5 ms·

This would have lots of un-intended consequences, especially when you think about how much money can be saved with group living (10 to 100 people per house, eco

This would have lots of un-intended consequences, especially when you think about how much money can be saved with group living (10 to 100 people per house, economy of scale with respect to room and board). Separatist cults would now be profitable instead of being money sinks. Debtor's prison is now a possibility again (you can house the person more cheaply than their annual stipend). If the government gets to confiscate the stipend of incarcerated felons to offset prison expenses, there's now economic incentive to increase prison population.

I_got_fifty 17y ago
And of course inflation.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Er, have you looked at the US or California prison populations lately? They're remarkably high as things are, and there are already all sorts of ways to confiscate the property of convicts, which has proved a bonanza for some law enforcement agencies. As for the other economic incentive, you would need to compare the potential saving with the cost to the state of keeping someone in jail, which can run anywhere from about $15k (Texas) to $35k (Maine). Weather and geography are significant factors in this variation. The basic income we're talking about is probably only sufficient for basic survival; somehow I doubt it's going to be more than the cost of imprisoning someone. Of all the possible unforeseen ramifications of how something like this might work out, putting people in jail to save money is not high on my list of things to worry about...though now I think about it, the cost per inmate per year might be a reasonable metric for determining this basic income, since it reflects the approximate cost of living in the most literal sense.
- eru 17y ago
  Inmates cost more. They have to be guarded.
bfung 17y ago
I agree. What's to prevent me from cheating the system by having a ton of kids? They'll be provided for by this program. Also, I elect that my salary be $1 and receive bonuses instead... yes, there are arguments against that, but at least right now, I'd have to spend effort to be rich first before taking the $1 salary + bonus. I just finished reading through the Self-Enforcing Protocols post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=755131 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=755131), and this scheme strikes me as something being easy to abuse.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  What's to prevent me from cheating the system by having a ton of kids? Um, maybe having the kids around?
  - wlievens 17y ago
    He does have a point. In places with good child benefits, some people just keep getting more kids, and not raising them properly.
    - tokenadult 17y ago
      Which places are those? What kind of family sizes are we talking about?

I_got_fifty 17y ago

And of course inflation.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Er, have you looked at the US or California prison populations lately? They're remarkably high as things are, and there are already all sorts of ways to confiscate the property of convicts, which has proved a bonanza for some law enforcement agencies. As for the other economic incentive, you would need to compare the potential saving with the cost to the state of keeping someone in jail, which can run anywhere from about $15k (Texas) to $35k (Maine). Weather and geography are significant factors in this variation. The basic income we're talking about is probably only sufficient for basic survival; somehow I doubt it's going to be more than the cost of imprisoning someone. Of all the possible unforeseen ramifications of how something like this might work out, putting people in jail to save money is not high on my list of things to worry about...though now I think about it, the cost per inmate per year might be a reasonable metric for determining this basic income, since it reflects the approximate cost of living in the most literal sense.

eru 17y ago
Inmates cost more. They have to be guarded.

bfung 17y ago

I agree. What's to prevent me from cheating the system by having a ton of kids? They'll be provided for by this program. Also, I elect that my salary be $1 and receive bonuses instead... yes, there are arguments against that, but at least right now, I'd have to spend effort to be rich first before taking the $1 salary + bonus. I just finished reading through the Self-Enforcing Protocols post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=755131 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=755131), and this scheme strikes me as something being easy to abuse.

tokenadult 17y ago
What's to prevent me from cheating the system by having a ton of kids? Um, maybe having the kids around?
- wlievens 17y ago
  He does have a point. In places with good child benefits, some people just keep getting more kids, and not raising them properly.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    Which places are those? What kind of family sizes are we talking about?