4 ms·

I am agreeing with you that there's really no difference between a tax break and a subsidy. However, I don't understand your next point. If you're saying a $12

I am agreeing with you that there's really no difference between a tax break and a subsidy. However, I don't understand your next point. If you're saying a $12K BI wouldn't cost anything extra after getting rid of social security and all tax breaks in our tax system, well then maybe. But then you've made SS pensioners much poorer. And increased taxes on all the rest of the population. Also keep in mind the standard deduction is sort of like a BI for people who earn above a small threshold so if you get rid of it the net benefit of implementing a BI for low income people is even less than $12K. BI sounds attractive in theory, but the math around it seems hand wavey. When you try to add up the numbers, there's no way around increasing taxes massively, or leaving large groups like the retired/disabled/unemployed worse off.

Retric 11y ago
It might be impossible to make significant change without making some group worse off. My point is the net cost of BI is simply the added benifits to very low income people as long as your also removing other subsidies. And we are already handing out a lot of subsidies. Which subsides to remove becomes an open question. EX: With BI do we still pay post doc's a small amount for living expences? PS: If nothing else BI is an interesting comparison point for the current system. EX: You get more from SS as a married couple than an unmarried couple.