3 ms·
A negative tax subsidises employers so that they don't have to pay so much. If everyone got the money whether they worked or not then the low wage employer wou
by aembleton 10y ago
A negative tax subsidises employers so that they don't have to pay so much. If everyone got the money whether they worked or not then the low wage employer would need to improve the incentive to go and work for them. It would also reduce the amount of administrative work required.
- aninhumer 10y agoI think it's an interesting question as to what effect NIT/UBI would have on the labour market. On the one hand, it's a labour subsidy, so employers theoretically don't need to pay as much to offer a decent quality of life as an incentive. But on other hand, people no longer need a job to survive, which reduces the incentive to work. I think the end result here might be a notable improvement in job quality. When you're not struggling to survive, it's much easier to weigh job quality in your decisions, and take less money in exchange for a more pleasant job. In particular, I think a lot of service jobs, could be more enjoyable if companies actually had to care about work environment.
- ozy 10y agoA NIT or UBI are basically equivalent. But is easier to see why we give to those who are lesser off. E.g. why give UBI to a millionaire? One of the points is to give power back to those who on the labor market are almost powerless. Both forms would do that. What would the impact be? Likely price for labor goes up. Describing only one of the options as a subsidy is not likely correct.