
Basic Income in a Just Society - rbanffy
http://bostonreview.net/forum/brishen-rogers-basic-income-just-society
======
trendia
The population of the US is 360 million.

The total Federal tax revenue is ~3.5 trillion.

That means that if _100%_ of total tax revenue were redistributed equally,
each person would receive $10,000. That's only if the federal government
stopped _all other spending_. No medicaid, no social security, no defense
spending, no interstate highway funds.

For a person making $100,000 and paying $17,000 in taxes (after deductions),
they woild lose $7,000. For a person with no salary, they'd make $10,000. For
reference, the poverty threshold is around $12,000 for one person. So you
aren't really living a great exiatence. Only around the $50,000 mark does the
taxes out equal the taxes in. (anything above that and you're paying more in
taxes than you receive in UNI.)

And once you take into account the fact that the federal government _does_
have to spend money, the required tax revenue is probably much higher than it
is currently -- at least 2x or 3x higher. This would make the breakeven point
higher as well -- anyone making less than $100,000 would pay more in taxes
than received by the UBI.

So, essentially, any article that discusses the "benefits" of a minimum wage
should discuss it in the context of _how much it costs_ , because the world
where everyone gets a $20,000 or $50,000 universal income has to be radically
different than the world we live in now.

Will the middle class want higher taxes so that they can receive little to no
benefit? Seems politically unlikely to me.

~~~
vostok
> Will the middle class want higher taxes so that they can receive little to
> no benefit? Seems politically unlikely to me.

I think the idea is that you raise taxes such that the middle class sees no
difference, the rich pay more in taxes, and the poor receive more money.

In 2015, median household income was $56,000 so you could raise taxes by 18%
and the middle class would not feel a difference with a $10,000 basic income
for each household. You can do the same thing with 36% and $20,000 basic
income.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Many of the jobs that people fear going away (and that thus motivate them to
want BI) are the middle-class ones.

And any revenue strategy to attempt to pay for it would need to take into
account the substantially decreased tax revenue from all the people no longer
working. (On the other hand, there might be increased tax revenue from jobs
that now have to pay a higher salary to get people to do them. But at the very
least, a static model seems insufficient.)

~~~
ryandrake
Right! The money from all the people no longer working is not just vanishing--
it's simply being captured by a different set of people, namely already-
wealthy business owners and shareholders. So, a government that wants to keep
being funded needs to ensure its tax system is flexible enough to "follow the
money".

~~~
JoshTriplett
That's not quite the conclusion I was suggesting. I'm not talking about people
no longer working because their job disappeared; I'm talking about people
choosing not to work a job because BI is more appealing than that job. If a
job still needs doing, but because of BI nobody wants to do it (e.g.
sanitation pickup), then either the job will have to pay more (due to
decreased supply), or will have to push harder to automate more. Either way,
there's no fundamental reason that'll end up revenue-neutral.

------
moduspol
I'm still not sure how (at a fundamental level) a democratic society can work
when an increasing majority of the voters are voting to determine how much
money they will receive from a decreasing minority of voters.

How can that possibly sustain itself over time? What if the voters decide they
want more than is feasible or available? What if this minority of providers
decides to move elsewhere?

~~~
quadrangle
Thanks, John Galt! /s

Seriously, we can ignore the biases in your assumptions about where wealth is
created; you're really talking about the fact of inherent pitfalls and
destabilizing aspects of democracy itself. There's far more than this example.
And that's why all practical advocates for democracy do not advocate it
without qualifications.

~~~
moduspol
What qualification do you feel like would handle the situation I described,
where more and more people are voting to determine how much income they get
from fewer and fewer people? And don't forget: That increasing majority of
people has no day job, so they'll be far better suited for political
involvement, unions, rallies, etc.

This is a little beyond platitudes about democracy as a concept. Democracy can
certainly work, but you can't just bolster and magnify one of its key flaws
through policy and shrug off the dangers.

~~~
quadrangle
Unchecked, unqualified democracy with poor structure is basically tyranny of
the majority. There's a ton of ways the majority can completely abuse the
minority, whether that's genocide or slavery or whatever.

The only way to make democracy work is to include checks and balances against
tyranny of the majority.

