4 ms·
> that UBI would require impossible tax increases and also that NIT would be fine. Intuitively I had thought of the UBI and NIT as very similar except that th
by adrianratnapala 9y ago
> that UBI would require impossible tax increases and also that NIT would be fine.
Intuitively I had thought of the UBI and NIT as very similar except that the UBI seeks to be large enough to be a workable living income, whereas a NIT can be any positive amount (or negative, depending on which way you look at it). So conversely the tax change required to fund it need not be large -- it just depends on how ambitious you want to be.
- 1123581321 9y agoThis is part of the circle of miscommunication when discussing UBI. It goes like this: Q. The tax rate would be too high. A. Not if UBI is small. Q. Small amounts won’t make a difference. A. That’s why it needs to be enough to live on. Q. Then the tax rate...
- keithnz 9y agothe problem is people talk about paying for it through income tax and not a wealth tax. If you look at wealth distribution, you look at how to slice enough off the top end to cover the bottom end.
- 1123581321 9y agoI assume you are looking at the $50-100 trillion of theoretically seizable wealth in the United States. Unfortunately, not much of that is fungible due to the lack of buyers in that scenario.
- akvadrako 9y agoUBI and Negative Income Tax are two terms for the same thing. Well, according to Wikipedia, NIT is one implementation of UBI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). I suppose that's fair, but it's the most obvious implementation. Either can be large or small; that's not part of the definition.