3 ms·

Incentives. Incentives. Incentives. People respond to incentives, it's been proven time and time again. A negative income tax isn't the worst idea, but it has

Incentives. Incentives. Incentives. People respond to incentives, it's been proven time and time again. A negative income tax isn't the worst idea, but it has all the wrong incentives. The more money you earn, the less help you get. Which seems sensible on the surface but can lead to situations where people ask themselves "why should I even bother working a job I hate when I can get the same money without working?" The advantage of basic income is that no matter what you do you still get that money. You're still incentivized to work because a life on basic income won't exactly be a life of luxury. In fact you might be more incentivized to work for several reasons. One because working will get you money you can spend on stuff you want, not just stuff you need to survive. This is significant from a quality of life aspect. Also, working will enable you to get ahead, instead of just being on a treadmill as so often happens today. You'll be able to have more choice where you work and how much, and you'll be able to set aside some of your time to pursue new careers. I don't think people understand just how much potential and talent is being wasted and misused in our economy at present. Human beings aren't meant to be drones, that's not our calling. And it's an insult to the human race to imply that a significant portion of the population is somehow genetically fit for nothing other than menial labor. That's never been my observation. In the vast majority of people I've met there is almost always a depth and a potential that is not being tapped by the current economic system. And you see some of this coming out with new economic models enabled by the internet. More freelancing, more startups, more people engaging in their passion projects through crowd funding or what-have-you. More people learning new things and trying new things because the internet makes discovery of knowledge a lot easier. That's true of musicians, artists, inventors, and so many others. I can only imagine the world we'd have if we could unlock that huge untapped potential.

tempestn 11y ago
It is possible to set the tax rates such that the two are financially identical. However, I agree with you that psychologically the basic income has better incentives than a negative income tax.
RivieraKid 11y ago
I sympathise with the general sentiment but most of what you're saying about BI and NIT is simply incorrect. > The advantage of basic income is that no matter what you do you still get that money Only a minority of people would get money. Because if you get $10000 (basic income) and pay $20000 (taxes), you're not actually not getting money. > A negative income tax isn't the worst idea, but it has all the wrong incentives. The more money you earn, the less help you get. Well, obviously, this is also true for basic income. Most people with jobs would not get any help, they would give help. Welfare works by income redistribution. You take money from one part of the population and give it to another part. As for incentives, that's the thing that NIT does right. It doesn't have the "lose welfare when you start to work" problem.

tempestn 11y ago

It is possible to set the tax rates such that the two are financially identical. However, I agree with you that psychologically the basic income has better incentives than a negative income tax.

RivieraKid 11y ago

I sympathise with the general sentiment but most of what you're saying about BI and NIT is simply incorrect. > The advantage of basic income is that no matter what you do you still get that money Only a minority of people would get money. Because if you get $10000 (basic income) and pay $20000 (taxes), you're not actually not getting money. > A negative income tax isn't the worst idea, but it has all the wrong incentives. The more money you earn, the less help you get. Well, obviously, this is also true for basic income. Most people with jobs would not get any help, they would give help. Welfare works by income redistribution. You take money from one part of the population and give it to another part. As for incentives, that's the thing that NIT does right. It doesn't have the "lose welfare when you start to work" problem.