The premise that there _can_ be a situation where a small number of people are
productive and the rest just get hand-outs is, in principle, a real issue and
concern. I don't have any magic solutions that necessarily avoid abuse in that
case. However, we can at _least_ be comforted for now by the fact that there's
an enormous amount of work remaining for most people to do (and thus an
incentive for all of us to support policies in which that work gets done), and
it currently remains the case that most value in society is generated by
poorer folks being exploited and most wealthy people are capturing far more
value than they create. So, your concern, while totally valid in principle, is
completely backwards from the current situation (but YES, we don't want to
just flip the situation so it's unjust the opposite way!)

~~~
moduspol
You're mixing up "perceived fairness" and reality.

The top 20% of earners pay 84% of income tax [1], yet can cast only 20% of the
votes. It is not the case that there's this huge regressive system in place.
In fact, the opposite is true. It's very much been trending toward the tyranny
of the majority--there just currently aren't a whole lot of other good options
for English-speaking wealthy people.

That doesn't mean there never will be, or that by letting voters more directly
decide how much to take, the circumstances won't become worse much faster. The
fact that the wealthy make more than the working class is irrelevant in
reality--only in perceived fairness. Nobody will be better off if they leave.

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-
inc...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-
tax-1428674384)

~~~
quadrangle
> The top 20% of earners pay 84% of income tax [1], yet can cast only 20% of
> the votes.

So you favor _explicitly_ connecting wealth and political power? That's not
democracy in any sense. _All_ democracy trends toward tyranny of the majority
and thus needs measures to counteract that (such as requiring supermajorities
for some things, having constitutions that are hard to change, having power
split among branches of gov. and lots more).

 _Fairness?_ UBI and wealth distribution aren't _just_ about fairness either.
They are about maximizing health and happiness overall. Is it _fair_ for me to
have to pay for the treatment of homeless drug addicts? What matters is that I
want to live in a world where they get treated, not a world where I live with
the consequences of having them around on the streets. We need a _sustainable_
and _long-term_ way to deal with social issues like this (and many many other
things). Sure, fairness is nice too, but it's more of a _factor_ in sustaining
a healthy society than an end in itself. Judging fairness is extremely hard,
hugely subjective. We'll never achieve ultimate fairness, life just isn't
fair. We can increase it, but it's not the only factor to consider (and it's
one of the least objective).

Anyway, the top 20% of wealth holders in this society do not create all the
_value_. The distribution of "earnings" is NOT correlated to positive impact
on society. A notable portion of that top 20% are people involved in stupid
financial scheming like high-speed trading. They only _take_ value from the
rest of us and do nothing positive at all. Any discussion about what's "fair"
in political power and taxation and wealth _has_ to be based on trying to get
at who is actually doing _valuable_ work, not on whoever happens to capture
the most wealth.

I'm sure you're one of those people who recognizes regulatory-capture and
other forms of corruption. Those lobbyists/politicians in a corrupt revolving
door Washington system are in that top 20% you're talking about. If you change
your whole framing to think about which work is actually _good_ for the world,
you can then have a discussion that is valid and talk about the problems with
democracy (which are, as I've agreed, real concerns).

I hope you can recognize the lack of correlation between wealth-capture and
value-creation. Otherwise, you're just falling into the Just World Fallacy.

~~~
moduspol
> So you favor explicitly connecting wealth and political power?

No. I favor policy not straying too far from reality toward ideological
platitudes.

Respectfully, the rest of your post isn't addressing my arguments. We can
discuss all day about what "maximizing health and happiness" means, or how
much the wealthy "deserve" for their contributions to society, and what "good
in the world" is, but it doesn't matter. None of it matters if top earners and
your most productive (even in explicit dollar values) leave, which is exactly
what will happen with a UBI greatly exaggerating these issues.

The only way I can interpret your post as a rebuttal is if you honestly
believe that top earners moving to other countries will not have a
catastrophic effect on the nation's economy (and the "health and happiness" of
its citizens), but you didn't say that.

~~~
quadrangle
Thanks for not jumping to assumptions in what I was saying.

Nevertheless, it's certainly possible in _principle_ for there to be a
situation where the top earners leave and it's better for society. As an
absurd proof of concept: if the top holders of dollars are a handful of crooks
who literally just extort the money from everyone else, and you get them to
leave. In that situation, there's zero concern about them taking the dollars
with them. You just continue giving everyone the UBI anyway, regardless of
"revenue" and that means the dollar supply increases. This causes inflation,
but everyone has more dollars to go along with that. Meanwhile, the crooks
aren't getting more dollars, so their buying power is diluted. The entire
effect amounts to returning buying-power to the rest of the citizens and
reducing it from the crooks. It has no impact in any way on the productivity
and real wealth in terms of goods and services — except that when you spread
buying power out widely it will tend to support a much healthier economy… (all
of this works whether the crooks leave or not, it's just even _easier_ to
dilute their buying power and political influence if they leave — except that
what happens in most cases like this is the crooks wage real physical war to
maintain their wealth and power rather than just sulk and go away).

