3 ms·

Nothing can actually be a guaranteed income program though, at least in the spirit that people talk about it. Someone eventually has to pay for it. Even if "e

Nothing can actually be a guaranteed income program though, at least in the spirit that people talk about it. Someone eventually has to pay for it. Even if "everyone qualifies" and you give every person $xxx, some people will get their taxes raised by more than $xxx. Or if you tax entities other than individuals, eventually the taxes get passed on to individuals in the form of higher prices, lower wages, etc.

kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]
everfree 4y ago
> Even if "everyone qualifies" and you give every person $xxx, some people will get their taxes raised by more than $xxx. I don't see how this would make it "not income". It's still income if you have a large tax bill. > at least in the spirit that people talk about it. In what spirit do people talk about it?
- k2enemy 4y ago
  If UBI means that I get a check for $500 but at the same time my taxes go up by $500, I would have a hard time thinking that my income went up by $500. Think of a world with two people. One rich one poor. Both get checks for $500, but the rich persons taxes go up by $1000 to pay for the program. The net effect is different for the two people. Now in a more realistic setting with a range of incomes, the tax burden of UBI increases in a persons wealth. When you take the net of UBI income minus UBI taxes you get a progressive tax scheme. This means it is not a transfer in the way economists talk about transfers. You still have an effect where people get "punished" with higher taxes as their income goes up.
  - everfree 4y ago
    > If UBI means that I get a check for $500 but at the same time my taxes go up by $500, I would have a hard time thinking that my income went up by $500. If you get a check for $500 and your taxes go up by $500, that means your total compensation (all sources of taxable income including capital gains) is exactly at the national mean, which is to say that your income is way higher than the median income. As a mean income earner, you earn more than 80% of all Americans. Are you in the top 20% of income earners? If not, then you come out ahead. > Think of a world with two people. One rich one poor. Both get checks for $500, but the rich persons taxes go up by $1000 to pay for the program. The net effect is different for the two people. That is true and it is by design. That's the way functioning progressive tax systems have always worked. > You still have an effect where people get "punished" with higher taxes as their income goes up. Yes, that's the point of a progressive tax system.
    - k2enemy 4y ago
      I agree with everything you said. My original comment was in response to a comment that claimed that UBI does not suffer from the same incentives as needs-based programs and doesn't punish people for increasing their income. My point was that this is not true. As your income increases, your relative tax burden from UBI also increases. In other words, as your income increases, "UBI income minus UBI taxes" decreases. Thus creating some of the same incentives as needs based programs. This is common to all progressive tax systems (which I support), and UBI isn't a magical exception.
      - xmprt 4y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding the punishment. For needs-based programs, a lot of the time, you either get the $500 or you don't. There is no gradual falloff like there would be for taxes. So if the cutoff is $X and you earn $X-100 then you'd be punished for getting a job that pays $X+100. Before the new job you got $X+400 in the bank but now you only get $X+100. That doesn't happen in a UBI. Sure you'll end up getting "punished" by having to pay higher taxes however you're also earning more to begin with so there's never a scenario where you end up worse off for getting a better job.
nwah1 4y ago
It is still a transfer payment, and it isn't free. That much is obvious enough. But it still provides a superior alternative to needs-based welfare from the perspective of eliminating perverse incentives. And since that is the point, it fulfills its purpose.
- k2enemy 4y ago
  It isn't a transfer though. See reply to sibling comment.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    And the reply to that explains well how it is a transfer payment. And of course it is. A sizable number of people don't earn any income at all. You do have a point about inflation, but supply in most cases will respond accordingly. There are important exceptions, like land rent, which scales with the income-earning ability of tenants, because it is a pure monopoly with a vertical (static) supply curve. see: The Law of Rent
spoonfeeder006 4y ago
> Someone eventually has to pay for it The money for it is out there. Its just concentrated into the hands of the few, like the 1% or something. Thats where most of peoples' money is ultimately going, not to programs that help poor people "O CHILDREN OF DUST! Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor, lest heedlessness lead them into the path of destruction, and deprive them of the Tree of Wealth. To give and to be generous are attributes of Mine; well is it with him that adorneth himself with My virtues." -Baha'i Teaching https://www.bahaiprayers.io/prayer?id=403490 https://www.bahaiprayers.io/prayer?id=403490

kerpotgh 4y ago

[dead]

everfree 4y ago

> Even if "everyone qualifies" and you give every person $xxx, some people will get their taxes raised by more than $xxx. I don't see how this would make it "not income". It's still income if you have a large tax bill. > at least in the spirit that people talk about it. In what spirit do people talk about it?

