5 ms·
Do you mean whether UBI would have such a cut-off? Then it's by definition not universal.
by maweki 4y ago
Do you mean whether UBI would have such a cut-off? Then it's by definition not universal.
- daenz 4y agoIf UBI could logically evolve into non-universal basic income, that should be a concern, because if people are dependent on that money, they can't really oppose the change.
- marcosdumay 4y agoYou meant to ask if a government that does UBI can ever stop doing it and offering some other kind of assistance?
- daenz 4y agoNot quite. I'm concerned that they would offer UBI, and then add conditions later. It's pedantic to think that officials would care that this is "not technically UBI anymore." It would be called UBI, but you would be required to comply with different standards to receive it.
- marcosdumay 4y agoA government can always take assistance down, add rules, expand, shrink, do whatever with it. It can also use whatever name it wants.
- daenz 4y agoThen it seems like a very bad idea to put the security of your home, food, and livelihood entirely on the whims of the government to such a degree.
- marcosdumay 4y agoHum... If you are saying that people shouldn't willingly depend on social assistance, I don't think you will find anybody to disagree with. If you are saying that people should be free from government's whims, congratulations, you've just discovered Democracy. Anyway, if your government has whims, the security of your home, food and livelihood is entirely dependent on them. It doesn't matter if you depend on social assistance.
- notahacker 4y agoUBI is always going to have a de facto cutoff where some people pay more in tax than they receive in UBI (unless your government is funding it solely by money printing or having massive amounts of oil per head of population). The only question is what that level is at and how steeply the relevant taxes reduce turn its net benefit to a net cost, and that's something governments determine just like the tapering on any other form of benefit.
- gpm 4y agoA smooth transition out is more or less by definition not a cutoff (a cutoff being a sudden thing). This is an important distinction, because it means it's never harmful to earn another dollar. Since we don't have a wealth tax, there isn't even a smooth transition out along the dimension that the article discusses.
- notahacker 4y agoThe article also discusses and criticises a 50% effective marginal tax on working which is absolutely how an UBI smoothly transitions if funded by an income tax, and in theory the taper could be steeper still. Not harmful to earn another dollar, but not especially lucrative either. Nothing about a UBI prevents it from being coupled with a wealth tax (possibly even a regressive one which kicks in at low levels so recipients are disincentivised to save) if the government wishes to fund it that way... and they'll need to find additional funds from somewhere. The only difference with UBI is the subsidy itself is a lot less targeted than "financial aid for registered disabled people", so the government has to find a lot more ways to claw it back from some sections of the population. That can be sneaky and regressive, just like a non-universal income only disabled people are entitled to can be completely without income and wealth qualifications if a government wants.
- orangecat 4y agoUBI is always going to have a de facto cutoff where some people pay more in tax than they receive in UBI That's not a cutoff; it's a continuous function that crosses zero at some point. With a UBI funded by an income tax you're never worse off earning more.