6 ms·

NIC is analogous to basic income. At a certain point, the taxes you pay in a basic income scheme are equal to the basic income you earn. Those who earn less tha

NIC is analogous to basic income. At a certain point, the taxes you pay in a basic income scheme are equal to the basic income you earn. Those who earn less than you are earning a NIC, those above are paying income tax. It is the same thing.

randyrand 11y ago
No its not in practice. NIC is generally tied to working. A part time employed person will make less than a full time one. Under BI it is not tied to working. The incentives are worse.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  How? A full time employed person will still make more than a part time. Basic Income is flatly applied, everyone gets it; earning more then means you still have more. This isn't some cutoff-if-you-make-too-much thing.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    > Basic Income is flatly applied Thats the difference. Of course it depends on the model used, but generally NIC is applied based on how much you work. Generally a non-working person makes $0 , and a fully employed person makes the BI amount. To get the BI you need to work for it. That's the difference. To take this argument any further we would need to compare specific models. But NIC and BI are not the same and have similar but different purposes.
    - kr7 11y ago
      > Generally a non-working person makes $0 Not according to Milton Friedman. https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191 https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191
      - randyrand 11y ago
        Good source. That is of course one valid way to implement it and is essentially BI in calculation. Still even under miltons NIC, an important difference between NIC and BI is intended purpose. BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship, NIC implies nothing in that regard and most NIC proponents I imagine would be opposed to that. I would not be a proponent of BI for that important 'scalar' reason.
        aninhumer 11y ago
        I agree that the main difference between UBI and NIT is framing, and I prefer UBI for that very reason. It's much simpler to understand, and it separates the notion of creating a social baseline from the tax system. Also, this framing could also make a practical difference to the interface. If the benefit is administrated separately, you don't need to think about tax until you get a job. Having to submit a tax return to get your money is potentially intimidating, not to mention somewhat degrading if it says $0. With UBI, rich and poor alike get the cheque. >BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship Certainly many do, but I feel this is more of an aspiration than a requirement. I think there are huge economic benefits that will come about from the stability and freedom that even a smaller UBI provides. In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial.
        randyrand 11y ago
        > In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial. This can already be done easily with the right mindset. We do not need any more technical advancements to achieve this goal. Water is cheap. Agriculture technology is already amazing. Food can be as little as a few dollars a day if you buy cheap foods (beans, rice, bread, ect). Its possible to live rather well on $300 a month or $3600 a year if you live in the right location, and live within your means. Heck, most of the world already does this. But the problem to living like this in in america is our wealth drives up the cost of certain inherently supply limited resources. The biggest ones being those resources which are tied to land. And the biggest example being shelter. Shelter prices are mainly determined by people 'one upping' each other. Competing with each other. Given these obstacles, the biggest beneficiary of UBI may not be the common person, but land owners. Building skyscrapers is a great partial solution to the problem, but resistance is everywhere.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
RivieraKid 11y ago
Equavalent to basic income with a specific tax system. But the whole system would be harder to understand and have 1 redundant parameter.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  NIC would be harder to understand, or BI would? If the latter, I wholeheartedly disagree. Normal taxes would remain, the only difference is that you get BI as well.
  - RivieraKid 11y ago
    I meant that BI would be harder to understand... It would take more thinking to answer questions such as "what's the effective tax rate for net contributors?", "what's the level at which you're a net contributor", "if we switch to BI, will I become richer or poorer?".
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      The people who care about those questions are clearly already fairly well off, and they can afford to work it out for themselves. For the people who really benefit, only the last question matters, and the answer is obvious.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  UBI is far easier to understand. It's exactly what we have now (with perhaps higher taxes), except you get a cheque for $Xk as well. NIT is a counter-intuitive trick to achieve the same thing within a tax bracket framework. Maybe it's more elegant, but understanding it requires a comprehension of mathematical concepts that many people (especially on lower incomes) simply don't have.

randyrand 11y ago

No its not in practice. NIC is generally tied to working. A part time employed person will make less than a full time one. Under BI it is not tied to working. The incentives are worse.

mmanfrin 11y ago
How? A full time employed person will still make more than a part time. Basic Income is flatly applied, everyone gets it; earning more then means you still have more. This isn't some cutoff-if-you-make-too-much thing.
- randyrand 11y ago
  > Basic Income is flatly applied Thats the difference. Of course it depends on the model used, but generally NIC is applied based on how much you work. Generally a non-working person makes $0 , and a fully employed person makes the BI amount. To get the BI you need to work for it. That's the difference. To take this argument any further we would need to compare specific models. But NIC and BI are not the same and have similar but different purposes.
  - kr7 11y ago
    > Generally a non-working person makes $0 Not according to Milton Friedman. https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191 https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191
    - randyrand 11y ago
      Good source. That is of course one valid way to implement it and is essentially BI in calculation. Still even under miltons NIC, an important difference between NIC and BI is intended purpose. BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship, NIC implies nothing in that regard and most NIC proponents I imagine would be opposed to that. I would not be a proponent of BI for that important 'scalar' reason.
      - aninhumer 11y ago
        I agree that the main difference between UBI and NIT is framing, and I prefer UBI for that very reason. It's much simpler to understand, and it separates the notion of creating a social baseline from the tax system. Also, this framing could also make a practical difference to the interface. If the benefit is administrated separately, you don't need to think about tax until you get a job. Having to submit a tax return to get your money is potentially intimidating, not to mention somewhat degrading if it says $0. With UBI, rich and poor alike get the cheque. >BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship Certainly many do, but I feel this is more of an aspiration than a requirement. I think there are huge economic benefits that will come about from the stability and freedom that even a smaller UBI provides. In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial.
        randyrand 11y ago
        > In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial. This can already be done easily with the right mindset. We do not need any more technical advancements to achieve this goal. Water is cheap. Agriculture technology is already amazing. Food can be as little as a few dollars a day if you buy cheap foods (beans, rice, bread, ect). Its possible to live rather well on $300 a month or $3600 a year if you live in the right location, and live within your means. Heck, most of the world already does this. But the problem to living like this in in america is our wealth drives up the cost of certain inherently supply limited resources. The biggest ones being those resources which are tied to land. And the biggest example being shelter. Shelter prices are mainly determined by people 'one upping' each other. Competing with each other. Given these obstacles, the biggest beneficiary of UBI may not be the common person, but land owners. Building skyscrapers is a great partial solution to the problem, but resistance is everywhere.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

RivieraKid 11y ago

Equavalent to basic income with a specific tax system. But the whole system would be harder to understand and have 1 redundant parameter.

mmanfrin 11y ago
NIC would be harder to understand, or BI would? If the latter, I wholeheartedly disagree. Normal taxes would remain, the only difference is that you get BI as well.
- RivieraKid 11y ago
  I meant that BI would be harder to understand... It would take more thinking to answer questions such as "what's the effective tax rate for net contributors?", "what's the level at which you're a net contributor", "if we switch to BI, will I become richer or poorer?".
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    The people who care about those questions are clearly already fairly well off, and they can afford to work it out for themselves. For the people who really benefit, only the last question matters, and the answer is obvious.
aninhumer 11y ago
UBI is far easier to understand. It's exactly what we have now (with perhaps higher taxes), except you get a cheque for $Xk as well. NIT is a counter-intuitive trick to achieve the same thing within a tax bracket framework. Maybe it's more elegant, but understanding it requires a comprehension of mathematical concepts that many people (especially on lower incomes) simply don't have.