4 ms·
UBI is inefficient--taxing someone and then giving them money. NIT (negative income tax) makes more sense and can actually have the same effect as UBI depending
by witty_username 10y ago
UBI is inefficient--taxing someone and then giving them money. NIT (negative income tax) makes more sense and can actually have the same effect as UBI depending on the slabs.
- trfgbv 10y agohttp://overweeninggeneralist.blogspot.com/2011/08/universal-basic-income-ubi-vs-negative.html http://overweeninggeneralist.blogspot.com/2011/08/universal-...
- witty_username 10y agoThose are good points, but there are ways to fix that. There's no reason why NIT needs to involve large amounts of paperwork. NIT only involves income, so a person simply needs to give their income (unlike taxes, which are much more complicated). The NIT would presumably have a minimum amount given even if you earn 0$. That amount can be given to everybody can't do the paperwork. Then, the amount remaining above that can be distributed as a NIT. Basically, give UBI to people who can't do the paperwork to cover them. The rest can use NIT. The time lag is not a necessary property of the tax system. The NIT can be done on a monthly basis. Anyways, this is just an implementation issue. Either way they both redistribute money.
- pitaj 10y agoIn my eyes, negative income tax is just a certain implementation of a UBI.