3 ms·
> 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 implem
by 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 agoTrue, 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.