So, the top "earners" moving away means reduced influence from them in all
sorts of ways monetarily. But if those people happen to actually be important
to the economy rather than mere leeches, _then_ we may see a serious downturn
as a result, albeit potentially offset somewhat by the economic benefits of
giving more buying power to those who will use it for productive economic ends
(fixing their houses, caring for kids, buying new goods) where the wealthiest
folks just save it and don't need thousands of pairs of pants etc.

In short: it's absurdly simplistic to believe _either_ that UBI necessarily
leads to economic boon or catastrophe. It all depends on tons and tons of
details which way it goes (of which the productive vs leech status of
wealthiest folks is just one of those details).

------
hl5
UBI decreases productivity because fewer people will choose to work.

UBI decreases government efficiency because now it has to process sending out
checks to every citizen (and some non-citizens, and some dead ones, and some
fake ones).

UBI increases taxes because citizens will pay for it.

UBI increases poverty because fewer people will choose to work.

UBI increases crime because more people are impoverished.

UBI increases socialism because that's what it is -- income redistribution,
formerly known as theft.

UBI increases the risk of tax revolt.

~~~
falcolas
Automation increases productivity without needing those people working.

Automation increases government efficiency because, well, who sends checks?
The IRS uses direct withdrawals and deposits...

Automation increases the potentially taxable corporate revenue.

Automation increases poverty because fewer people are allowed to work.

Automation increases crime because more people are impoverished.

Socialism is "bad", m'kay?

Automation increases the risk of a revolt, see poverty.

Automation is here and even more is coming. Without some form of support for
the citizens, it's going to create a lot of problems, and not just theoretical
"people choosing not to work is bad, and so is socialism" type of problems.

~~~
hl5
If your favored solution is to increase poverty, I don't think you can fairly
call it a form of support.

------
xienze
So everyone seems to agree that low-skill and manufacturing jobs are going
away and will never come back. Thus, we need a basic income.

So then why is it a good idea to import hundreds of thousands of refugees and
"undocumented workers" who are by and large destined to work in these very
industries that are going away? It sounds like we'd pretty much be setting BI
up to be a "congratulations on making it to the US" lifetime annuity.

~~~
lucasmullens
Letting in refugees is more about helping the refugees, and less about what's
best for the US.

~~~
exabrial
No, letting in refugees is 100% political pandering.

Explained with gumbals:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE)

Immigration drives innovation, tolerance, advancement of the arts, and fuels
small business. But let's stop fooling ourselves that relocating people
halfway across the world is solving any sort of crisis.

~~~
pm90
I would appreciate a short TL; DW for your opinion, since at most work places,
watching videos is not considered good etiquette :).

~~~
openasocket
It's basically raising the point that there are a lot of refugees and we can't
take all of them. The US currently has a cap of 50,000 refugees a year (after
Trump's executive order; Obama pushed for a 110,000 cap) but there are
something like 60 million refugees in the world today. So even if we increased
our already large efforts to help refugees it's still a drop in the bucket. So
they advocate reducing our refugee cap further, since it's a financial burden
that doesn't make a serious impact. It also points out that if we take the
successful people from other countries and allow them to come here, then the
rest of the world will get brain-drain.

I think that's a fair characterization of their argument, but I think it's
wrong. It's the classic Nirvana fallacy: because something isn't perfect
there's no point in trying. Like arguing there's no point in having seatbelts
because you can still die in a car crash. We may not be able to help all
refugees, but we can help some of them. And that may not seem that important
in the big picture, but it means a hell of a lot to the ones we do help.

~~~
exabrial
I agree, that's a fair characterization. But please don't say I said: "it's
not worth doing." Re-read my original comment.

My point is we're not solving any sort of world crisis with immigration, so by
people selling immigration as "we're changing the world" we have the potential
to put refugee countries in far worse positions than they are now.

