4 ms·
As stated in the article, 50% was chosen only because it's the rate where calculations are simplest, it's not the proposal (it'd generate way more than the curr
by MaxGhenis 11y ago
As stated in the article, 50% was chosen only because it's the rate where calculations are simplest, it's not the proposal (it'd generate way more than the current government tax receipts). Income tax rates under a revenue-neutral negative income tax could remain pretty similar for those about the threshold; it's really just replacing non-cash welfare-cliffed benefits with a smoothed cash transfer.
- ac29 11y agoI reread your article, and maybe I was being too harsh. You gave an example of a 50% flat tax (which you admitted is too high), but I think what would be more interesting is to see what a progressive tax would look like to remain revenue neutral while providing a reasonable level of BI. I dont think basic income is tenable in the US without raising taxes on high income earners, perhaps significantly.
- MaxGhenis 11y agoYes I'd like to do that. Net tax burden (taxes - BI) still shouldn't change under the revenue-neutral approach, since they'd be equal between NIT and BI.