Hacker News Reader

Comment by dantheman | Hacker News Reader

That money has to come from somewhere, it will either reduce the consumption from where it was taken or it will reduce capital stocks that can be used for investment.

View on HN

The consumption will increase. The poors consume much more than the rich because the money they have is just enough to cover basic needs. Investments may decrease but the relation between savings and investment is far less direct.

Look at, eg, the English "Working family tax credits" system.

People on low wages pay some tax on those wages, then apply to have some of that tax returned. There's a lot of bureaucracy involved. It's not great to be on those benefits because you can't budget your money.

Scrapping that system and then just reducing the amount of tax that everyone on low wages pays would probably be better.

That may be true, but dantheman was simply correcting jokoon's implicit claim that paying people money is good in itself ("since it's injecting money that increase consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.")

I think there are good arguments for basic income, but they get obscured by the fact that it has become a political campaign, so people like you argue for their own side rather than correcting people who support basic income but for the wrong reason.

You are correct that there are reasons why basic income be more efficient than other redistribution measures. But this doesn't contradict the fact that the money has to come from somewhere, and it isn't relevant to this particular thread of discussion.

Voting a budget is a tricky subject. Sometimes ideals will get you nowhere, but I think developed countries have showed that redistributing improve not only the country as a whole, but it also improve the status of the wealthiest, the wealthy people will benefit from the fact that people are fed, educated and not just wandering around either stealing or doing shitty jobs.

At that political level, money becomes an abstract thing, and I think it becomes a matter of national interest, not individual interest. Try to think about absolute wealth, not relative wealth. If the koch brothers can have 100 villas, would they be able to have so many without a redistribution system ? I don't think they would. Look at developing or third world countries, and look at their wealthiest, I'm sure they don't even have proper health care.

It can also be created ex-nihilo by the state, similarly to what the private banking system currently does through credit, but without interests. This system causes inflation and to avoid ending up with ridiculously large numbers it requires devaluating at regular intervals.

Not if people save money.

What you're saying is some other formulation of the trickle down, and it just doesn't work.

Welfare is a form of redistribution. The economy is much better when money is spent for housing people, feeding people, and let them have a decent, small amount of leisure. It's a matter of scale. You better have more people spending money, than fewer people spending it.

You better build 25 town car than 1 ferrari. But I agree that some can praise individual success and consider that people living in poverty is okay, but I don't think it really the country as a whole.

"or it will reduce capital stocks that can be used for investment."

Doubtful. Lots of cash is sitting idle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com