▲ 62 points
back
130 comments
My frustration with Basic Income is that it’s a legislative solution to a productivity problem. Instead of redistributing wealth, a practice that can be overturned any time, I advocate for the intentional construction of productive machinery owned by the people. If all people owned shares in machines that produced the goods we need for survival, we could receive the benefit of that productivity directly. With a UBI, the idea is to continue letting a small group of people control all the wealth, and then ask them to give us some. It’s laughable to me that people believe you can let one group have all the power and then force them to give some of that power to everyone else. Why would they do that? The solution in my mind is to arrange things so that everyone has a share of the wealth in the first place. I write a bit about that here:
http://tlalexander.com/machine/
As someone who is currently sleeping under a bridge most nights, I would be happy to tolerate that frustration until a more equitable system can be implemented.
> Instead of redistributing wealth, a practice that can be overturned any time, I advocate for the intentional construction of productive machinery owned by the people.
Public ownership of means of production is as easily overturned (doing so is called “privatization”) as wealth redistribution; in fact, it's been done many times in places that had established public ownership of some or all of the means of production. So, your objection to redistribution seems to apply at least as strongly to your alternative.
Your link doesn't address full collective ownership, you just talk about the group of people that band together to buy a machine. In a country where we're unwilling to invest in basic maintenance of our critical infrastructure, how would you keep the machines from falling apart? What happens to the ownership of local machines when someone moves? How do you ensure that a broken machine doesn't impoverish a community?
More importantly, how does your solution of inventing a new machine to solve poverty help anyone in the decades before we're able to build it? What's the backup plan if you're wrong about the feasibility of this machine?
You seem to be trying to get rid of economics by solving scarcity rather than come up with solutions to economic problems.
So you want to do the redistribution in shares issued in ownership the state will sieze from every single company rather than just doing the redistribution in cash. Seems like a really destructive way to achieve the same goal with no added benefit.u
Also it’s kind of comical to insinuate that such shares issued by a government that just appropriated a huge chunk of private corporations would somehow be more secure than cash issued periodically because they are harder to take away, I mean they would litterally signify that this government will take whatever they wish without recourse.
How is that not also redistributing wealth?
Yes. Espectually given advances in automation this looks like the most reasonable path. This solves both the UBI as well as also stops the accumulation of power in hands of few due to efficiencies and scaling factors.
No UBI. The problem with UBI is social programs. we spend billions on safety nets for specific cases and purposes. safe nets for food. safety nets for healthcare. safety nets so parents can feed their children. this is a good thing. this helps people do something they may not have been able to do
basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. you will still have to have them. UBI is just increasing taxes
i’d rather add more safety nets to help those really in need than raise taxes to pay everyone some small amount
So your safety nets for those "who really need it" are more expensive because of the bureaucracy needed to determine this. Furthermore it becomes a disincentive to accept work (as the article states) and rewards dishonesty i.e. "working the system".
If somebody can’t find work, it would take a lot of social programs to ensure they can live. And I’m not convinced a state is more effective at spending the money than individuals are. Social programs are a huge spend and the quality of the programs leaves a lot to be desired (governments aren’t exactly known for being cost effective.)
I mean, replacing food stamps with thousands of dollars a month means the money could be spent buying food. I'm confused why you would think a UBI would not be allowed to be used to purchase food? The libertarian perspective on this is that we shouldn't tell people how to spend their money. If they can't afford food because they have no money, then give them money. Those who buy food will not starve. Those who don't, will, but they can't say they weren't able to buy food.
> basic income does not replace any of these safety nets.
Yes, it does, in the same way that any other income already does, which is why those all tend to be means-tested programs.
> you will still have to have them.
No, you won't, once the UBI level is above the income level at which the programs would not be available.
Some people prefer to sleep outside and spend their money on booze and drugs instead of food. If that's their choice, who are we to say they're misguided?
A basic income can eliminate many wasteful bureaucratic policies, leaving more money to spend on what folks want.
