undefined | Better HN

0 pointsThomPete10y ago0 comments

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating.

Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO.

0 comments

maxerickson10y ago

Administrative costs aren't all that high:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-federa...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

Making the spending a couple percent more effective doesn't really even start to pay for spending 10x.

So administrative savings aren't actually all that important a consideration when it comes to a basic income (Put it this way: the programs at the first link could have 100x their current administrative costs and still cost considerably less than a basic income).

Replacing contingent benefits with a basic income should be a positive, it's just that the expected change can't be all that large compared to the numbers required for even a small basic income.

ThomPeteOP10y ago

Administration isn't all there is to controlling whether someone is getting the right benefits or not.

akhatri_aus10y ago

I think there is an opposing argument to the benefits you claim could be achieved. By having free income, there is less of an incentive to work, there is actually a large chance productivity would drop, not increase!

Also, keep in mind you need funds to run the tax collection system to collect taxes to fund the basic income scheme. On a theoretical basis you may have a point but I don't see its that easy or possible in reality. I for one would just use the basic income to live and roam the world without giving anything back (since this is what I'm incentivised to do).

douche10y ago

I doubt that. If basic income was implemented as a straight, tax-free cash payment, which didn't contribute to income tax, and replaced current means-tested welfare benefits, I think that it would actually be a net win for everyone. If you work, it means extra money in your pocket, and your benefits don't get pulled out from under you if you go over the income limits. On the government side, administration gets much simpler - just mail out the checks to everybody. You could also drastically simplify the tax code.

ThomPeteOP10y ago

There is'nt less incentive to work I dont know how you would conclude such a thing.

With unconditional basic income there is always an incentive to work since it will always benefit you even just for a day. You aren't going to live like a king on basic income, not even close.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

maxerickson10y ago

Administrative costs aren't all that high:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-federa...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

Making the spending a couple percent more effective doesn't really even start to pay for spending 10x.

Replacing contingent benefits with a basic income should be a positive, it's just that the expected change can't be all that large compared to the numbers required for even a small basic income.

ThomPeteOP10y ago

Administration isn't all there is to controlling whether someone is getting the right benefits or not.

akhatri_aus10y ago

douche10y ago

ThomPeteOP10y ago

There is'nt less incentive to work I dont know how you would conclude such a thing.

With unconditional basic income there is always an incentive to work since it will always benefit you even just for a day. You aren't going to live like a king on basic income, not even close.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse