? Certainly not the people you just seized it from. Are you going to tax ... what? Because, "wealth" is real estate, stocks, companies one owns, land, more. Are you going to seize stocks? Then what? Hold on to them? How does that fund UBI? Are you going to seize companies? Great! Now that software company, valued at 100B, is worth $1, because the original owners are out, and they were the magic, and a government isn't going to be able to run something like that. None of the logic behind UBI seems to make sense to me. I can't see where the cash is coming from. This doesn't even include things like inflation, loss of productivity, or 100 other little things that are "just going to work themselves out".