Comment by 2099miles | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2099miles | Hacker News Reader

This is just a step away from UBI. I appreciate the universal approach but prefer universal solution instead of only to “housing” offering public housing to people who can afford and choose to live in higher quality is a fake universal solution. UBI sends money, even Jeff Bezos will benefit although negligibly from 1k per month. “Oh but Jeff Bezos doesn’t need it” you miss the point. Universal removes a TON of beauracrocy and issues that come with qualifications. And by giving direct money this solution helps literally all fiscally related problems (not mental health or education). Food deserts will still be a problem. Places without affordable housing will still exist. But people will have some real and immediate help in affording the solutions and also help in moving out of those locations to ones without those problems.

There is no “solution” to “solve” any of these things 100% the idea of universal housing is not realistic considering current government housing and HUD is known for its unsafe, low quality, overpriced and corruptible attributes. UBI is a real implementable “solution” that will “improve” the problem.

How do we prevent UBI from driving inflation and just becoming another way to funnel money to the rich?

You consider deflation as a component of UBI. If the Fed routinely destroyed a convincing percentage of circulatable currency, it would eventually counteract the psychological component of inflation.

Still.

Everyone will earn x more dollars, every landlord will know for a fact that, no matter what, all their tenants will at least earn x dollars, every house seller and every lending bank will know that every prospective buyer can afford to pay x * 12 months * 20 years more.

What would we have achieved then? How does "destroying" money prevent it?

Bear in mind I know nothing about the effects and side-effects of monetary destruction.

Supply and demand needs to be fixed in the housing market. You cannot legally build an dorm style housing except on a college campus, even though a single small bedroom with a shared bathroom and kitchen down the hall is the cheapest possible housing. In some places you will spend nearly $100k just getting permits to build anything. In some places you can spend months or even years in community input meetings before you can get permits.

I recognize two zones: places where you play with something dangerous that you cannot keep accidents entirely on your land, and everything else. I don't allow any housing on or near the first, and I require extra plans. Farms and some industrial sites are the first. Most everything else is the second and should allow whatever use you want with minimal restrictions - it needs to be safe for fire/rescue crews, meet some energy standards... If it makes the neighborhood ugly - that is your first amendment right to do with your land!

Taxes.

It's obvious that most people won't actually see a direct increase in resources (because that won't work).

Except for the tiny question of "who pays?". And the proven economic impact that this surplus gets slurped up by higher prices and inflation. And the idea that you can take $100 from your citizens, run it through a bureaucratic government machine and turn it into $110.

But other than that, perfect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com