4 ms·

"Subsidies take that into account, the negative income tax does not." In my country there are both subsidies, and tax breaks for such situations. Is anything I

by ozy 10y ago

"Subsidies take that into account, the negative income tax does not." In my country there are both subsidies, and tax breaks for such situations. Is anything I said implying we abolish that? I would suggest it translates to more negative tax for such situations. "It's a far right idea that, if executed, would have horrific consequences for the poor." It is wealth redistribution. Which is not a far right idea. Any kind of wealth redistribution is good for those who have little. (Unless you redistribute it only to the rich, but that is not commonly understood with the term.) But you imply it does not? Would you mind doing that "napkin" math and show us what you mean?

gizmo 10y ago
Radical wealth redistribution from the needy to the rich is a far right idea, and that's what the negative income tax will boil down to in practice. It's very simple. Not all people need the same amount of resources to live. A healthy college student needs very little, a sickly elderly person needs a lot. The complex social support system in place today attempts to redistribute the tax money allocated for social services in the most fair way possible. The negative income tax either replicates this complexity (but then what's the point) or the negative income tax seeks to abolish the social support system in order to redistribute money to the rich. Now as a proponent of the negative income tax it should be on you to show how it could work, not on me. But whatever, I can do some numbers. Since you mentioned you wanted to get rid of social security the negative income tax has to be at least that (or the elderly will have to eat dog food like they did before FDR), and social security is about $30,000 in 2017. There are 240 million adults in the US, 240 million * 30k = 7.2 trillion. That's the same as all local, state, and federal government spending put together. Whoops! So clearly, there is not enough money to give every adult citizen the equivalent of social security. So what are we going to do now? Means test the negative income tax so the elderly get more and young healthy people get less? Means test it so disabled people get more? So that single parents get more? Is the negative income tax just going to replicate the entire social support system it has just senselessly abolished? If you want to think clearly about the negative income tax think about which demographics end up paying more and which demographics end up getting more. If the goal is just to redistribute wealth from the rich to the needy, you can easily accomplish that by adjusting the income tax brackets. So clearly negative income tax proponents don't want that. Is the goal to increase efficiency? No, because social security has less than 1% in administrative overhead, and negative income tax supporters still want to get rid of it. So clearly that's not the goal either. Is perhaps the real goal to demolish the entire social safety net while giving tax cuts to the rich? Why yes, it is!
- ozy 10y ago
  "Radical wealth redistribution from the needy to the rich is a far right idea, and that's what the negative income tax will boil down to in practice." The term wealth redistribution is generally understood as wealth going from the rich to the poor and is a "left" idea[1]. And even it it is not, I cannot think of a (sane) negative income tax system that can be described as wealth going from the poor to the rich. But you seem worried that a student is different from an elderly, and to give both negative income, the elderly will be worse off than in a system like today? All I can say is that nothing in what was described so far implies that. If you have special needs, you might be eligible to more negative income tax. "there is not enough money to give every adult citizen the equivalent of social security" Sure there is, because a 125[2] of the 240 have a job, those who earn little, might still get some money from tax, those who make medium pay a some tax, those who make a lot, pay a lot of tax. But it will imply more tax on the rich, both income and wealth. (Though nothing ridiculous.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_w... first line "Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are a concept of socialism" [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthl... Why I am in favor (of UBI or NIT)? I cannot be described as a right wing, nor as rich. And any reduced administrative overhead would be nice, but not a goal per se. But giving more money to those without a job, or low income jobs, has a few advantages: 1. economically speaking, money to those who have little represents more wealth, and will be spend in the market 2. a shrinking economy, means even more pressure on low incomes jobs, and less who have an income at all, that shrinks the market, and shrinks the economy, NIT can work like a buffer 3. low income people have no power on the labor market, a NIT or UBI gives them more power, with room to switch jobs, or go back and study And a last one, but this depends a bit per country/state, people are usually eligible for benefits or not. Some of those tests are income earned, or money in the bank. So when people are almost eligible, but have too much money saved, they buy an expensive car and become eligible. Or you refuse a job, because the pay is not that much more then their benefits, but suddenly they have to work 40 hours a week and commute, etc. Especially a NIT makes sure that these things are always a line, never yes/no. Made some money? You get to keep that, and most of your NIT benefits.

