4 ms·

If you raise the bar by $x across the board then doesn't $x gradually becomes the new bottom? If we give everyone $50k / year tax-free, would that just make $50

by rapind 7y ago

If you raise the bar by $x across the board then doesn't $x gradually becomes the new bottom? If we give everyone $50k / year tax-free, would that just make $50k the new $0 relative to cost of living? The effect being the same as a progressive tax (those who make far more are far less impacted). If it is basically the same as a progressive tax, then it does strike me as a much simpler way to implement it (instead of complicated varying brackets). However adding it on top of an existing progressive tax scheme is adding another point of complexity right? Maybe replacing progressive taxes with a flat tax and then adding UBI would be a better / simpler approach.

chillacy 7y ago
The Harvard economist Greg Mankiew has a talk where he shows how a UBI + flat tax could behave the same as a progressive tax + phased out UBI: https://taxfoundation.org/universal-basic-income-ubi-means-tested-transfers/ https://taxfoundation.org/universal-basic-income-ubi-means-t...
- rapind 7y ago
  Seems like it would be more clear and fair all around to have flat tax + UBI so we aren't mixing solutions to different problems. Rich and poor probably utilize public services around the same amount (roads, police, hospitals, fire departments, etc.). (I'm sure there are counter arguments to this, but if public services we're good enough, can we assume this?). So a flat tax would be fair. It potentially disincentives better public services in more wealthy regions if everyone pays the same (again, sure there are some counter arguments, but it would be better right?). Then adding UBI is clearly for the purpose of distributing some of the wealth that our society has allowed to be created back to the people in a non-prejudiced way. UBI would have to keep pace with inflation of course. A fixed "thank you for making our rich country work and for buying crap even if don't need it" that everyone gets doesn't seem too controversial. Other than accountants, tax lawyers, and offshore havens, who gets hurt?

by rapind 7y ago

chillacy 7y ago

The Harvard economist Greg Mankiew has a talk where he shows how a UBI + flat tax could behave the same as a progressive tax + phased out UBI: https://taxfoundation.org/universal-basic-income-ubi-means-tested-transfers/ https://taxfoundation.org/universal-basic-income-ubi-means-t...

rapind 7y ago
Seems like it would be more clear and fair all around to have flat tax + UBI so we aren't mixing solutions to different problems. Rich and poor probably utilize public services around the same amount (roads, police, hospitals, fire departments, etc.). (I'm sure there are counter arguments to this, but if public services we're good enough, can we assume this?). So a flat tax would be fair. It potentially disincentives better public services in more wealthy regions if everyone pays the same (again, sure there are some counter arguments, but it would be better right?). Then adding UBI is clearly for the purpose of distributing some of the wealth that our society has allowed to be created back to the people in a non-prejudiced way. UBI would have to keep pace with inflation of course. A fixed "thank you for making our rich country work and for buying crap even if don't need it" that everyone gets doesn't seem too controversial. Other than accountants, tax lawyers, and offshore havens, who gets hurt?