5 ms·

I also rarely even see back of a napkin calculations on how much money will be given away, what will be the source of the money, etc.

bane 12y ago
If you see one that doesn't account for labor dropout under a UBI scheme, ignore it. It won't be a realistic model.
- phaemon 12y ago
  So you keep claiming, but actual trials of mincome/BI/whatever haven't shown a significant dropout of labour. Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
  - bane 12y ago
    sigh this is absolutely exhausting https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793453
    - phaemon 12y ago
      I read those comments. They're exactly what I meant by "you keep claiming this". Claiming it's so is not evidence. Perhaps you missed that in your weariness. My question stands: Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
      - bane 12y ago
        You can read the Mincome reports yourself. They aren't exactly glowing and most of the reported effects are well within the margin for error in the measurements. BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form because it requires everybody on the planet to do it at the same time. The closest we have are economic analogs. For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy, the people who've stopped working don't exactly spend this new free-time self-actualizing themselves into discovering cures for cancer or unifying the fundamental forces of the universe. If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1. If you aren't aware of these cases on your own, but willing to promote nonsense like UBI, you're just being willfully ignorant of history and basic economics. No amount of handwaivery and ignoring poor outcomes based on this or that technicality or goal post move will make cause and effect bend towards making these schemes work. So here's your test: find somebody who's working poor, offer to put them up in your house and feed and clothe them no strings attached. How long before they self-actualize into a high-paid white-collar degree? Repeat this experiment 10,000 times. How many people, given this options, would rather just sit at home all day and surf the internet/watch TV/gossip vs. going out and challenging themselves into a better life? I don't have to answer this, BI advocates do. And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations. This has never been done and anything outside of this is hand waivy nonsense built on fairy dreams.
        phaemon 12y ago
        > You can read the Mincome reports yourself. I have. And the Namibian ones. And the Indian ones. None of them saw a significant dropoff in labour. > For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy Like Norway, you mean? > If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1. How will a history book help me if "BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form"? > And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations. These were "real-world" situations. They actually occurred in the real world. That's generally considered more "real-world" than economic models are. I think I'll stop here. I'm starting to get too amused with this conversation. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
        dllthomas 12y ago
        When you say "Indian ones" do you mean the experiments with distributing casino revenues unconditionally amongst a Native American tribe, or something that happened in India that I missed. Not trying to nitpick labels, just want to be clear as to the referents.
        phaemon 12y ago
        I meant in the country India. I didn't even think about the Native American situation, though now I consider it, it does seem to illustrate the dangers of making payments that are socially exclusive (similar to the problems Australia has faced with its aboriginal people). I think the following links has more details on India, but I've not read through it as it's late on Christmas Eve for me and I'm worried about collapsing the Santa wave-function so I won't get any presents! http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-transformative-potential-of-basic-income-grants/ http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t...
        12y ago
- scarmig 12y ago
  Labor dropout is more likely to be higher under current welfare schemes than a basic income, because of the high marginal tax rates present under the current system vs BI.
phaemon 12y ago
I knocked one together for the UK, if it helps. But it is 'back of napkin'. There are all sorts of details you'd want to fill out. Here: [There were requests for "back of a napkin" calculations, so I've done some for the UK. To convert to USD, just add 50%, as a rough measure.] tl;dr - About £80 a week seems roughly achievable as a starting point. Firstly, I'd like to say I prefer thinking of this as a "Citizen's Dividend" rather than a "Basic Income", as the latter suggests it's useless if it doesn't cover a persons cost of living. I think even a small start is better than nothing, and it can be increased up to become a Basic Income in time. I'll refer to it as BI (Basic Income) here though. So, let's see what we've got... The UK government spends £732 billion. If we subtract £222 billion for Social Protection (we're replacing all of it with our BI), we get £510 billion required. If we add up all government income except Income Tax - Business Rates, Excise, etc - we get £481 billion. That leaves us a shortfall of £29 billion. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume that reductions in crime, the increase in VAT revenue, better health, etc are going to cover that. Let's call it close enough for government work. At the end of the day, we currently borrow £84 billion anyway, so at worst I've slashed the deficit :-) Income Tax brings in £167 billion. UK population I'm going to take at 60 million. So, as a starting point, that gives us a BI of £2,783 annually, or £54 ($80) a week. Well, that's not a bad start! Let's consider what it means for actual people. Thus far: Who loves me: - Right-wingers. I've eliminated (or vastly reduced) the deficit, effectively increased the income tax allowance by £2,783 and given them this amount in cash, while reducing welfare payments to lazy, single-mother immigrants. I should be head of the Conservative party. - Most people on Job Seekers Allowance (unemployment benefit). While I've cut the amount they actually get, I've also cut out all the paperwork, visits to the job centre, taking money off them if they happen to earn something that week, etc etc. Money without the hassle. - Low wage workers. This is a big boost above Working Tax Credit and is hassle free (you don't lose it by earning more). It also allows some degree of security in the event of losing their job. Who hates me: - Left-wingers. While I've helped some low paid workers, I've also slashed benefits, there's no housing support...in short I've cut welfare while giving more money to wealthy people. I should be head of the Conservative party. - People who're claiming several benefits. People who're on sickness benefit. Basically, all the folk who've had their income reduced below a living wage. - Pensioners. The state pension has been cut significantly (and illegally). Ok, I think I need to balance it a bit more. I'm going to reduce the Income Tax allowance from £10,000 (current) to £6,000. This should balance out at the end. I'm going to assume this increases income tax revenue by 25% (I've no idea if this is remotely close. If anyone can be bothered finding out, please let me know). More controversially, I'm also going to increase income tax by 25%, so the basic rate is now 25% rather than 20%. That should give me a total revenue increase of 50% from Income Tax which gives me a BI of £4,175 annually or £80 ($120) per week. And I think I'll leave it there. We'd need to borrow (or cut spending elsewhere) to make up other shortfalls (such as pension payments), but as long as it's less than £50 billion we still come out ahead. It might be more natural to cut the payment to £70 for everyone in order to free up some cash for other payments. In the real world, you wouldn't exclusively reserve Income Tax to one specific spending area anyway, but it makes things simple enough to get a rough measure.

