Hacker News Reader

Comment by garrettdc | Hacker News Reader

We are constantly told that 7.25/hr isn't enough to live on, but people find a way to do so at the moment. 7.25 $/hr * 2000 hrs/year = 14500 which isn't far off from 12000. If the choice was between working for that and not working, I think the choice is easy.

Unless this program were to completely eliminate welfare spending, then you'd likely end up with people choosing not to work because they don't need to. This of course assumes that purchasing power doesn't change with the massive influx of cash into the economy.

View on HN

> If the choice was between working for that and not working, I think the choice is easy.

You need to consider the humanitarian aspect of forcing someone to work multiple jobs and very long hours to avoiding starvation and sleeping on the streets.

If paying more taxes is the price to know no kid will sleep hungry and no family will have to live on the streets, I'll gladly do it. I don't care if they will or will not show up to work (I bet most will, because 12000+7000 is more than 12000).

If you want to eliminate the possibility of people who don't need to work choosing not to work, you should be in favor of a 100% estate tax before you should be against UBI. Make it impossible for children to inherit enough wealth to live without working, and get those lazy parasites into the workforce where they belong!

(or you could look at what happens when people are actually presented with realistic options for escaping the cycle of minimum-wage poverty, but that's a few steps of consciousness-raising away from where you currently are)

People can choose to work or not. I just don't want to be stuck with the consequences of it. The word parasite means that they are increasing their well-being by reducing another individual's well-being.

The number of children who are able to live off of their parents / grandparents money and don't work at all is so finite that it isn't really worth mentioning. Alongside that, they are a net gain for the economy.

Think about it - you have vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases, and no impact to the labor force by them working. I may not agree with their decision to not work, but I really couldn't care less whether they do what I agree or not.

Also, a 100% estate tax would do one of two things: 1) create a disincentive for wealth accumulation as their is nothing to do with it afterwards thereby reducing their overall output 2) force those people into different investment vehicles where they can pass their wealth to their children as a "gift" prior to their passing.

That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though. For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down, or the funds that could have gone to their grandchildren's college is now funneled into the government, or other similar act of smallish amount of funds being siphoned off by the federal government.

So you've just advocated literal trickle-down economics here.

You are aware of the historical/empirical problems with it, yes?

Not trickle down, just that 1) there is a difference in economic impact between those who choose not to work and live off of inheritance vs. those who choose not to work and live off of government assistance, and 2) 100% estate tax has no relation to UBI.

The stated objection was that if people don't have to work, they'll choose not to.

If that's perceived as a problem, we already have that happening right now and aren't doing anything about it -- a complete confiscatory estate tax would solve it, though!

> vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases

Which feed people in remote countries minimum wage at best and keeps what looks like slavery at worst while it generates handsome profits for others who brought in very little value.

> create a disincentive for wealth accumulation

Which is actually a great thing: all that money will hit the economy much sooner.

> force those people into different investment vehicles

Like giving their offspring an education that'll allow them to pursue well paid positions. Gifts are also taxed and an exponential tax on their market value would be a smart thing. Also, they can be sure their children, no matter how deplorable, won't starve.

> That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though

So these people who make insane amounts of money while pressuring down compensation for the rest of society will bear most of the burden. Seems only fair.

Also, keep in mind these people are far too powerful now to freely give up their advantages. These ideas have the potential of getting very, very ugly.

> For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down

Regular people won't be affected, only a fraction of the richest 1%:

> a maximum amount, varying year by year, can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes:[2] $5,340,000 for estates of persons dying in 2014[3] and 2015,[4] $5,450,000 (effectively $10.90 million per married couple) for estates of persons dying in 2016.[5] Because of these exemptions, only the largest 0.2% of estates in the U.S. will pay the tax.[6]

A small percentage of the workforce is actually paid minimum wage and most get a better job once they have had the entry level experience. The idea that minimum wage should sustain an entire working life is a fringe one.

Considering that much of the democratic presidential platform this previous election cycle, I would have to disagree with the assertion that this view is a "fringe one."

Basic survival cannot force a person to work more than full time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com