13 ms·

Or you could call it something like "Free Money Forever", because that's what its proponents seem to think they'd be getting, as if the money didn't have to com

Or you could call it something like "Free Money Forever", because that's what its proponents seem to think they'd be getting, as if the money didn't have to come from somewhere. How many people have any clue as to where tax revenues come from? How many understand that other people have to earn that money first? How many understand that if the people who earn money are burdened with much higher taxes to pay for someone else's BI, a lot of them them will just stop working because fuck that? How would that affect the burden on the remaining earners? Please just think about it for a while.

avn2109 11y ago
The moral hazard you've described is definitely a thing, and it would be silly to expect 0 slippage in the labor market after BI introduction, but I guess the claim is that we already spend so much on inefficient social welfare programs that if we just killed them all and gave the money to the people directly that it would be better for literally everyone involved. And it is an elegant sort of solution; after all, cutting out the middleman is the American way.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Decades of increasingly large and seemingly free lunches have gotten us to a point where people actually think there is such a thing. But there isn't. The money has always had to come from somewhere, and it's always had consequences. It's just that the consequences can't be swept under the rug anymore, and soon even the most fervent propaganda will fail to convince the masses that everything is alright and the economy is recovering (when in reality it's not, and it's not).
  - icebraining 11y ago
    What's the evidence that the weak state of the economy is caused by those "free lunches"?
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      Evidence? Isn't reasoning enough? Or do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?
      - ncallaway 11y ago
        I would argue that the prolonged debate between well-educated and well-respected economists on the topic of government spending[1] indicates that reasoning alone does not lead to a single straightforward answer on the topic. Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims. > "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?" It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient. The claim that: 1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible 2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high Has the same flaws as: 1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c) 2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high. [1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
        sillygoose 11y ago
        Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either. You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context. In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on. So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend. So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy. In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.
- gaius 11y ago
  The problem with "inefficient welfare programs" is that they're actually very efficient... at providing well-paid, secure jobs for bureaucrats and civil servants. UBI or similar ideas only really work if the overhead of running them is very, very low.
- jchrisa 11y ago
  I'd argue that UBI would unlock latent productivity of all the people doing shitty jobs who would otherwise being doing something they love, and thus contribute to society instead of seeing the world as a zero sum game that they got the short stick of. Opposition to UBI comes mostly from people stuck in a zero sum mindset.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game. Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade. Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere. Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      I would argue that wealth redistribution (which UBI absolutely is) is not a zero sum game. First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth. Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum. It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.
lfowles 11y ago
> How many understand that if the people who earn money are burdened with much higher taxes to pay for someone else's BI, a lot of them them will just stop working because fuck that? How would that affect the burden on the remaining earners? Do you think Basic Income will be sufficient enough to sustain anyone's lifestyle that they will _stop working_ out of spite?
- zo1 11y ago
  For those that make an only moderate amount more than the basic income? It's a good probability that they will not want to work. Perhaps not out of "spite" as you suggest, but a simple time tradeoff. E.g. "Work 8 hours per day, and get $100 more. Or work 0 hours per and have $100 dollars less to spend, but 8 hours more to work on hobbies and leisure and social activities.
  - orangecat 11y ago
    Perhaps not out of "spite" as you suggest, but a simple time tradeoff. E.g. "Work 8 hours per day, and get $100 more. Or work 0 hours per and have $100 dollars less to spend, but 8 hours more to work on hobbies and leisure and social activities. That situation exists today, and to a greater extent than it would with a basic income. Due to the loss of benefits, as income increases the working poor face huge effective marginal taxes, sometimes over 100% so that they are literally made worse off by earning more. See https://www.epionline.org/studies/r27/ https://www.epionline.org/studies/r27/ for example.
- gaius 11y ago
  There are a ton of jobs that need doing that probably no-one actually likes, like stacking shelves in a supermarket, sweeping the streets, waiting tables, and so on. There are a few more that people maybe do like, at least some of the time, but would probably rather be doing something else, like tending bar. If everyone doing those jobs quits to focus on their guitar or something, what happens? Well the demand for those jobs doesn't go away but now employers have to pay a lot more to attract people to work them. Which sounds pretty good until you realize that that feeds back into the cost and suddenly everything in the economy costs more and the BI doesn't stretch as far as it used to. Which rather defeats the entire point of the exercise.
kuschku 11y ago
In New York, for example, the property taxes for super rich are at less than 10% of the property taxes a middle-class person would pay for their house. This is where the money comes from. It’s not just New York, but everywhere. And not just property taxes.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Yes, the money comes from taxes, and no one wants to pay them. There's a limit to how many percent of someone's income you can take away before he stops working. There's also a limit to how much people are willing to pay in property taxes before they move the fuck out (or stay away to begin with). In a nutshell, there are limits to what governments can do with their economies.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    In the place where I am, about 44% of the income is taken in form of taxes (Northern Germany, assuming an income of 50k€ a year, assuming non-married, assuming no children) And most people are actually happy, because they still get free college, free child daycare, etc.
phaemon 11y ago
> Or you could call it something like "Free Money Forever", because that's what its proponents seem to think they'd be getting No I don't. Frankly, I suspect I understand tax and spending a fair bit better than you do, probably because we've spent the past 2 years talking about it in Scotland due to the independence referendum (and the following talks on full fiscal autonomy). > How many people have any clue as to where tax revenues come from? Just about every grown adult on the planet? Who do you think pays taxes? > How many understand that other people have to earn that money first? Well, that's just plain wrong. You're conflating money and wealth. They're different things. Money is just created to reflect wealth: it's literally just invented by your government (or, in the case of Bitcoin, just by proven work). And wealth doesn't have to be earned; it just has to be created. > How many understand that if the people who earn money are burdened with much higher taxes to pay for someone else's BI, a lot of them them will just stop working because fuck that? Sure, I'm going to stop contracting at $3000 a week because, hey!, I could just live on $30 a week instead. > Please just think about it for a while. Yes, please do. There are actually intelligent objections to BI. Here are some proper concerns: What about illegal immigrants in the country? What about the federal government having all your details if you want to claim BI? Would it be better to be state run than federal (or in the EU, by countries, or would it be better run as an EU project?). Would it create problems with inflation? Would it cause problems with the banking system?
- afarrell 11y ago
  list.append("Would it cause problems with housing rents?")
  - phaemon 11y ago
    I'd thought about that, but there could be two effects. There are people working for low wages, who live in high cost areas, because that's where the jobs are. If we're talking about a liveable BI, then they would have the option of moving to a cheaper area to live. Once there were many more people living there, at least some of them would start their own businesses, and there would be more economic activity in that area. Now, this would raise rents in that area slightly, but would have a downward pressure on rents in the more expensive area. In short, it might have the effect of equalising rents. It's difficult to be sure, of course, which is why I think it would be a good idea to start BI low enough that we can keep an eye on what's actually happening (say $30 a week), as there could well be multiple effects all at once if you started at, say, $150 a week.
tom_morrow 11y ago
money has to come from somewhere, and it has to go somewhere. just like water, money disappears forever once used. water flows from the mountain into the sea, and one day the river will run dry. the government is like Niagara falls, a huge waste of money/water. Universal Basic Income would accelerate this flow of moneywater, and is so obviously a bad idea that its opposite, Universal Basic Outgo is a good idea. UBO would reverse the flow of moneywater by taking the same monthly sum of money from every citizen and pumping it uphill. this would motivate everybody to work harder, resulting in a happier society with enormous moneywater reserves in the mountains.

