2 ms·

> funded, e.g., by additional progressive taxes At which point the proposal becomes a welfare system that pointlessly disburses and claws-back cash.

by adolph 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago
Not really. The fundamental problem of means-tested welfare programs that UBI addresses remain: (1) Eliminates multiple sets of inefficient benefits/eligibility bureaucracy that duplicates functionality already performed as part of taxing authority. (2) Eliminates a counterproductive incentives associated with typical means-tested benefit eligibility, which has clawbacks at low income levels and rapid marginal rate (sometimes exceeding 100% with marginal income when tallied across all means-tested programs; this effect creates a barrier to progress beyond a low income level. (While progressive income taxes may be raised from previous levels to fund it, when viewed as clawbacks these changes typically kick in at much higher income levels and lower marginal rates than typical means-tested benefit clawback.)
- account42 5y ago
  (3) Eliminates the psychological torment that being subjected to a means-tested welfare program can inflict.
- adolph 5y ago
  From a US point of view, when was the last time any entrenched bureaucracy was eliminated? As a baby step in redundancy reduction, is it realistic to think that UBI going to get rid of a program like WIC, against the full power of big ag brandishing starving baby pictures? Your second point acknowledges that taxing away UBI through progressive tax rates is a clawback. As I read it, your idea is that the increased marginal taxation due to the clawback will occur at higher income levels than exist with current programs. Why not just change the existing tax rates instead of sending out cash and taxing it back?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > From a US point of view, when was the last time any entrenched bureaucracy was eliminated? The most recent that springs to mind is the elimination of most of the conscription-related bureaucracy post-Vietnam. > Your second point acknowledges that taxing away UBI through progressive tax rates is a clawback. As I read it, your idea is that the increased marginal taxation due to the clawback will occur at higher income levels than exist with current programs. Why not just change the existing tax rates instead of sending out cash and taxing it back? A baseline tax credit plus adjustments to existing rates is widely recognized as one mechanism for implementing a UBI, but even the there is often a desire to have an estimated advance mechanism, to avoid a delay of potentially more than a year from when people enter the UBI-covered population and when they start benfiting from it.
    - adolph 5y ago
      > elimination of most of the conscription-related bureaucracy I was just thinking of that as an entrenched bureaucracy example but decided to focus things on an entitlement program. Despite having zero purpose for 49 years, Selective Service still manages to spend $26m/year [0]. > often a desire to have an estimated advance mechanism, to avoid a delay of potentially more than a year The model for advance payments on an upcoming year's tax credits already exists [1]. I can see how this doesn't address downward change in income, but also don't see how that couldn't be added. 0. https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Annual-Report-2021-3-24-22.pdf https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Annual-Report... 1. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021 https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-cre...

> funded, e.g., by additional progressive taxes At which point the proposal becomes a welfare system that pointlessly disburses and claws-back cash.

by adolph 5y ago

> funded, e.g., by additional progressive taxes At which point the proposal becomes a welfare system that pointlessly disburses and claws-back cash.

dragonwriter 5y ago

Not really. The fundamental problem of means-tested welfare programs that UBI addresses remain: (1) Eliminates multiple sets of inefficient benefits/eligibility bureaucracy that duplicates functionality already performed as part of taxing authority. (2) Eliminates a counterproductive incentives associated with typical means-tested benefit eligibility, which has clawbacks at low income levels and rapid marginal rate (sometimes exceeding 100% with marginal income when tallied across all means-tested programs; this effect creates a barrier to progress beyond a low income level. (While progressive income taxes may be raised from previous levels to fund it, when viewed as clawbacks these changes typically kick in at much higher income levels and lower marginal rates than typical means-tested benefit clawback.)

account42 5y ago
(3) Eliminates the psychological torment that being subjected to a means-tested welfare program can inflict.
adolph 5y ago
From a US point of view, when was the last time any entrenched bureaucracy was eliminated? As a baby step in redundancy reduction, is it realistic to think that UBI going to get rid of a program like WIC, against the full power of big ag brandishing starving baby pictures? Your second point acknowledges that taxing away UBI through progressive tax rates is a clawback. As I read it, your idea is that the increased marginal taxation due to the clawback will occur at higher income levels than exist with current programs. Why not just change the existing tax rates instead of sending out cash and taxing it back?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > From a US point of view, when was the last time any entrenched bureaucracy was eliminated? The most recent that springs to mind is the elimination of most of the conscription-related bureaucracy post-Vietnam. > Your second point acknowledges that taxing away UBI through progressive tax rates is a clawback. As I read it, your idea is that the increased marginal taxation due to the clawback will occur at higher income levels than exist with current programs. Why not just change the existing tax rates instead of sending out cash and taxing it back? A baseline tax credit plus adjustments to existing rates is widely recognized as one mechanism for implementing a UBI, but even the there is often a desire to have an estimated advance mechanism, to avoid a delay of potentially more than a year from when people enter the UBI-covered population and when they start benfiting from it.
  - adolph 5y ago
    > elimination of most of the conscription-related bureaucracy I was just thinking of that as an entrenched bureaucracy example but decided to focus things on an entitlement program. Despite having zero purpose for 49 years, Selective Service still manages to spend $26m/year [0]. > often a desire to have an estimated advance mechanism, to avoid a delay of potentially more than a year The model for advance payments on an upcoming year's tax credits already exists [1]. I can see how this doesn't address downward change in income, but also don't see how that couldn't be added. 0. https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Annual-Report-2021-3-24-22.pdf https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Annual-Report... 1. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021 https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-cre...