bane 12y ago

If you see one that doesn't account for labor dropout under a UBI scheme, ignore it. It won't be a realistic model.

phaemon 12y ago
So you keep claiming, but actual trials of mincome/BI/whatever haven't shown a significant dropout of labour. Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
- bane 12y ago
  sigh this is absolutely exhausting https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793453
  - phaemon 12y ago
    I read those comments. They're exactly what I meant by "you keep claiming this". Claiming it's so is not evidence. Perhaps you missed that in your weariness. My question stands: Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
    - bane 12y ago
      You can read the Mincome reports yourself. They aren't exactly glowing and most of the reported effects are well within the margin for error in the measurements. BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form because it requires everybody on the planet to do it at the same time. The closest we have are economic analogs. For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy, the people who've stopped working don't exactly spend this new free-time self-actualizing themselves into discovering cures for cancer or unifying the fundamental forces of the universe. If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1. If you aren't aware of these cases on your own, but willing to promote nonsense like UBI, you're just being willfully ignorant of history and basic economics. No amount of handwaivery and ignoring poor outcomes based on this or that technicality or goal post move will make cause and effect bend towards making these schemes work. So here's your test: find somebody who's working poor, offer to put them up in your house and feed and clothe them no strings attached. How long before they self-actualize into a high-paid white-collar degree? Repeat this experiment 10,000 times. How many people, given this options, would rather just sit at home all day and surf the internet/watch TV/gossip vs. going out and challenging themselves into a better life? I don't have to answer this, BI advocates do. And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations. This has never been done and anything outside of this is hand waivy nonsense built on fairy dreams.
      - phaemon 12y ago
        > You can read the Mincome reports yourself. I have. And the Namibian ones. And the Indian ones. None of them saw a significant dropoff in labour. > For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy Like Norway, you mean? > If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1. How will a history book help me if "BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form"? > And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations. These were "real-world" situations. They actually occurred in the real world. That's generally considered more "real-world" than economic models are. I think I'll stop here. I'm starting to get too amused with this conversation. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
        dllthomas 12y ago
        When you say "Indian ones" do you mean the experiments with distributing casino revenues unconditionally amongst a Native American tribe, or something that happened in India that I missed. Not trying to nitpick labels, just want to be clear as to the referents.
        phaemon 12y ago
        I meant in the country India. I didn't even think about the Native American situation, though now I consider it, it does seem to illustrate the dangers of making payments that are socially exclusive (similar to the problems Australia has faced with its aboriginal people). I think the following links has more details on India, but I've not read through it as it's late on Christmas Eve for me and I'm worried about collapsing the Santa wave-function so I won't get any presents! http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-transformative-potential-of-basic-income-grants/ http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t...
        12y ago
scarmig 12y ago
Labor dropout is more likely to be higher under current welfare schemes than a basic income, because of the high marginal tax rates present under the current system vs BI.

