4 ms·

Doesn't seem like the same thing to me. Negative income tax means you still need to find someone who will employ you, and also you don't get any benefit if you

by Tycho 10y ago

Doesn't seem like the same thing to me. Negative income tax means you still need to find someone who will employ you, and also you don't get any benefit if you are above the threshold so it's not universal.

maxerickson 10y ago
I don't think it is written in stone that you must have a job to receive a negative income tax. That would be one way to implement it, but you could also have an implementation that was based on some arbitrary level of income, where if you didn't reach that income, the government gave you the difference, even if it were the full amount (this would be a bad way to do it, but nonetheless). For sure, a negative income tax that required employment would not be a UBI. So they may overlap is a better statement than saying it falls under the umbrella. It's also the case that a UBI is only pretend universal. There are people that will see either an increase in their effective tax rate or a decrease in their buying power (the latter if you fund it by printing money).
redthrow 10y ago
> you still need to find someone who will employ you Not necessarily. Negative income tax is one way to implement means-tested basic income. One way to implement a NIT is you have a cutoff point (e.g. $20,000/year) and a rebate rate (e.g. 50%). So, using the above rate, if your income is... (a) $0/year ... you get $10,000/year (b) $10k/year ... you get ($20k-$10k) x 0.5 = $5,000/year (your total income is $15k/year) (c) $15k/year ... you get ($20k-$15k) x 0.5 = $2,500/year (your total income is $17.5k/year) (d) $20k/year and up ... you get nothing --- > you don't get any benefit if you are above the threshold so it's not universal It's not universal in the sense that not everyone gets the government check, but it's universal in the sense that the same rule is applied to everyone.
- wscott 10y ago
  True, but this would be a very different feel that the one being proposed. This system would be public assistance and so only poor people would get it. So it would come with the usual stigma. When EVERYONE gets the same check then everyone can talk about it freely and be happy about the money. It may be that with the change in tax rate, higher income people don't really get a net change to their income so the result in similar, but the "feel" is dramatically different.

by Tycho 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

I don't think it is written in stone that you must have a job to receive a negative income tax. That would be one way to implement it, but you could also have an implementation that was based on some arbitrary level of income, where if you didn't reach that income, the government gave you the difference, even if it were the full amount (this would be a bad way to do it, but nonetheless). For sure, a negative income tax that required employment would not be a UBI. So they may overlap is a better statement than saying it falls under the umbrella. It's also the case that a UBI is only pretend universal. There are people that will see either an increase in their effective tax rate or a decrease in their buying power (the latter if you fund it by printing money).

redthrow 10y ago

> you still need to find someone who will employ you Not necessarily. Negative income tax is one way to implement means-tested basic income. One way to implement a NIT is you have a cutoff point (e.g. $20,000/year) and a rebate rate (e.g. 50%). So, using the above rate, if your income is... (a) $0/year ... you get $10,000/year (b) $10k/year ... you get ($20k-$10k) x 0.5 = $5,000/year (your total income is $15k/year) (c) $15k/year ... you get ($20k-$15k) x 0.5 = $2,500/year (your total income is $17.5k/year) (d) $20k/year and up ... you get nothing --- > you don't get any benefit if you are above the threshold so it's not universal It's not universal in the sense that not everyone gets the government check, but it's universal in the sense that the same rule is applied to everyone.

wscott 10y ago
True, but this would be a very different feel that the one being proposed. This system would be public assistance and so only poor people would get it. So it would come with the usual stigma. When EVERYONE gets the same check then everyone can talk about it freely and be happy about the money. It may be that with the change in tax rate, higher income people don't really get a net change to their income so the result in similar, but the "feel" is dramatically different.