4 ms·

Your point about housing is spot-on. I'm not sure I understand how an unconditional payment achieves any more desirable objectives than an EITC-style negative

Your point about housing is spot-on. I'm not sure I understand how an unconditional payment achieves any more desirable objectives than an EITC-style negative income tax. Under a negative income tax, a marginal increase in income still results in a marginal increase in take home pay; you can't get penalized by earning more, so the policy preserves the incentive for people to earn more. To me, this seems preferable to an unconditional payment because you're focusing all of the dispersed money on people who need it.

hawkice 12y ago
Or, to speak about economic efficiency: you are focusing money on people who will spend it. Doesn't do a lot of good to sit in a rich person's bank account, but if you get the money moving, that's job creation at it's most basic.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  Money does not sit in a bank account, it gets loaned out to others and spent. That's why banks offer "free checking" and other incentives to give them money.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    you're wrong. rich people are assholes who swim in vaults of money like Scrooge McDuck. poor people are kind and noble and deserve everything they want because they want it. or so I'm gathering from all the class warfare stories today. not sure why that's happening though.
    - phaemon 12y ago
      I know. It's such a trial being rich. I wish it was somehow possible for someone wealthy to find their way into poverty, so they could enjoy the social prestige and admiration that is the birthright of the poor. Thank God there are noble folk - like your good self - who will stand up for the interests of those who need it least!
  - svantana 12y ago
    Not only that, but 10x or more money is loaned out or invested than is actually in the accounts. That's why we have financial crises.
Chinjut 12y ago
An unconditional basic income funded by income taxation amounts to the same thing as a negative income tax (i.e., an income tax system with the possibility of negative taxation). The two are precisely equivalent.

hawkice 12y ago

Or, to speak about economic efficiency: you are focusing money on people who will spend it. Doesn't do a lot of good to sit in a rich person's bank account, but if you get the money moving, that's job creation at it's most basic.

WalterBright 12y ago
Money does not sit in a bank account, it gets loaned out to others and spent. That's why banks offer "free checking" and other incentives to give them money.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  you're wrong. rich people are assholes who swim in vaults of money like Scrooge McDuck. poor people are kind and noble and deserve everything they want because they want it. or so I'm gathering from all the class warfare stories today. not sure why that's happening though.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    I know. It's such a trial being rich. I wish it was somehow possible for someone wealthy to find their way into poverty, so they could enjoy the social prestige and admiration that is the birthright of the poor. Thank God there are noble folk - like your good self - who will stand up for the interests of those who need it least!
- svantana 12y ago
  Not only that, but 10x or more money is loaned out or invested than is actually in the accounts. That's why we have financial crises.

Chinjut 12y ago

An unconditional basic income funded by income taxation amounts to the same thing as a negative income tax (i.e., an income tax system with the possibility of negative taxation). The two are precisely equivalent.