3 ms·

I have a hard time following this argument. It's not a tax, it's a limit to benefits. If the government comes along and says > You need $30,000 / year to live

I have a hard time following this argument. It's not a tax, it's a limit to benefits. If the government comes along and says > You need $30,000 / year to live at a minimum in our society. We will make sure everyone that makes less than that gets enough in benefits to make up the difference. That's not a 100% tax rate for any money earned under $30,000 / year. It's reduced benefits because the definitions of the system (the minimum amount needed to survive) indicate the system only needs to make sure everyone is at a specific minimum level. You can argue that working costs money (transportation, child care, clothing, etc), and that's a valid argument against working if the amount you make would mean you wind up with less money available for other things. However, it's still not a tax. It's a limitation in the analysis of cost of living requirements. Calling it a tax is disingenuous.

kazagistar 7y ago
It behaves the same way from the perspective of the worker. For every hour I work of a minimum wage job, I see an increase to my spending abilities of 35% of minimum wage or whatever. It's only not a tax technically, but it still cuts into your direct benefit from working exactly like a tax.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  > It's only not a tax technically In the same way that any benefit program being cancelled (eg. movies for kids for free every Friday on the town green, etc) are stealing. It's a benefit that had some or all of it taken away.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    If it's part of your pay structure, and then suddenly it's not given to you, that would be stealing.
    - RHSeeger 7y ago
      It's a benefit provided by the taxes of all. It's not part of your pay structure.
SilasX 7y ago
Then remove the word “tax” from my point and rephrase it as “only capturing (less than) 37% of the wage”, and every relevant point still applies. If you still don’t see the significance, I can only blame underpractice at the skill of abstraction. (I mean, if you don’t like the framing, fine, but you specifically said you have a “hard time following” the argument.)
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  > Then remove the word “tax” from my point and rephrase it as “only capturing (less than) 37% of the wage” My problem is that I don't see it as capturing less of the wage, I see it as being granted less of the benefit / social safety net. When you don't make enough money to support yourself, society kicks and and gives you enough so that you're ok (you meet some defined minimum). As you earn more, you need less support from society to be meet that minimum, so you're given less. Eventually, you get to the point where you meet the minimum without assistance from society. At that point, the benefit is no longer needed (by the definition of the program). At no point are the benefits your earnings, and at no point are your earnings being taken away by the less of the benefit. Rather, you're just not being assisted by society anymore because you don't need that assistance. If the recipient of those benefits can't see that and, instead, sees them as "this is mine and you're taking it away", then I argue that's a problem with recipient. They are wrong. They should be happy the benefit was there for them when they did need it... and that it will be there some someone else when they need it. That is the point of social safety nets. Now, I get that there's some "emotional attachment" to getting the money and then not getting because (as the recipient sees it) they're working (which is wrong; as noted, they're getting less because they need less, period). As such, reducing the benefits amount by a percentage less than 100% of earned ways helps mitigate those feelings. But at some point, the benefit must go away; it's not UBI. The rate at which it goes away is not going to make everyone happy, no matter what is done (that's the nature of compromise).

kazagistar 7y ago

It behaves the same way from the perspective of the worker. For every hour I work of a minimum wage job, I see an increase to my spending abilities of 35% of minimum wage or whatever. It's only not a tax technically, but it still cuts into your direct benefit from working exactly like a tax.

RHSeeger 7y ago
> It's only not a tax technically In the same way that any benefit program being cancelled (eg. movies for kids for free every Friday on the town green, etc) are stealing. It's a benefit that had some or all of it taken away.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  If it's part of your pay structure, and then suddenly it's not given to you, that would be stealing.
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    It's a benefit provided by the taxes of all. It's not part of your pay structure.

SilasX 7y ago

Then remove the word “tax” from my point and rephrase it as “only capturing (less than) 37% of the wage”, and every relevant point still applies. If you still don’t see the significance, I can only blame underpractice at the skill of abstraction. (I mean, if you don’t like the framing, fine, but you specifically said you have a “hard time following” the argument.)

RHSeeger 7y ago
> Then remove the word “tax” from my point and rephrase it as “only capturing (less than) 37% of the wage” My problem is that I don't see it as capturing less of the wage, I see it as being granted less of the benefit / social safety net. When you don't make enough money to support yourself, society kicks and and gives you enough so that you're ok (you meet some defined minimum). As you earn more, you need less support from society to be meet that minimum, so you're given less. Eventually, you get to the point where you meet the minimum without assistance from society. At that point, the benefit is no longer needed (by the definition of the program). At no point are the benefits your earnings, and at no point are your earnings being taken away by the less of the benefit. Rather, you're just not being assisted by society anymore because you don't need that assistance. If the recipient of those benefits can't see that and, instead, sees them as "this is mine and you're taking it away", then I argue that's a problem with recipient. They are wrong. They should be happy the benefit was there for them when they did need it... and that it will be there some someone else when they need it. That is the point of social safety nets. Now, I get that there's some "emotional attachment" to getting the money and then not getting because (as the recipient sees it) they're working (which is wrong; as noted, they're getting less because they need less, period). As such, reducing the benefits amount by a percentage less than 100% of earned ways helps mitigate those feelings. But at some point, the benefit must go away; it's not UBI. The rate at which it goes away is not going to make everyone happy, no matter what is done (that's the nature of compromise).