What confuses me about most discussions on this is the automatic assumption that taxes need to be raised to get UBI. Both sides seem to implicitly take this for granted, whereas it's fairly trivial to rework income tax to introduce UBI without anyone having a net difference in earnings.
Of course the real question is whether doing this would allow you to actually simplify anything, or if it's possible to simplify taxes with only minor (or desired) changes in net income.
>basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. you will still have to have them
No, you would repeal all existing social and welfare programs, the minimum wage and employer healthcare, and replace them with a bare minimal UBI.
At least in the US, there is no other implementation that would be palatable to conservatives, business and most voters.
> basic income does not replace any of these safety nets.
But it lessens the burden on all of them.
Here's the thing, UBI will be used to argue that other social interventions and support are no longer necessary. "We're giving you free money, and you want more?"
UBI is a convenient way for the wealthy classes to wash their hands of the poor without having to give up too much of their wealth. Not to mention it will probably be provided by a government donor corporation in the form of a cashless card with moralistic restrictions on how the income can be spent (e.g. no alcohol or legal cannabis).
Universal income, unrestricted immigration. Which is it that you really want?
Both of course, people tend to want it all, and dreams to pay for it all. In 100 years it'll supposedly all work out fine, despite "short term" problems, no need to compromise.
I'm sorry you have to withstand the opposition from those who have to weather the problems in the meantime. Perhaps a loaner crystal ball could help us weave our reservations.
> Universal income, unrestricted immigration. Which is it that you really want?
Very few people actually want totally unrestricted immigration, and most of them -- the only consistent ones -- are either unitary world government proponents or full on anarchists. Otherwise you're inviting seven billion people to vote in your country's elections, and then nothing stops them from voting for the same sort of wealth redistribution policies or anything else to the detriment of the existing population. It's not pick one: open borders or redistribution of wealth, it's pick one: open borders or democracy.
The ideological inconsistency you're observing is realpolitik in action. People who want more socialist policies don't want unrestricted immigration, they only want just enough immigration from socialist-leaning countries that they have the majorities needed to pass their policies. Meanwhile people on the right are trying to keep the same people out for the same reason -- Republicans don't oppose immigration because they're "racist", it's because those immigrants disproportionately vote for Democrats. Neither party will be consistent because consistency loses them votes.
UBI incentivizes producing more people. Like throwing nutrients limitlessly into a petri dish. Which is awesome. Unless the nutrients or the petri dish are finite.
> UBI incentivizes producing more people.
As an alternative to means-tested benefit programs (especially those that beyond means-testing are expressly conditioned on having dependent children) it does not, in fact, it reduces that incentive.
> Like throwing nutrients limitlessly into a petri dish.
It's not like that at all.
> UBI incentivizes producing more people.
Do you think UBI would encourage people to have more children?
Why do you think money is finite?
It's just a way of tracking of what fraction of humanity output each person is entitled to.
It's funny that at the time I wrote this comment another front page post is about people escaping high taxation areas: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476342 .
It's not like America needs wealthy people. We really just need basic resources (e.g. arable land, metal) and technology, and it's only a matter of time until people needn't work.
There are several problems with basic income. For starters, housing costs are crazy right now and the US lacks universal health coverage. If we could could solve those two things, you would see a lot fewer people calling for basic income.
I have alimony in about the amount that is frequently cited as how much America should give people for basic income. Without additional income on top of that, I can't pay rent and keep myself fed. I was willing to move almost anywhere in the US to find a low rent place to get myself off the street. Most people can't or won't do that. Most places in the US do not have rentals cheap enough for someone to live on $10k or so a year.
In other words, if you don't address the lack of affordable housing, basic income won't support most people. And if you do, you go a long ways towards not needing basic income. The lack of affordable housing is an issue that needs to be tackled regardless. Talking about basic income strikes me as taking time away from problems that must be addressed regardless.
I see basic income as a lazy answer posited by people who would like to imagine you can throw money at the problem because they can't figure out how to effectively address some of the issues here. I don't think that actually works. I think that would actually go some pretty bad places.