avn2109 11y ago

The moral hazard you've described is definitely a thing, and it would be silly to expect 0 slippage in the labor market after BI introduction, but I guess the claim is that we already spend so much on inefficient social welfare programs that if we just killed them all and gave the money to the people directly that it would be better for literally everyone involved. And it is an elegant sort of solution; after all, cutting out the middleman is the American way.

sillygoose 11y ago
Decades of increasingly large and seemingly free lunches have gotten us to a point where people actually think there is such a thing. But there isn't. The money has always had to come from somewhere, and it's always had consequences. It's just that the consequences can't be swept under the rug anymore, and soon even the most fervent propaganda will fail to convince the masses that everything is alright and the economy is recovering (when in reality it's not, and it's not).
- icebraining 11y ago
  What's the evidence that the weak state of the economy is caused by those "free lunches"?
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Evidence? Isn't reasoning enough? Or do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      I would argue that the prolonged debate between well-educated and well-respected economists on the topic of government spending[1] indicates that reasoning alone does not lead to a single straightforward answer on the topic. Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims. > "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?" It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient. The claim that: 1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible 2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high Has the same flaws as: 1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c) 2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high. [1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
      - sillygoose 11y ago
        Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either. You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context. In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on. So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend. So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy. In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.
gaius 11y ago
The problem with "inefficient welfare programs" is that they're actually very efficient... at providing well-paid, secure jobs for bureaucrats and civil servants. UBI or similar ideas only really work if the overhead of running them is very, very low.
jchrisa 11y ago
I'd argue that UBI would unlock latent productivity of all the people doing shitty jobs who would otherwise being doing something they love, and thus contribute to society instead of seeing the world as a zero sum game that they got the short stick of. Opposition to UBI comes mostly from people stuck in a zero sum mindset.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game. Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade. Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere. Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    I would argue that wealth redistribution (which UBI absolutely is) is not a zero sum game. First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth. Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum. It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.

lfowles 11y ago

> How many understand that if the people who earn money are burdened with much higher taxes to pay for someone else's BI, a lot of them them will just stop working because fuck that? How would that affect the burden on the remaining earners? Do you think Basic Income will be sufficient enough to sustain anyone's lifestyle that they will _stop working_ out of spite?

