4 ms·

"...and likely implementation." It's true that you can make UBIs and NITs equivalent, but I think it's important to emphasize the implementation part: they are

"...and likely implementation." It's true that you can make UBIs and NITs equivalent, but I think it's important to emphasize the implementation part: they are very unlikely to be implemented the same way. This is because, for them to be equivalent, you need the drop-off rate as incomes increase for an NIT to be equal to the increase in taxes on income earners below 2x the UBI level. In other words, an NIT is likely to come with a high marginal "tax" (aka loss of NIT) rate for low earners, while a UBI is likely to keep marginal tax rates for low earners low.

aninhumer 10y ago
Yeah. And additionally, how people get access to the money may also be different. With UBI, most likely people register once and then receive the income without incident indefinitely, and only need to work out taxation if they're employed. Whereas NIT likely requires people to continually submit tax returns stating their lack of income (which is potentially more stigmatising).
- Chathamization 10y ago
  > Whereas NIT likely requires people to continually submit tax returns stating their lack of income (which is potentially more stigmatising). It also means a lot of people simply won't get the benefits. In the U.S., a lot of people who are eligible for welfare programs never take advantage of them because of the administrative hurtles (to take one example, "Only about 1 in 6 people who are eligible for child care subsidies actually get it"[1]). I'm starting to think more and more that this is by design. Even if you're one of the people that gets the benefits you're eligible for, it's still a burden (imagine having to do your taxes several times a year), and you are subject to the whims of policy makers that want to beat up on you for political credits. So you had some states requiring that welfare recipients get drug testing. If you had a similar requirement for Social Security, people would be livid and through the politicians out on the street. But when this kind of stuff is done to the poor, a lot of people have the attitude that the impoverished deserve to be treated badly. [1] www.npr.org/2016/08/21/490822086/the-financial-trials-of-child-care-for-working-families
  - knightofmars 10y ago
    I'd say it's more likely due to lack of design than thoughtful malicious design.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      If a person make errors some times, and then never bothers to fix any error (because of incentives), but keeps making other actions, some of them being errors that will never be fixed... Or if a person makes errors in two directions, but then only bothers fixing the ones in a single direction. I'd say that person is malicious.
      - knightofmars 10y ago
        The government isn't a person. If you were hired to "fix" the problem described how well do you think you would do?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

aninhumer 10y ago

Yeah. And additionally, how people get access to the money may also be different. With UBI, most likely people register once and then receive the income without incident indefinitely, and only need to work out taxation if they're employed. Whereas NIT likely requires people to continually submit tax returns stating their lack of income (which is potentially more stigmatising).

Chathamization 10y ago
> Whereas NIT likely requires people to continually submit tax returns stating their lack of income (which is potentially more stigmatising). It also means a lot of people simply won't get the benefits. In the U.S., a lot of people who are eligible for welfare programs never take advantage of them because of the administrative hurtles (to take one example, "Only about 1 in 6 people who are eligible for child care subsidies actually get it"[1]). I'm starting to think more and more that this is by design. Even if you're one of the people that gets the benefits you're eligible for, it's still a burden (imagine having to do your taxes several times a year), and you are subject to the whims of policy makers that want to beat up on you for political credits. So you had some states requiring that welfare recipients get drug testing. If you had a similar requirement for Social Security, people would be livid and through the politicians out on the street. But when this kind of stuff is done to the poor, a lot of people have the attitude that the impoverished deserve to be treated badly. [1] www.npr.org/2016/08/21/490822086/the-financial-trials-of-child-care-for-working-families
- knightofmars 10y ago
  I'd say it's more likely due to lack of design than thoughtful malicious design.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    If a person make errors some times, and then never bothers to fix any error (because of incentives), but keeps making other actions, some of them being errors that will never be fixed... Or if a person makes errors in two directions, but then only bothers fixing the ones in a single direction. I'd say that person is malicious.
    - knightofmars 10y ago
      The government isn't a person. If you were hired to "fix" the problem described how well do you think you would do?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]