If you think that raising taxes for UBI will result in the politicians actually allocating the money to UBI.... then you just need to look at how current monies are raised and spent.
Here's what will happen:
- taxes raised for "insert acronym of flavor here" (UBI)
- 95% allocated to every citizen, permanent resident, legal immigrant, illegal migrant, etc.
- Over time they will decrease the allocation relative to the amount they collect.
Next thing you know, "UBI" is just another line item on your paycheck deductions just like "EI" and "CPP" is a deduction in Canada for "Employment Insurance" and "Canada Pension Plan".
Neither of which will actually solve the problem because that was not the (hidden) goal to begin with.
There will be just as much, if not more poverty because:
- smart, hardworking people will leave the country because they are tired of getting abused with excessive taxes.... draining productivity
- poorest people will take on brutal loans for things they do not need (lottery, drugs, cars, shiny clothes)
- poorest people will become lethargic. "Free" unearned income is poison to ambition and creativity.
- "Free" income is not Free because it is given based on an inflating money supply. It means your children or grandchildren will be paying it via hidden tax of inflation and effectively sold into debt slavery.
We are watching the final stages take place where the communist revolution will be complete. As it stands, the USA is heavily socialist and stopped being capitalistic once they seized control of the economy in 1913 and began central planning via fiat money printing and manipulating interest rates.
Plan accordingly over the next 5-20 years
He doesn't talk about inflation and handwaves the cost concerns.
Why the world won't adopt a basic income: Basic Economics.
The social justice aspect can include the idea that income derived from resources belongs to everybody. This is reflected on American Indian reservations that distribute revenues even from casinos to all members.
As far as the issue of "encouraging laziness", anyone who has read the Bhagavad Gita is familiar with the idea that alongside the tendency towards rest is an equal tendency towards movement and action.
Call it a dividend; we could all expect out monthly American Dividend check and it would perhaps help congeal some sense of common purpose as well.
I get one of those. Roads. Police. Firefighters. Not being invaded by foreign powers. Rule of law. Etc. There's no fixed dollar amount, but I use that cash flow to build my life.
A negative income tax is a much better idea.
> A negative income tax is a much better idea.
A negative income tax is the exact same idea with slightly different framing.
The US already has this with EITC and CTC. These programs paid out over 70 billion in 2017 to over 27 million families.
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
Can someone explain how this doesn't create an obvious inflation issue?
The state doesn't need to grow the money supply if it takes from the people the same amount that it distributes to the people.
Even then the prices of various products will likely be affected, but the nature and extent of those effects are not obvious.
The Economist has really gone down hill in the past few years. I expect them to publish numbers, not vaguely Marxist reflections lamenting an age of supposed increasing hardship, although I was amused by the idea of social inheritance.
The economist is self-avowed libertarian. UBI is a libertarian idea.
Where does this basic income come from? If everyone is entitled to a basic income as a matter of right, that means others must be coerced into handing over the fruits of their labor. When the government no longer serves to defend people and their property rights but becomes primarily a means of redistribution, I think it loses its legitimacy.
They're "coerced" into handing over the fruits of labor exploitation.
Money and power accrete more money and power. Government must serve as a redistributive force, to some degree, unless we're all-in on exploitation.
I personally am against UBI but...
> If everyone is entitled to a basic income as a matter of right, that means others must be coerced into handing over the fruits of their labor.
...is not an approrpiate response. Just because the government is funded through income at present doesn't mean its the only way to fund government. You could fund the government (and UBI) with a land-value-tax, for example.
What is government if not a system for redistributing labour and resources?
The USA crossed that bridge a long time ago. This just adds a bit more.
Saying simple it comes from the same place where jobs eliminated by automation go.
That's one way to look at the world.
Here's another - the whole world (all the land in the world) was claimed by people just because they were born before me (and had guns). Those people who were born before then arbitrarily hand that land/resources to other people, with really no objective justification outside of tradition.
Of course, we treat these traditions are nonsense when it's convenient -- if we really believed them then we'd give back most of the land in America to native Americans.