zo1 11y ago
For those that make an only moderate amount more than the basic income? It's a good probability that they will not want to work. Perhaps not out of "spite" as you suggest, but a simple time tradeoff. E.g. "Work 8 hours per day, and get $100 more. Or work 0 hours per and have $100 dollars less to spend, but 8 hours more to work on hobbies and leisure and social activities.
- orangecat 11y ago
  Perhaps not out of "spite" as you suggest, but a simple time tradeoff. E.g. "Work 8 hours per day, and get $100 more. Or work 0 hours per and have $100 dollars less to spend, but 8 hours more to work on hobbies and leisure and social activities. That situation exists today, and to a greater extent than it would with a basic income. Due to the loss of benefits, as income increases the working poor face huge effective marginal taxes, sometimes over 100% so that they are literally made worse off by earning more. See https://www.epionline.org/studies/r27/ https://www.epionline.org/studies/r27/ for example.
gaius 11y ago
There are a ton of jobs that need doing that probably no-one actually likes, like stacking shelves in a supermarket, sweeping the streets, waiting tables, and so on. There are a few more that people maybe do like, at least some of the time, but would probably rather be doing something else, like tending bar. If everyone doing those jobs quits to focus on their guitar or something, what happens? Well the demand for those jobs doesn't go away but now employers have to pay a lot more to attract people to work them. Which sounds pretty good until you realize that that feeds back into the cost and suddenly everything in the economy costs more and the BI doesn't stretch as far as it used to. Which rather defeats the entire point of the exercise.

kuschku 11y ago

In New York, for example, the property taxes for super rich are at less than 10% of the property taxes a middle-class person would pay for their house. This is where the money comes from. It’s not just New York, but everywhere. And not just property taxes.

sillygoose 11y ago
Yes, the money comes from taxes, and no one wants to pay them. There's a limit to how many percent of someone's income you can take away before he stops working. There's also a limit to how much people are willing to pay in property taxes before they move the fuck out (or stay away to begin with). In a nutshell, there are limits to what governments can do with their economies.
- kuschku 11y ago
  In the place where I am, about 44% of the income is taken in form of taxes (Northern Germany, assuming an income of 50k€ a year, assuming non-married, assuming no children) And most people are actually happy, because they still get free college, free child daycare, etc.

phaemon 11y ago

> Or you could call it something like "Free Money Forever", because that's what its proponents seem to think they'd be getting No I don't. Frankly, I suspect I understand tax and spending a fair bit better than you do, probably because we've spent the past 2 years talking about it in Scotland due to the independence referendum (and the following talks on full fiscal autonomy). > How many people have any clue as to where tax revenues come from? Just about every grown adult on the planet? Who do you think pays taxes? > How many understand that other people have to earn that money first? Well, that's just plain wrong. You're conflating money and wealth. They're different things. Money is just created to reflect wealth: it's literally just invented by your government (or, in the case of Bitcoin, just by proven work). And wealth doesn't have to be earned; it just has to be created. > How many understand that if the people who earn money are burdened with much higher taxes to pay for someone else's BI, a lot of them them will just stop working because fuck that? Sure, I'm going to stop contracting at $3000 a week because, hey!, I could just live on $30 a week instead. > Please just think about it for a while. Yes, please do. There are actually intelligent objections to BI. Here are some proper concerns: What about illegal immigrants in the country? What about the federal government having all your details if you want to claim BI? Would it be better to be state run than federal (or in the EU, by countries, or would it be better run as an EU project?). Would it create problems with inflation? Would it cause problems with the banking system?

afarrell 11y ago
list.append("Would it cause problems with housing rents?")
- phaemon 11y ago
  I'd thought about that, but there could be two effects. There are people working for low wages, who live in high cost areas, because that's where the jobs are. If we're talking about a liveable BI, then they would have the option of moving to a cheaper area to live. Once there were many more people living there, at least some of them would start their own businesses, and there would be more economic activity in that area. Now, this would raise rents in that area slightly, but would have a downward pressure on rents in the more expensive area. In short, it might have the effect of equalising rents. It's difficult to be sure, of course, which is why I think it would be a good idea to start BI low enough that we can keep an eye on what's actually happening (say $30 a week), as there could well be multiple effects all at once if you started at, say, $150 a week.

tom_morrow 11y ago

money has to come from somewhere, and it has to go somewhere. just like water, money disappears forever once used. water flows from the mountain into the sea, and one day the river will run dry. the government is like Niagara falls, a huge waste of money/water. Universal Basic Income would accelerate this flow of moneywater, and is so obviously a bad idea that its opposite, Universal Basic Outgo is a good idea. UBO would reverse the flow of moneywater by taking the same monthly sum of money from every citizen and pumping it uphill. this would motivate everybody to work harder, resulting in a happier society with enormous moneywater reserves in the mountains.