k2enemy 4y ago
If UBI means that I get a check for $500 but at the same time my taxes go up by $500, I would have a hard time thinking that my income went up by $500. Think of a world with two people. One rich one poor. Both get checks for $500, but the rich persons taxes go up by $1000 to pay for the program. The net effect is different for the two people. Now in a more realistic setting with a range of incomes, the tax burden of UBI increases in a persons wealth. When you take the net of UBI income minus UBI taxes you get a progressive tax scheme. This means it is not a transfer in the way economists talk about transfers. You still have an effect where people get "punished" with higher taxes as their income goes up.
- everfree 4y ago
  > If UBI means that I get a check for $500 but at the same time my taxes go up by $500, I would have a hard time thinking that my income went up by $500. If you get a check for $500 and your taxes go up by $500, that means your total compensation (all sources of taxable income including capital gains) is exactly at the national mean, which is to say that your income is way higher than the median income. As a mean income earner, you earn more than 80% of all Americans. Are you in the top 20% of income earners? If not, then you come out ahead. > Think of a world with two people. One rich one poor. Both get checks for $500, but the rich persons taxes go up by $1000 to pay for the program. The net effect is different for the two people. That is true and it is by design. That's the way functioning progressive tax systems have always worked. > You still have an effect where people get "punished" with higher taxes as their income goes up. Yes, that's the point of a progressive tax system.
  - k2enemy 4y ago
    I agree with everything you said. My original comment was in response to a comment that claimed that UBI does not suffer from the same incentives as needs-based programs and doesn't punish people for increasing their income. My point was that this is not true. As your income increases, your relative tax burden from UBI also increases. In other words, as your income increases, "UBI income minus UBI taxes" decreases. Thus creating some of the same incentives as needs based programs. This is common to all progressive tax systems (which I support), and UBI isn't a magical exception.
    - xmprt 4y ago
      I think you're misunderstanding the punishment. For needs-based programs, a lot of the time, you either get the $500 or you don't. There is no gradual falloff like there would be for taxes. So if the cutoff is $X and you earn $X-100 then you'd be punished for getting a job that pays $X+100. Before the new job you got $X+400 in the bank but now you only get $X+100. That doesn't happen in a UBI. Sure you'll end up getting "punished" by having to pay higher taxes however you're also earning more to begin with so there's never a scenario where you end up worse off for getting a better job.

nwah1 4y ago

It is still a transfer payment, and it isn't free. That much is obvious enough. But it still provides a superior alternative to needs-based welfare from the perspective of eliminating perverse incentives. And since that is the point, it fulfills its purpose.

k2enemy 4y ago
It isn't a transfer though. See reply to sibling comment.
- nwah1 4y ago
  And the reply to that explains well how it is a transfer payment. And of course it is. A sizable number of people don't earn any income at all. You do have a point about inflation, but supply in most cases will respond accordingly. There are important exceptions, like land rent, which scales with the income-earning ability of tenants, because it is a pure monopoly with a vertical (static) supply curve. see: The Law of Rent

spoonfeeder006 4y ago

> Someone eventually has to pay for it The money for it is out there. Its just concentrated into the hands of the few, like the 1% or something. Thats where most of peoples' money is ultimately going, not to programs that help poor people "O CHILDREN OF DUST! Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor, lest heedlessness lead them into the path of destruction, and deprive them of the Tree of Wealth. To give and to be generous are attributes of Mine; well is it with him that adorneth himself with My virtues." -Baha'i Teaching https://www.bahaiprayers.io/prayer?id=403490 https://www.bahaiprayers.io/prayer?id=403490