5 ms·

I would like to see "negative income tax" (a la Milton Friedman) make a comeback in these experiments. It's like minimum wage except the government funds the d

I would like to see "negative income tax" (a la Milton Friedman) make a comeback in these experiments. It's like minimum wage except the government funds the difference, and unlike UBI you still have to work to earn it, which seems to be a prevailing concern ITT.

akvadrako 5y ago
That isn't how NIT works. Mathematically it is identical to UBI, it's just phrased differently.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  No the difference is not simply semantics. The main difference between NIT and UBI is that your check is conditional on working. From the article: > De Kwaadsteniet: ‘In the condition without social security, the test participants didn’t receive a basic sum. In the benefits condition they received a basic sum, which they lost as soon as they started working. In the basic income condition they received the same basic sum but didn’t lose this when they started work.’ They test for 3 scenarios, but they miss the 4th NIT scenario, in which the "basic sum" would only be granted _after_ they get a job.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    That isn't how the term is normally used. This is a good intro: https://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-nit-and-unconditional-basic-income-ubi-what-makes-them-the-same-and-what-makes-them-different https://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-nit-and-unc... And you can even see on wikipedia that: > Therefore, a family with $0 income would be entitled to receive $1500 in subsidy. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      Oh TIL thanks!