4 ms·

What about people who already have a significant income per month? Doesn't it seem wasteful to give them more money each month, rather than say, working on the

What about people who already have a significant income per month? Doesn't it seem wasteful to give them more money each month, rather than say, working on the homeless problem directly with this money, or increasing the amount given, but reducing the scope of people it is given to? Can someone explain the logic here?

drdeca 11y ago
Well, that could be handled as part of taxation? If someone has a very high marginal tax rate, then it would have a very small impact on their income and on govt spending? If it isn't received above some income level, but is received entirely below that income level, then there would be a disincentive of that given amount against going a little bit above that income level. And, maybe that's fine? But if it is why not just incorporate that into taxes? If there is a sharp threshold, it seems like trying to make that threshold as low as possible would be dangerous, because it might cause a personally significant disincentive against working, or getting a job that pays more. But if it was significantly higher than the apparent lowest possible safe value, that would seem unfair for the same reason? So, if instead of a sharp cut-off, there could be a gradual cutoff? That seems pretty similar to the basic income or negative income tax ideas though. But not necessarily identical, just of the same form. ok so if f(x) is the amount of taxes minus the amount of govt income that one must pay (so, negative numbers would be net receiving money from the government) , and x is other income, then, f(0)<0, uh... I forget where I was going with that. d/dx (x-f(x)) > 0 seems reasonable to expect? I suppose it could be <0 at a small area where it wouldn't have much impact, (or have a discontinuity, but same thing basically. ) but I'm not sure what the advantages of having that would be.

drdeca 11y ago

Well, that could be handled as part of taxation? If someone has a very high marginal tax rate, then it would have a very small impact on their income and on govt spending? If it isn't received above some income level, but is received entirely below that income level, then there would be a disincentive of that given amount against going a little bit above that income level. And, maybe that's fine? But if it is why not just incorporate that into taxes? If there is a sharp threshold, it seems like trying to make that threshold as low as possible would be dangerous, because it might cause a personally significant disincentive against working, or getting a job that pays more. But if it was significantly higher than the apparent lowest possible safe value, that would seem unfair for the same reason? So, if instead of a sharp cut-off, there could be a gradual cutoff? That seems pretty similar to the basic income or negative income tax ideas though. But not necessarily identical, just of the same form. ok so if f(x) is the amount of taxes minus the amount of govt income that one must pay (so, negative numbers would be net receiving money from the government) , and x is other income, then, f(0)<0, uh... I forget where I was going with that. d/dx (x-f(x)) > 0 seems reasonable to expect? I suppose it could be <0 at a small area where it wouldn't have much impact, (or have a discontinuity, but same thing basically. ) but I'm not sure what the advantages of having that would be.