6 ms·

Why is it means tested? Just give it to everyone and simplify the process of distributing it. If you really want to not pay the rich, just raise taxes by a prop

Why is it means tested? Just give it to everyone and simplify the process of distributing it. If you really want to not pay the rich, just raise taxes by a proportional amount. I don't understand the concern that somehow we should draw lines around who gets a benefit and who doesn't. Build the simplest system. Are you a human? Get benefit. If you really want to claw back that from folks, raise a progressive tax.

viraptor 6y ago
Potential reason (I don't know if true motivation): While it doesn't make financial sense, it could convince some people who would otherwise say they don't want to give money to the rich. The sight inefficiency will not break the system, but bigger opposition may stop it from being tried.
nutshell89 6y ago
$2000 x 8.4 million residents would be nearly 20% of the NYC's budget is why.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Because NYC cannot deficit spend or unilaterally issue good taxes like the federal government can. The real question is why doesn't NYC create its own local currency to skirt those restriction.
- nutshell89 6y ago
  Curiously enough, New York State has flirted with the idea of "State Citizenship" [1]. On currency NY could in theory issue their own (maybe even a cryptocurrency), but there might be some issues with the constitution's Supremacy Clause (while collecting taxes). Yang's platform also proposes a public banking system by way. [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2013/s7879 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2013/s7879
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I thought NYC had an income tax and property taxes separate from state level taxes?
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Somewhat, but I remember many stories of Bill de Blasio trying to beg Cuomo for this or thew new billionaires tax, and Cuomo just laughing him out of the room.
chillacy 6y ago
In lieu of raising taxes to claw it back, I hope it at least phases out so there's less of an incentive to game your way towards eligibility. I think Yang understands this, but it would otherwise create yet another welfare trap.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  That's what "means tested" means. Phasing it out by how much income you make. That's specifically the issue I have with this policy. We should be taking care of everyone, and everyone should be entitled to certain baselines. We should also tax the wealthy enough to ensure we cover those baselines. It's much simpler to do that than arrange every benefit with a means testing system that needs monitoring and adjudication.
maximente 6y ago
let's take this to the logical extreme: - everyone gets a flat payment - in order to support this, taxes are raised on income - ... however, ostensibly this is progressive (read: not flat and scales up with income) insofar as we don't want to tax those who just received necessary payments so, the best we can end up with in a theoretical world is a negative income tax by another name, with the 0% tax rate exactly at whatever the "living wage" is for NYC. this seems largely like means testing by another route (what is a "living wage?"), but i guess it's simpler than bolting on another welfare matrix with cliffs, rules and such. pragmatically: good luck getting there.

viraptor 6y ago

Potential reason (I don't know if true motivation): While it doesn't make financial sense, it could convince some people who would otherwise say they don't want to give money to the rich. The sight inefficiency will not break the system, but bigger opposition may stop it from being tried.

nutshell89 6y ago

$2000 x 8.4 million residents would be nearly 20% of the NYC's budget is why.

Ericson2314 6y ago

Because NYC cannot deficit spend or unilaterally issue good taxes like the federal government can. The real question is why doesn't NYC create its own local currency to skirt those restriction.

nutshell89 6y ago
Curiously enough, New York State has flirted with the idea of "State Citizenship" [1]. On currency NY could in theory issue their own (maybe even a cryptocurrency), but there might be some issues with the constitution's Supremacy Clause (while collecting taxes). Yang's platform also proposes a public banking system by way. [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2013/s7879 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2013/s7879
Pfhreak 6y ago
I thought NYC had an income tax and property taxes separate from state level taxes?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Somewhat, but I remember many stories of Bill de Blasio trying to beg Cuomo for this or thew new billionaires tax, and Cuomo just laughing him out of the room.

chillacy 6y ago

In lieu of raising taxes to claw it back, I hope it at least phases out so there's less of an incentive to game your way towards eligibility. I think Yang understands this, but it would otherwise create yet another welfare trap.

Pfhreak 6y ago
That's what "means tested" means. Phasing it out by how much income you make. That's specifically the issue I have with this policy. We should be taking care of everyone, and everyone should be entitled to certain baselines. We should also tax the wealthy enough to ensure we cover those baselines. It's much simpler to do that than arrange every benefit with a means testing system that needs monitoring and adjudication.

maximente 6y ago

let's take this to the logical extreme: - everyone gets a flat payment - in order to support this, taxes are raised on income - ... however, ostensibly this is progressive (read: not flat and scales up with income) insofar as we don't want to tax those who just received necessary payments so, the best we can end up with in a theoretical world is a negative income tax by another name, with the 0% tax rate exactly at whatever the "living wage" is for NYC. this seems largely like means testing by another route (what is a "living wage?"), but i guess it's simpler than bolting on another welfare matrix with cliffs, rules and such. pragmatically: good luck getting there.