6 ms·

oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft. i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current sys

by sama 12y ago

oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft. i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current systems. i'm also not sure it's the right approach, but i haven't heard any better ideas yet.

chillingeffect 12y ago
> any better ideas yet Progressive tax on incomes >$1,000,000. This won't slow anyone down except the ultra-wealthy. As of 2009, it's 236,883 people. That's less than 1 in a thousand. With more income in a single year than most people in the U.S. earn in a lifetime, they'll certainly still be much more than quite comfortable.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  Unfortunately, the article isn't very clear about what the problem statement is for which basic income is the proposed solution. But assuming it is something like "people are having trouble participating in the economy, which is a drag on our society's standard of living", I don't see how "increased federal income" is a solution. What do you propose the government do with its newfound wealth to solve these problems? "Tax the rich" might be a decent tactic, but it certainly isn't a good strategy.
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  >>> Progressive tax on incomes >$1,000,000. This won't slow anyone down except the ultra-wealthy. What do you think happens to anybody, let alone people who are really rich when you continually increase their taxes? They stop spending, they start hiding their money, they it send it to foreign countries, they will find ways around the taxes you're trying to levy against them. It doesn't matter who you tax, they're going to try and avoid paying taxes regardless. People have this notion that since they're super wealthy, they have money to burn - which is hardly the case. Most people making over $1 million per year live a lifestyle that's congruent to the money they're making. You think those people are thinking , "Aye, it's only 10K more to the governmnet, no big deal?", right?. Hardly. They want to hold onto their money just as much as the next guy.
  - virtue3 12y ago
    I'm 99% sure rich people don't get rich by "spending money". Just saying. "Trickle down" is fucking bullshit.
- exelius 12y ago
  Most of the people in this class are able to hire accountants and re-classify much of their income in such a way as to avoid the taxes. Part of the problem when you start talking about massive tax bills is that the higher the tax, the higher the return on investment from avoiding it. So if you can pay an accountant $500,000 to set up a bunch of shell corporations and trusts as legal tax shelters that will save you $5,000,000, you'll do it in a heartbeat. Add in Citizens United to the mix and you can see where this is going. If it's suddenly a great return on investment to lobby Congress to introduce a tax loophole, people will do it. The entire premise of modern corporate finance is that if you don't like what a company is doing with your investment, you are free to cash out your investment and invest in something else. That doesn't work with governments; but it doesn't prevent people from trying to apply the same attitudes.
gautambay 12y ago
i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income. with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term. of course, what constitutes "essential services" can be the subject of a lengthy debate.
- enjo 12y ago
  There are a couple ways to view this. By covering "essential services" you really are just guaranteeing a lot of inflation in those sectors (they are now on a fixed minimum income as a group). Some would argue that many of the same cost run-ups we've seen in university education (with government loans and other programs) will affect those essential service sectors in the same way. One of the benefits of a basic income is that it serves as a really effective wealth redistribution program. It is partly a social safety net, but it's also something that can potentially give the economy as a whole a boost thanks to a lot of spending on the bottom (as opposed to income hoarding at the top). I'm not sure I agree with those positions. I think I lack enough knowledge of economics to form a good opinion. I have definitely seen both of those arguments made in support of a simple basic income, however.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- mwilliamson 12y ago
  This article has a few examples of basic income experiments, with encouraging results. For instance, when the town of Dauphin had basic income implemented, hospital visits went down by 8.5%, which suggests real benefit rather than just frivolous spending. https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/31639050894-e44e2c00 https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...
- ef4 12y ago
  Ah, the classic paternalistic argument. It's deeply appealing to many people's preconceptions. But a growing body of experimental results call it into question. When you actually conduct the experiment -- a randomized controlled trial where you give some poor people cash and others in-kind services, the cash group outperforms.
jbellis 12y ago
Some interesting thoughts on better ideas here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/06/why-living-on-the-dole-is-bad-for-you/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/06/why-living-on-t...

by sama 12y ago

chillingeffect 12y ago

> any better ideas yet Progressive tax on incomes >$1,000,000. This won't slow anyone down except the ultra-wealthy. As of 2009, it's 236,883 people. That's less than 1 in a thousand. With more income in a single year than most people in the U.S. earn in a lifetime, they'll certainly still be much more than quite comfortable.

sanderjd 12y ago
Unfortunately, the article isn't very clear about what the problem statement is for which basic income is the proposed solution. But assuming it is something like "people are having trouble participating in the economy, which is a drag on our society's standard of living", I don't see how "increased federal income" is a solution. What do you propose the government do with its newfound wealth to solve these problems? "Tax the rich" might be a decent tactic, but it certainly isn't a good strategy.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
>>> Progressive tax on incomes >$1,000,000. This won't slow anyone down except the ultra-wealthy. What do you think happens to anybody, let alone people who are really rich when you continually increase their taxes? They stop spending, they start hiding their money, they it send it to foreign countries, they will find ways around the taxes you're trying to levy against them. It doesn't matter who you tax, they're going to try and avoid paying taxes regardless. People have this notion that since they're super wealthy, they have money to burn - which is hardly the case. Most people making over $1 million per year live a lifestyle that's congruent to the money they're making. You think those people are thinking , "Aye, it's only 10K more to the governmnet, no big deal?", right?. Hardly. They want to hold onto their money just as much as the next guy.
- virtue3 12y ago
  I'm 99% sure rich people don't get rich by "spending money". Just saying. "Trickle down" is fucking bullshit.
exelius 12y ago
Most of the people in this class are able to hire accountants and re-classify much of their income in such a way as to avoid the taxes. Part of the problem when you start talking about massive tax bills is that the higher the tax, the higher the return on investment from avoiding it. So if you can pay an accountant $500,000 to set up a bunch of shell corporations and trusts as legal tax shelters that will save you $5,000,000, you'll do it in a heartbeat. Add in Citizens United to the mix and you can see where this is going. If it's suddenly a great return on investment to lobby Congress to introduce a tax loophole, people will do it. The entire premise of modern corporate finance is that if you don't like what a company is doing with your investment, you are free to cash out your investment and invest in something else. That doesn't work with governments; but it doesn't prevent people from trying to apply the same attitudes.

gautambay 12y ago

i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income. with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term. of course, what constitutes "essential services" can be the subject of a lengthy debate.

enjo 12y ago
There are a couple ways to view this. By covering "essential services" you really are just guaranteeing a lot of inflation in those sectors (they are now on a fixed minimum income as a group). Some would argue that many of the same cost run-ups we've seen in university education (with government loans and other programs) will affect those essential service sectors in the same way. One of the benefits of a basic income is that it serves as a really effective wealth redistribution program. It is partly a social safety net, but it's also something that can potentially give the economy as a whole a boost thanks to a lot of spending on the bottom (as opposed to income hoarding at the top). I'm not sure I agree with those positions. I think I lack enough knowledge of economics to form a good opinion. I have definitely seen both of those arguments made in support of a simple basic income, however.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
mwilliamson 12y ago
This article has a few examples of basic income experiments, with encouraging results. For instance, when the town of Dauphin had basic income implemented, hospital visits went down by 8.5%, which suggests real benefit rather than just frivolous spending. https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/31639050894-e44e2c00 https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...
ef4 12y ago
Ah, the classic paternalistic argument. It's deeply appealing to many people's preconceptions. But a growing body of experimental results call it into question. When you actually conduct the experiment -- a randomized controlled trial where you give some poor people cash and others in-kind services, the cash group outperforms.

jbellis 12y ago

Some interesting thoughts on better ideas here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/06/why-living-on-the-dole-is-bad-for-you/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/06/why-living-on-t...