phaemon 12y ago

I knocked one together for the UK, if it helps. But it is 'back of napkin'. There are all sorts of details you'd want to fill out. Here: [There were requests for "back of a napkin" calculations, so I've done some for the UK. To convert to USD, just add 50%, as a rough measure.] tl;dr - About £80 a week seems roughly achievable as a starting point. Firstly, I'd like to say I prefer thinking of this as a "Citizen's Dividend" rather than a "Basic Income", as the latter suggests it's useless if it doesn't cover a persons cost of living. I think even a small start is better than nothing, and it can be increased up to become a Basic Income in time. I'll refer to it as BI (Basic Income) here though. So, let's see what we've got... The UK government spends £732 billion. If we subtract £222 billion for Social Protection (we're replacing all of it with our BI), we get £510 billion required. If we add up all government income except Income Tax - Business Rates, Excise, etc - we get £481 billion. That leaves us a shortfall of £29 billion. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume that reductions in crime, the increase in VAT revenue, better health, etc are going to cover that. Let's call it close enough for government work. At the end of the day, we currently borrow £84 billion anyway, so at worst I've slashed the deficit :-) Income Tax brings in £167 billion. UK population I'm going to take at 60 million. So, as a starting point, that gives us a BI of £2,783 annually, or £54 ($80) a week. Well, that's not a bad start! Let's consider what it means for actual people. Thus far: Who loves me: - Right-wingers. I've eliminated (or vastly reduced) the deficit, effectively increased the income tax allowance by £2,783 and given them this amount in cash, while reducing welfare payments to lazy, single-mother immigrants. I should be head of the Conservative party. - Most people on Job Seekers Allowance (unemployment benefit). While I've cut the amount they actually get, I've also cut out all the paperwork, visits to the job centre, taking money off them if they happen to earn something that week, etc etc. Money without the hassle. - Low wage workers. This is a big boost above Working Tax Credit and is hassle free (you don't lose it by earning more). It also allows some degree of security in the event of losing their job. Who hates me: - Left-wingers. While I've helped some low paid workers, I've also slashed benefits, there's no housing support...in short I've cut welfare while giving more money to wealthy people. I should be head of the Conservative party. - People who're claiming several benefits. People who're on sickness benefit. Basically, all the folk who've had their income reduced below a living wage. - Pensioners. The state pension has been cut significantly (and illegally). Ok, I think I need to balance it a bit more. I'm going to reduce the Income Tax allowance from £10,000 (current) to £6,000. This should balance out at the end. I'm going to assume this increases income tax revenue by 25% (I've no idea if this is remotely close. If anyone can be bothered finding out, please let me know). More controversially, I'm also going to increase income tax by 25%, so the basic rate is now 25% rather than 20%. That should give me a total revenue increase of 50% from Income Tax which gives me a BI of £4,175 annually or £80 ($120) per week. And I think I'll leave it there. We'd need to borrow (or cut spending elsewhere) to make up other shortfalls (such as pension payments), but as long as it's less than £50 billion we still come out ahead. It might be more natural to cut the payment to £70 for everyone in order to free up some cash for other payments. In the real world, you wouldn't exclusively reserve Income Tax to one specific spending area anyway, but it makes things simple enough to get a rough measure.