4 ms·

I am all for more fair wealth distribution, but I don't see how this would be sustainable. With a basic income so high and higher taxes on the rich, what's the

by xavi 13y ago

I am all for more fair wealth distribution, but I don't see how this would be sustainable. With a basic income so high and higher taxes on the rich, what's the incentive to work for money? Hence, who would pay this? I think Georgism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism ), which doesn't tax income, but it only taxes land (so, not earned income) is a better approach to get a sustainable and more fair distribution of wealth.

lmartel 13y ago
Frickin' everyone would. If someone offered you 30k/year basic income would you quit your cushy programming job, or would you buy more stuff?
- rglullis 13y ago
  I don't know if that was your intention, but your comment smacks of a defense of consumerism. I may be against the idea of basic income exactly because it would allow people to feed a system that does not but expect them to be consumers of whatever crap society produces. Also, see http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
  - kijin 13y ago
    Some would say that basic income helps defeat consumerism, because people who really want to spend their time creating stuff can now do so without having to worry about putting food on the table.
    - rglullis 13y ago
      Have you seen the comment I was replying to? I don't feel like discussing what "some people" would say when you have someone right in front of me showing that even hackers (the one class that has everything in their hands to build whatever they want for free!) are inclined to think that having more money means "hellz yeah, now I can buy more stuff!".
- randomdata 13y ago
  Given that programmer incomes tend to be towards the rich end of the spectrum (an average programmer income puts you around the top 5% in North America), and the money has to come from somewhere, your income is unlikely to go up, and will quite possibly go down after taxes. That's fine if you support the greater good, but buying more things seems highly unlikely.
- xavi 13y ago
  Frickin' everyone? I look at the evolution of unemployment rates ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unemployment_rate_United_states_-_Europe_1993-2009.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unemployment_rate_United_s... ) and I see a clear trend that I think is not going to change. Besides, among the employed, I'm quite sure that an important percentage of people don't like their jobs. And, to answer your question, I would probably quit a "cushy" programming job to pursue my projects and interests.
  - malyk 13y ago
    Isn't that exactly what proponents of basic income hope will happen? People will be free from the shackles of employment and will be free to pursue their own ideas and interests?
    - xavi 13y ago
      Yes, it seems so. However, my argument is not that basic income would not have desirable consequences, but that I think it's not sustainable. I try to look at the whole system, and I don't see how it would work.
    - consz 13y ago
      That doesn't explain how it would help alleviate the tax burden. I would also quit my job if I had a basic income, but my own ideas/interests would not generate me any money so I would definitely go from someone supporting the system (financially) to someone mooching off of it.
- vellum 13y ago
  It's not everybody. 70% of American workers don't like their jobs. 52% have "checked out." The other 18% are actively trying to dick over the company. http://www.geekwire.com/2013/study-70-americans-jobs/ http://www.geekwire.com/2013/study-70-americans-jobs/
001sky 13y ago
you tax people on income, because they have the attachment to money they have not yet received. Also, it is a liquid payment, so the costs of re-distribution are lower as there is no illiquidity losses. If you tax property, then either you are taxing liquid income anyway, or you are forcing the sale of assets (the latter is inefficient, economically, because of asset specificty).
- xavi 13y ago
  I don't understand any of your arguments! How is a single tax on land value taxing on income? Can you put an example? I understand the tax would be on the value of the land, not on its size (from your comment I'm not sure if you understood in the same way). The tax only "forces" you to sell assets/property that you don't need or use to generate your income. I don't think this is bad. I don't see how taxing (land) property you are taxing liquid income too. The tax amount that you will have to pay doesn't depend on your income, so it doesn't penalize your productivity (which typical tax systems do, as they require you to pay more when you earn more).
  - drone 13y ago
    An increase in the marketable value of the land is considered an increase in income in such a model. (In fact, it -is- treated as an increase in income, just like the federal government in the US treat the distribution of restricted stock [which generally cannot be sold] as income.) Your statement about productivity might hold true, if it weren't for the fact that (at least here in my state), the tax value of land is based not only on unrelated market factors, but also on improvements and use of the land. Therefore, if you remodel your kitchen, the taxes on your home will increase. (Yes, they often do here - you have to pull permits to do this work within the city, and the county assessor monitors permit issues.) However, I do generally agree with the concept that property taxes are better than income taxes (which is one reason why I live in a state that utilizes this model), however, I can see that it creates downstream problems, especially for renters. That is to say, if I am renting a property, I would be foolish to not charge a margin on all costs - therefore a 5% tax to me becomes a 5.5% cost to you - I would charge a margin for fronting the taxes for you, and to compensate for periods where the property is un-rented.
ksrm 13y ago
Yes! I've been saying this for a while. A basic income funded by a land value tax would solve a lot of society's problems, I feel. Unfortunately I think it's a bit too radical for most people.
- xavi 13y ago
  This means that you would structure the land value tax so that enough money could be collected to pay a basic income for everyone? That's certainly an option, although I'm not sure if I would vote for that, I guess that it would depend on the amount of that basic income. Anyway, the important thing would be to agree on a single tax based on land value. Maybe some people find it too radical, I don't know, but what's clear for me is that the current system is not sustainable. Maybe when the current system collapses completely it wont't be too radical anymore :)
- rbritton 13y ago
  How do you then value the land? Property taxes in many areas of the US are notorious for being arbitrarily determined based on the amount the tax jurisdiction needs rather than the true value of the property. In my area it's not uncommon for two houses in the same area of similar builds to be valued differently for tax purposes. Our property valuation went up $53,000 last year while comparable houses in the area were around $15,000 down.
boomlinde 13y ago
The incentive to work would finally be that work needs to be done.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  You all are so idealistic. :) These threads on HN are like non-stop Star Trek post scarcity quixotic affair.
  - boomlinde 13y ago
    Do you mean to argue with what I'm saying or are you just being flippant in lack of a better approach?