by ozy 10y ago

gizmo 10y ago

Radical wealth redistribution from the needy to the rich is a far right idea, and that's what the negative income tax will boil down to in practice. It's very simple. Not all people need the same amount of resources to live. A healthy college student needs very little, a sickly elderly person needs a lot. The complex social support system in place today attempts to redistribute the tax money allocated for social services in the most fair way possible. The negative income tax either replicates this complexity (but then what's the point) or the negative income tax seeks to abolish the social support system in order to redistribute money to the rich. Now as a proponent of the negative income tax it should be on you to show how it could work, not on me. But whatever, I can do some numbers. Since you mentioned you wanted to get rid of social security the negative income tax has to be at least that (or the elderly will have to eat dog food like they did before FDR), and social security is about $30,000 in 2017. There are 240 million adults in the US, 240 million * 30k = 7.2 trillion. That's the same as all local, state, and federal government spending put together. Whoops! So clearly, there is not enough money to give every adult citizen the equivalent of social security. So what are we going to do now? Means test the negative income tax so the elderly get more and young healthy people get less? Means test it so disabled people get more? So that single parents get more? Is the negative income tax just going to replicate the entire social support system it has just senselessly abolished? If you want to think clearly about the negative income tax think about which demographics end up paying more and which demographics end up getting more. If the goal is just to redistribute wealth from the rich to the needy, you can easily accomplish that by adjusting the income tax brackets. So clearly negative income tax proponents don't want that. Is the goal to increase efficiency? No, because social security has less than 1% in administrative overhead, and negative income tax supporters still want to get rid of it. So clearly that's not the goal either. Is perhaps the real goal to demolish the entire social safety net while giving tax cuts to the rich? Why yes, it is!

ozy 10y ago
"Radical wealth redistribution from the needy to the rich is a far right idea, and that's what the negative income tax will boil down to in practice." The term wealth redistribution is generally understood as wealth going from the rich to the poor and is a "left" idea[1]. And even it it is not, I cannot think of a (sane) negative income tax system that can be described as wealth going from the poor to the rich. But you seem worried that a student is different from an elderly, and to give both negative income, the elderly will be worse off than in a system like today? All I can say is that nothing in what was described so far implies that. If you have special needs, you might be eligible to more negative income tax. "there is not enough money to give every adult citizen the equivalent of social security" Sure there is, because a 125[2] of the 240 have a job, those who earn little, might still get some money from tax, those who make medium pay a some tax, those who make a lot, pay a lot of tax. But it will imply more tax on the rich, both income and wealth. (Though nothing ridiculous.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_w... first line "Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are a concept of socialism" [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthl... Why I am in favor (of UBI or NIT)? I cannot be described as a right wing, nor as rich. And any reduced administrative overhead would be nice, but not a goal per se. But giving more money to those without a job, or low income jobs, has a few advantages: 1. economically speaking, money to those who have little represents more wealth, and will be spend in the market 2. a shrinking economy, means even more pressure on low incomes jobs, and less who have an income at all, that shrinks the market, and shrinks the economy, NIT can work like a buffer 3. low income people have no power on the labor market, a NIT or UBI gives them more power, with room to switch jobs, or go back and study And a last one, but this depends a bit per country/state, people are usually eligible for benefits or not. Some of those tests are income earned, or money in the bank. So when people are almost eligible, but have too much money saved, they buy an expensive car and become eligible. Or you refuse a job, because the pay is not that much more then their benefits, but suddenly they have to work 40 hours a week and commute, etc. Especially a NIT makes sure that these things are always a line, never yes/no. Made some money? You get to keep that, and most of your NIT benefits.