~~~
openasocket
True, you didn't say it's not worth doing, but you called it "100% political
pandering," which certainly makes it sound like you don't like the refugee
program. I agree immigration isn't going to "change the world". And I
understand the argument that general immigration programs could potentially
cause brain drain for these countries, but not the refugee program. Refugee
visas are given based on need, it doesn't prioritize the smartest and the most
successful like other visa programs, so it can't cause that brain drain
effect.

Also, I am skeptical of the argument that refugee programs incentivize people
to stay in refugee camps in hopes of being relocated as NumbersUSA claims.
Refugee camps are pretty terrible places, few people would stay in one if they
didn't have to. And the odds of being selected for resettlement are extremely
rare.

------
sesteel
I think the transition to a laborless society will be pretty messy. Perhaps we
can develop labor pools; unautomated businesses can draw from this labor pool
until this class of labor becomes automated. Individuals receiving UBI would
be required to register with the pool and give some years of service (as
service to society). The goal for businesses would be to automate all labor
away.

------
exabrial
No. You NEVER have the right to demand the assets or services of another
person. That's encroachment of their free will.

Please HN. Enough of Basic Income

~~~
arrosenberg
That's a pretty pessimistic take.

You could just as easily say that we as a "Great" nation and society decide
that we will not allow our poor and underprivileged to be impoverished so that
a few billionaires can die with a little more in their pile. It's not a demand
of the proletariat, it's the middle and upper class deciding that they want a
more egalitarian society because it has a higher utility.

~~~
datatan
No that's just hyperbole without any basis in reality. Those poor and
underprivileged can already find aid when/where needed. Poor people in the USA
aren't even poor by world wide standards.

You do not have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul.

~~~
arrosenberg
It's absurd to say that "because there are poorer people in (I'm assuming you
are referring to) Asia/Africa/Central America, we should make no further
effort to help". We should help them because they are our neighbors and it's
our moral imperative.

It's not robbery, it's the cost of being part of society. Those billionaires
rely on the laws, created and enforced by the government, to maintain their
status and possessions. If it's a government of and for all the people in the
country, then the government absolutely has moral authority to tax citizens
relative to their ability to contribute, and to aid citizens relative to their
need for aid.

------
ph0rque
> How would a basic income impact workers and firms in this context? It would
> surely protect workers against the economic harms of unemployment and
> underemployment by giving them unconditional resources, and it would enable
> them to bargain for higher wages and to refuse terrible jobs. But a basic
> income would do little to reduce corporate power, which is a function not
> just of wealth but of the ability of firms to structure work relationships
> however they wish when countervailing institutions—such as a powerful
> regulatory state—are absent or ineffective. Yes, a basic income would make
> it easier for workers to organize and demand reforms—Andy Stern dubbed it
> “the ultimate permanent strike fund”—but the threat of termination or
> retaliation would still prevent many workers from protesting or striking in
> the first place.

What? The threat of termination/retaliation is exactly what UBI would prevent.
Or are we talking about mafia-style retaliation? In that case, it's not UBI
that is the problem.

------
sharemywin
To me what justifies ownership? and income inequality at that point?

------
panic
The responses to this article (under the "with responses from" heading) are
also worth a look.

------
MS_Buys_Upvotes
Nothin like a good old economics circle jerk.

I think it's time HN applied the 'no politics' rule to economics too. Nobody
is right, nobody is wrong, and nobody ever changes their mind.

------
coding123
I know these basic income stories just keep popping up advocating this. But
few are asking what life IS without work. Massive depression. not everyone is
an artist, and even artists get depressed, especially if everyone has to
become an artist.

But, can't we as a population have a goal, I mean, all this automation is
great for automating the stuff that just props up the minimal necessary stuff
to keep the giant ball rolling, but can't we have a goal? What is our goal?
are we trying to leave the planet? Is the goal to just keep having babies?
What is the ultimate goal of humanity?

Now... if it IS to leave the planet and start colonizing others, keep in mind
we're a pretty terrible species as it is - jealousy, ego, anger, depression.
We eat animals, etc.. Right now we're the exact EVIL entity that we picture in
movies like independence day. I mean most of us are not vegetarians.

So maybe our goal should be to fix ourselves. How?

~~~
whowouldathunk
> But few are asking what life IS without work. Massive depression.

You can change your mind to avoid that, like monks.

Cultural conditioning induces the depression.

~~~
amoorthy
You might like this article: [https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are-not-the-
solution-but...](https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are-not-the-solution-but-
the-problem?s=MH).