by xavi 13y ago

lmartel 13y ago

Frickin' everyone would. If someone offered you 30k/year basic income would you quit your cushy programming job, or would you buy more stuff?

rglullis 13y ago
I don't know if that was your intention, but your comment smacks of a defense of consumerism. I may be against the idea of basic income exactly because it would allow people to feed a system that does not but expect them to be consumers of whatever crap society produces. Also, see http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
- kijin 13y ago
  Some would say that basic income helps defeat consumerism, because people who really want to spend their time creating stuff can now do so without having to worry about putting food on the table.
  - rglullis 13y ago
    Have you seen the comment I was replying to? I don't feel like discussing what "some people" would say when you have someone right in front of me showing that even hackers (the one class that has everything in their hands to build whatever they want for free!) are inclined to think that having more money means "hellz yeah, now I can buy more stuff!".
randomdata 13y ago
Given that programmer incomes tend to be towards the rich end of the spectrum (an average programmer income puts you around the top 5% in North America), and the money has to come from somewhere, your income is unlikely to go up, and will quite possibly go down after taxes. That's fine if you support the greater good, but buying more things seems highly unlikely.
xavi 13y ago
Frickin' everyone? I look at the evolution of unemployment rates ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unemployment_rate_United_states_-_Europe_1993-2009.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unemployment_rate_United_s... ) and I see a clear trend that I think is not going to change. Besides, among the employed, I'm quite sure that an important percentage of people don't like their jobs. And, to answer your question, I would probably quit a "cushy" programming job to pursue my projects and interests.
- malyk 13y ago
  Isn't that exactly what proponents of basic income hope will happen? People will be free from the shackles of employment and will be free to pursue their own ideas and interests?
  - xavi 13y ago
    Yes, it seems so. However, my argument is not that basic income would not have desirable consequences, but that I think it's not sustainable. I try to look at the whole system, and I don't see how it would work.
  - consz 13y ago
    That doesn't explain how it would help alleviate the tax burden. I would also quit my job if I had a basic income, but my own ideas/interests would not generate me any money so I would definitely go from someone supporting the system (financially) to someone mooching off of it.
vellum 13y ago
It's not everybody. 70% of American workers don't like their jobs. 52% have "checked out." The other 18% are actively trying to dick over the company. http://www.geekwire.com/2013/study-70-americans-jobs/ http://www.geekwire.com/2013/study-70-americans-jobs/

001sky 13y ago

you tax people on income, because they have the attachment to money they have not yet received. Also, it is a liquid payment, so the costs of re-distribution are lower as there is no illiquidity losses. If you tax property, then either you are taxing liquid income anyway, or you are forcing the sale of assets (the latter is inefficient, economically, because of asset specificty).

xavi 13y ago
I don't understand any of your arguments! How is a single tax on land value taxing on income? Can you put an example? I understand the tax would be on the value of the land, not on its size (from your comment I'm not sure if you understood in the same way). The tax only "forces" you to sell assets/property that you don't need or use to generate your income. I don't think this is bad. I don't see how taxing (land) property you are taxing liquid income too. The tax amount that you will have to pay doesn't depend on your income, so it doesn't penalize your productivity (which typical tax systems do, as they require you to pay more when you earn more).
- drone 13y ago
  An increase in the marketable value of the land is considered an increase in income in such a model. (In fact, it -is- treated as an increase in income, just like the federal government in the US treat the distribution of restricted stock [which generally cannot be sold] as income.) Your statement about productivity might hold true, if it weren't for the fact that (at least here in my state), the tax value of land is based not only on unrelated market factors, but also on improvements and use of the land. Therefore, if you remodel your kitchen, the taxes on your home will increase. (Yes, they often do here - you have to pull permits to do this work within the city, and the county assessor monitors permit issues.) However, I do generally agree with the concept that property taxes are better than income taxes (which is one reason why I live in a state that utilizes this model), however, I can see that it creates downstream problems, especially for renters. That is to say, if I am renting a property, I would be foolish to not charge a margin on all costs - therefore a 5% tax to me becomes a 5.5% cost to you - I would charge a margin for fronting the taxes for you, and to compensate for periods where the property is un-rented.

ksrm 13y ago

Yes! I've been saying this for a while. A basic income funded by a land value tax would solve a lot of society's problems, I feel. Unfortunately I think it's a bit too radical for most people.

xavi 13y ago
This means that you would structure the land value tax so that enough money could be collected to pay a basic income for everyone? That's certainly an option, although I'm not sure if I would vote for that, I guess that it would depend on the amount of that basic income. Anyway, the important thing would be to agree on a single tax based on land value. Maybe some people find it too radical, I don't know, but what's clear for me is that the current system is not sustainable. Maybe when the current system collapses completely it wont't be too radical anymore :)
rbritton 13y ago
How do you then value the land? Property taxes in many areas of the US are notorious for being arbitrarily determined based on the amount the tax jurisdiction needs rather than the true value of the property. In my area it's not uncommon for two houses in the same area of similar builds to be valued differently for tax purposes. Our property valuation went up $53,000 last year while comparable houses in the area were around $15,000 down.

boomlinde 13y ago

The incentive to work would finally be that work needs to be done.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago
You all are so idealistic. :) These threads on HN are like non-stop Star Trek post scarcity quixotic affair.
- boomlinde 13y ago
  Do you mean to argue with what I'm saying or are you just being flippant in lack of a better approach?