5 ms·

Presumably a lot of the potential profit would be taxed to fund this basic income guarantee. In any case, it seems like your argument boils down to "Better not

Presumably a lot of the potential profit would be taxed to fund this basic income guarantee. In any case, it seems like your argument boils down to "Better not let poor people buy food, in case the price of food rises," which I think fails without significant deeper examination.

ck2 13y ago
Nope, I say make sure poor people have that basic income. You don't have to give it to everyone. I live in a low income neighborhood - you can clearly see the difference in generational poverty and how help is needed. You also can fix the problem by making sure that corporations like Walmart do not rely on their employees getting foodstamps as part of their income as a business model. It is a very unlevel playing field when entire cities are funding the "low prices".
- drcube 13y ago
  Means testing is a lot of bureaucracy for less effectiveness. Giving everyone a basic income eliminates those issues.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > Nope, I say make sure poor people have that basic income. > You don't have to give it to everyone. Then it's not a basic income. Giving it to everyone, period, is the defining characteristic of a basic income, and what makes it different than welfare. Proponents believe it to be a superior model because it eliminates a lot of beaurocracy, bad incentives and paternalistic structures that communicate to poor people that they're inferior and might as well not even try to improve themselves.
  - maxk42 13y ago
    Yes, but once you give everybody $X,000 dollars per month you'll spur inflation and in a couple years $X,000 will no longer be enough to live on. So then you've got to adjust your basic income to $(X+Y),000 per month to make sure everybody has enough, but that will spur more inflation and you'll be right back where you started. Meanwhile, that money has to come from somewhere and it will come out in the form of taxes. Remember, that only about one in three people in the US is employed. So now every working American has to be taxed enough to pay for three basic incomes plus their own incomes on top of that. The rich will complain about the added taxes, but it's the middle-class that really suffers, since they will NOT escape the added tax burden and their extra taxes combined with rising inflation mean they now make just barely enough to get by, effectively placing them in the lower-class. Now you've got a gigantic lower-class, a tiny middle class, and an upper class that only gets richer because they can accelerate the rate at which they siphon off income from the lower classes through price increases. It's a nice idea, but it's not a good idea.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      > once you give everybody $X,000 dollars per month you'll spur inflation > Meanwhile, that money has to come from somewhere and it will come out in the form of taxes. These two statements are contradictory. If it comes from taxes, it's not "printed" money and thus does not directly lead to inflation - unless it's through increased spending, in which case it means increased consumption and thus a growing economy.
      - maxk42 13y ago
        They're not contradictory: Prices for basic necessities such as food and housing would rise, causing an increase in inflation. Meanwhile, spending for luxuries would see a contraction as additional tax burdens shrink discretionary spending. The net effect is to shrink the middle class, as I explained.
        brazzy 13y ago
        > Prices for basic necessities such as food and housing would rise, causing an increase in inflation. Only if previously a significant portion of people could not afford basic necessities at all and/or it's impossible to produce more of those basic necessities. Both of these seem rather dubious. > The net effect is to shrink the middle class, as I explained. You didn't explain anything, you made a bunch of predictions.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Giving it to everyone, period, is not mathematically tenable. A thousand dollars per month to every adult US citizen would represent over 2 trillion dollars in additional spending per year. At the very least you have to change the tax structure to claw it back from people as they earn more money.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      It would not be simply additional spending, as it would replace many existing (much more beaurocratically complex) social security programs. And yes, the tax structure would have to change as well.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6809766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6809766 It would be a massive net increase in spending and it's not even remotely tenable without changing the tax structure specifically to claw the basic income itself back from most of the recipients.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  You increase taxes to provide the basic income, so on net you're not providing it to everyone. On gross you provide it to everyone so that there's no sharp drop off at any point.

ck2 13y ago

Nope, I say make sure poor people have that basic income. You don't have to give it to everyone. I live in a low income neighborhood - you can clearly see the difference in generational poverty and how help is needed. You also can fix the problem by making sure that corporations like Walmart do not rely on their employees getting foodstamps as part of their income as a business model. It is a very unlevel playing field when entire cities are funding the "low prices".

drcube 13y ago
Means testing is a lot of bureaucracy for less effectiveness. Giving everyone a basic income eliminates those issues.
brazzy 13y ago
> Nope, I say make sure poor people have that basic income. > You don't have to give it to everyone. Then it's not a basic income. Giving it to everyone, period, is the defining characteristic of a basic income, and what makes it different than welfare. Proponents believe it to be a superior model because it eliminates a lot of beaurocracy, bad incentives and paternalistic structures that communicate to poor people that they're inferior and might as well not even try to improve themselves.
- maxk42 13y ago
  Yes, but once you give everybody $X,000 dollars per month you'll spur inflation and in a couple years $X,000 will no longer be enough to live on. So then you've got to adjust your basic income to $(X+Y),000 per month to make sure everybody has enough, but that will spur more inflation and you'll be right back where you started. Meanwhile, that money has to come from somewhere and it will come out in the form of taxes. Remember, that only about one in three people in the US is employed. So now every working American has to be taxed enough to pay for three basic incomes plus their own incomes on top of that. The rich will complain about the added taxes, but it's the middle-class that really suffers, since they will NOT escape the added tax burden and their extra taxes combined with rising inflation mean they now make just barely enough to get by, effectively placing them in the lower-class. Now you've got a gigantic lower-class, a tiny middle class, and an upper class that only gets richer because they can accelerate the rate at which they siphon off income from the lower classes through price increases. It's a nice idea, but it's not a good idea.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    > once you give everybody $X,000 dollars per month you'll spur inflation > Meanwhile, that money has to come from somewhere and it will come out in the form of taxes. These two statements are contradictory. If it comes from taxes, it's not "printed" money and thus does not directly lead to inflation - unless it's through increased spending, in which case it means increased consumption and thus a growing economy.
    - maxk42 13y ago
      They're not contradictory: Prices for basic necessities such as food and housing would rise, causing an increase in inflation. Meanwhile, spending for luxuries would see a contraction as additional tax burdens shrink discretionary spending. The net effect is to shrink the middle class, as I explained.
      - brazzy 13y ago
        > Prices for basic necessities such as food and housing would rise, causing an increase in inflation. Only if previously a significant portion of people could not afford basic necessities at all and/or it's impossible to produce more of those basic necessities. Both of these seem rather dubious. > The net effect is to shrink the middle class, as I explained. You didn't explain anything, you made a bunch of predictions.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Giving it to everyone, period, is not mathematically tenable. A thousand dollars per month to every adult US citizen would represent over 2 trillion dollars in additional spending per year. At the very least you have to change the tax structure to claw it back from people as they earn more money.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    It would not be simply additional spending, as it would replace many existing (much more beaurocratically complex) social security programs. And yes, the tax structure would have to change as well.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6809766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6809766 It would be a massive net increase in spending and it's not even remotely tenable without changing the tax structure specifically to claw the basic income itself back from most of the recipients.
dllthomas 13y ago
You increase taxes to provide the basic income, so on net you're not providing it to everyone. On gross you provide it to everyone so that there's no sharp drop off at any point.