3 ms·
It's revenue neutral, if used as a replacement of existing benefits when the recipient doesn't work (e.g. child benefit, unemployment benefit, and old-age pensi
by DonaldFisk 11y ago
It's revenue neutral, if used as a replacement of existing benefits when the recipient doesn't work (e.g. child benefit, unemployment benefit, and old-age pensions), and paid for by raising taxes by the same amount as the basic income when the recipient does work.
- dllthomas 11y agoI don't think I follow. I've read over your comment a few times, and come away either with a statement that seems incorrect or a proposal that isn't UBI... The failure may well be mine, but could you clarify?
- allendoerfer 11y agoWhat he is trying to say is that it will be financed by removing benefits that were given (before UBI was introduced) to people who did not work (and thus removing administrative overhead to handle individual cases) and by raising taxes.
- DonaldFisk 11y agoI'm assuming the existence of some kind of welfare state. I'm also assuming, at least initially, basic income is the same as existing benefits. Everyone gets basic income: children, to replace child benefit; people in work, paid for by increasing the tax they pay by exactly the same amount as their basic income; unemployed people, to replace their unemployment benefit; and those above retirement age, to replace their non-contributory pensions. I should also have included dependent spouses and full-time students. Their BI can be paid for by further increases in taxation, as well as by administrative savings, rather than by printing money.
- dllthomas 11y agoIf all you're saying is that tax increases will be less than they might be, if we repurpose money currently spent on other programs, I certainly agree. The repurposed money is still presumably funded through taxation, though, so this doesn't conflict at all with what I'd said. If you were saying more, then I'm still not clear on what it is.