3 ms·

So everyone is getting an extra $7,500, assuming they make at least that much? How isn't that just a tax credit on W2 taxes? It would make sense to assume the

So everyone is getting an extra $7,500, assuming they make at least that much? How isn't that just a tax credit on W2 taxes? It would make sense to assume there is some cut off, and given how government cut offs work in the past, it would be reasonable to assume the cut off will be implemented in a fashion that creates a graph where sometimes raises will result in less pay, at least when combined with existing government aid programs.

Kalium 8y ago
> So everyone is getting an extra $7,500, assuming they make at least that much? How isn't that just a tax credit on W2 taxes? Depends how it's implemented, probably. People react differently to larger paychecks and tax refunds, for example. And certainly people react differently if you call it a bonus, even if it is just a negative income tax that would please Friedman. > It would make sense to assume there is some cut off, and given how government cut offs work in the past, it would be reasonable to assume the cut off will be implemented in a fashion that creates a graph where sometimes raises will result in less pay, at least when combined with existing government aid programs. That's a completely, fully, absolutely 100% reasonable comment on how poorly implemented current government aid programs are far too often implemented. It might be a slightly less reasonable comment on the details as written of the proposition above.
- dahdum 8y ago
  I should clarify too the bonus should be paid along side W2 earnings as steadily as possible, not at the end of the year. End of year refunds / cash don’t help pay rent and groceries in June. The graph need not ever result in less pay, but Your rate per hour would decrease after the cap is earned out. Somewhat harebrained perhaps, I like Friedman’s negative income tax but also want to encourage both employment and small business growth.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >It might be a slightly less reasonable comment on the details as written of the proposition above. The more I think about it, the harder I think it is to create a program which doesn't result in this once combined with other programs. Any cutback, no matter how small, will be combined with all other cutbacks of all other programs, existing and future. As long as these benefits are independent, there is a that the sum of all the cutbacks will outweigh the raise that caused the cutbacks. Even if the max cutback was 10%, meaning it would take a 75k raise to remove all benefits, when combined with 9 other equally generous benefit programs and income tax you still end up with a loss. When adjusting for the phase out being for optics limiting how the phase out works (as all phase outs for optics would tend to look similar to meet similar expectations), the risk of a raise resulting in lost total income isn't easily dismissed.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    You're right! That's a very real risk that should not be readily dismissed. This is why a program that at no point has any way, shape, form, or manner of phase-out is desirable. It fully and completely avoids any kind of problem stemming from colliding cutbacks. This is such a good idea and so wise, that it was baked in to the approach proposed above!
    - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
      In a sibling comment chain the one who purposed the idea mentioned that a phase out might be needed for optics. But if it doesn't ever phase out, it is really just a tax cut, and to be exact a tax cut. I'll take having to pay 7.5k less taxes (or getting an untaxed check for 7.5k from the same people I have to write my tax check to).
      - Kalium 8y ago
        You're absolutely right. It really is just a tax cut. However, what you call something and how you structure impacts how people react to it. Call it wages and spread it over time and people react one way. Call it a bonus and hand it out once a year and people behave differently. So while it may be more correct to call it a negative income tax, this may work against the intended economic effects.

Kalium 8y ago

> So everyone is getting an extra $7,500, assuming they make at least that much? How isn't that just a tax credit on W2 taxes? Depends how it's implemented, probably. People react differently to larger paychecks and tax refunds, for example. And certainly people react differently if you call it a bonus, even if it is just a negative income tax that would please Friedman. > It would make sense to assume there is some cut off, and given how government cut offs work in the past, it would be reasonable to assume the cut off will be implemented in a fashion that creates a graph where sometimes raises will result in less pay, at least when combined with existing government aid programs. That's a completely, fully, absolutely 100% reasonable comment on how poorly implemented current government aid programs are far too often implemented. It might be a slightly less reasonable comment on the details as written of the proposition above.

dahdum 8y ago
I should clarify too the bonus should be paid along side W2 earnings as steadily as possible, not at the end of the year. End of year refunds / cash don’t help pay rent and groceries in June. The graph need not ever result in less pay, but Your rate per hour would decrease after the cap is earned out. Somewhat harebrained perhaps, I like Friedman’s negative income tax but also want to encourage both employment and small business growth.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>It might be a slightly less reasonable comment on the details as written of the proposition above. The more I think about it, the harder I think it is to create a program which doesn't result in this once combined with other programs. Any cutback, no matter how small, will be combined with all other cutbacks of all other programs, existing and future. As long as these benefits are independent, there is a that the sum of all the cutbacks will outweigh the raise that caused the cutbacks. Even if the max cutback was 10%, meaning it would take a 75k raise to remove all benefits, when combined with 9 other equally generous benefit programs and income tax you still end up with a loss. When adjusting for the phase out being for optics limiting how the phase out works (as all phase outs for optics would tend to look similar to meet similar expectations), the risk of a raise resulting in lost total income isn't easily dismissed.
- Kalium 8y ago
  You're right! That's a very real risk that should not be readily dismissed. This is why a program that at no point has any way, shape, form, or manner of phase-out is desirable. It fully and completely avoids any kind of problem stemming from colliding cutbacks. This is such a good idea and so wise, that it was baked in to the approach proposed above!
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    In a sibling comment chain the one who purposed the idea mentioned that a phase out might be needed for optics. But if it doesn't ever phase out, it is really just a tax cut, and to be exact a tax cut. I'll take having to pay 7.5k less taxes (or getting an untaxed check for 7.5k from the same people I have to write my tax check to).
    - Kalium 8y ago
      You're absolutely right. It really is just a tax cut. However, what you call something and how you structure impacts how people react to it. Call it wages and spread it over time and people react one way. Call it a bonus and hand it out once a year and people behave differently. So while it may be more correct to call it a negative income tax, this may work against the intended economic effects.