4 ms·

Most implementations would include an extra tax curve from no extra tax at $0 income up to $12k per year at say $55k. The effect is that you need far less than

by learc83 11y ago

Most implementations would include an extra tax curve from no extra tax at $0 income up to $12k per year at say $55k. The effect is that you need far less than population * $12k per year. >People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. I agree we shouldn't be using healthcare. But social security is almost a trillion per year, and it makes sense to phase it out. There's no reason for a forced pension contribution plan when everyone has a guaranteed income.

nightski 11y ago
So not only are you giving people money, you are actively incentivizing them not to work by taxing them heavily for doing so. Interesting.
- sampo 11y ago
  The net income of people earning over, say $55k, would stay unchanged. No heavy taxing here.
  - nightski 11y ago
    Well, no you'd have $12k less. You may have earned $55k, but you would no longer have the initial $12k. So for doing nothing you have $12k, and for doing something you have $55k. Therefore, the value gained in doing something was only $43k even though you did $55k worth of work. That is a heavy tax?
    - learc83 11y ago
      That's a change in opportunity cost, not a tax. If you view anything that causes an increase in the opportunity cost of not working as a tax, you must believe that charities are actively taxing working people. If a charity moves in and starts offering $1000 dollars worth of free food to anyone who makes below $20k a year, is that charity then taxing everyone who makes above that by $1000 per month? Also if you do want to view an increase in opportunity cost as a tax increase, you have to look at the actual net increase. There are already benefits that low income people can get, food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit etc... that would go away under a basic income. To properly asses the net opportunity cost increase you have to look at the value difference between these benefits and $12k. As to your talk about disincentivizing work, the tax curve is just that a curve--instead of the current cliff that many low income workers face. Right now there are situations where are a low income worker can actually make less money by working (or less money by working slightly more) due to current means tested assistance programs. Replacing means tested assistance with a tax curve and a basic income would ensure that every dollar earned would increase your net income. Again this isn't always the case under our current system.

by learc83 11y ago

nightski 11y ago

So not only are you giving people money, you are actively incentivizing them not to work by taxing them heavily for doing so. Interesting.

sampo 11y ago
The net income of people earning over, say $55k, would stay unchanged. No heavy taxing here.
- nightski 11y ago
  Well, no you'd have $12k less. You may have earned $55k, but you would no longer have the initial $12k. So for doing nothing you have $12k, and for doing something you have $55k. Therefore, the value gained in doing something was only $43k even though you did $55k worth of work. That is a heavy tax?
  - learc83 11y ago
    That's a change in opportunity cost, not a tax. If you view anything that causes an increase in the opportunity cost of not working as a tax, you must believe that charities are actively taxing working people. If a charity moves in and starts offering $1000 dollars worth of free food to anyone who makes below $20k a year, is that charity then taxing everyone who makes above that by $1000 per month? Also if you do want to view an increase in opportunity cost as a tax increase, you have to look at the actual net increase. There are already benefits that low income people can get, food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit etc... that would go away under a basic income. To properly asses the net opportunity cost increase you have to look at the value difference between these benefits and $12k. As to your talk about disincentivizing work, the tax curve is just that a curve--instead of the current cliff that many low income workers face. Right now there are situations where are a low income worker can actually make less money by working (or less money by working slightly more) due to current means tested assistance programs. Replacing means tested assistance with a tax curve and a basic income would ensure that every dollar earned would increase your net income. Again this isn't always the case under our current system.