3 ms·
"Doesn't technically have a basic income" is doing a whole lot of work, here. The key component of it is that it doesn't phase out with higher income, which wo
by scarmig 11y ago
"Doesn't technically have a basic income" is doing a whole lot of work, here.
The key component of it is that it doesn't phase out with higher income, which would otherwise cause a strong disincentive to work. How strong compared to no phase-out is a good question, but that's exactly what research like this is good for.
- liamcardenas 11y agoVery good point. However, I do not believe that the welfare cliff argument applies to job creation and entrepreneurship.
- IanCal 11y ago> The key component of it is that it doesn't phase out with higher income I have never seen a version proposed where everyone receives more money after tax. I thought the key component was that there is no complex means testing (simply phased out through income tax).
- scarmig 11y agoThe prototypical model would be a lump sum X, unconditionally granted to every adult citizen/resident on a regular basis, regardless of income. Tax rates are kind of a perpendicular issue. If you view benefit phase-outs as a kind of implicit tax rate, this would make the tax code flatter (and more progressive, if you're counting benefit phase outs as a kind of implicit tax).