Guaranteed/Basic Income

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

Wasn't the $20-$30k thrown out by BRB as an example?

 

From my lazy research, it would appear that a person on welfare will receive approx $10k a year. While I would agee with CM that getting rid of the numerous programs under wellfare would save quite a bit of money that could be put towards benefits, I don't think it would come close to providing the amount needed to give everyone that much money. I think our government has proven it is unable to slash spending so I doubt they would find other areas to fund the program.

 

I feel like I'm missing something now, also.

Correct, it would require political will. Maybe we don't have it. It would have to be coupled with holistic reforms of the tax system and the type/quality of people we attract to government.

 

Here's an interesting thought experiment:

 

Imagine a world that is completely automated, so that we can put production of goods and services on "cruise control" thereby retaining our GDP growth rate, but reducing the need for people to work.

 

In such a world, should we encourage people to stop working by simply cutting everyone a check and enjoy allow people to pursue less profitable, but potentially important pursuits, or even just increase their leisure time?

 

Would such a situation be different than an extension of the per/hour productivity improvements we've seen which have driven down the costs of goods and afforded people the ability to work only 40 hours a week?

 

Why keep people shackled to labor if we don't need to through automation or other efficiencies?

To be honest, that sounds horrible...

But think of the time we could spend following the Huskers!!

[JJ Husker]

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.

 

I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.

 

All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.

 

So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

[huskerhill]

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't the $20-$30k thrown out by BRB as an example?

 

From my lazy research, it would appear that a person on welfare will receive approx $10k a year. While I would agee with CM that getting rid of the numerous programs under wellfare would save quite a bit of money that could be put towards benefits, I don't think it would come close to providing the amount needed to give everyone that much money. I think our government has proven it is unable to slash spending so I doubt they would find other areas to fund the program.

 

I feel like I'm missing something now, also.

Correct, it would require political will. Maybe we don't have it. It would have to be coupled with holistic reforms of the tax system and the type/quality of people we attract to government.

 

Here's an interesting thought experiment:

 

Imagine a world that is completely automated, so that we can put production of goods and services on "cruise control" thereby retaining our GDP growth rate, but reducing the need for people to work.

 

In such a world, should we encourage people to stop working by simply cutting everyone a check and enjoy allow people to pursue less profitable, but potentially important pursuits, or even just increase their leisure time?

 

Would such a situation be different than an extension of the per/hour productivity improvements we've seen which have driven down the costs of goods and afforded people the ability to work only 40 hours a week?

 

Why keep people shackled to labor if we don't need to through automation or other efficiencies?

To be honest, that sounds horrible...

But think of the time we could spend following the Huskers!!

You had me at husk.... You had me at husk...

[cm husker]

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.

 

I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.

 

All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.

 

So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it.

 

But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government.

[huskerhill]

 

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.

 

I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.

 

All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.

 

So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it.

 

But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government.

Giving everyone $20k just for being an American is not the same thing described by Freidman in that video.

[cm husker]

 

 

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.

 

I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.

 

All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.

 

So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it.

 

But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government.

Giving everyone $20k just for being an American is not the same thing described by Freidman in that video.

This article explains (while casting a critical eye, and in my opinion wrong, on NIT and guaranteed income), more succinctly than I could, exactly how MF's proposal is a form of a guaranteed income.

 

It's true that introduced it as a negative income tax with the negative income tax being, say, 50%, so that there was extra incentive to work. But that's at margins. At its core, it's the same proposal (another way to think of basic income is that it's a negative income tax with a rate equal to 0%).

 

Conceptually it's the same.

 

Another way to easily demonstrate the sameness is by pointing out that he advocates that it would be available to everyone. For those above the minimum income threshold (in his example, the poverty line), that poverty line would be a below the line deduction.

 

So, while he puts an interesting tweak to encourage people to work, it's not a fundamental difference. And it's not necessarily even an economic beneficial nuance, because evidence shows that "free income" doesn't really diminish incentives to work, at least not at the level of income these theories contemplate.

 

Personally, based on what I've read from him, I think his framing it as a negative income tax was as much political as it was economical. The idea of "free money" through redistribution was unpalatable in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

I'd also just reiterate again that we are already giving "free money" to people, both poor and wealthy. The former receives it through welfare. The latter through a series of special interest tax breaks. And of course in both cases, special interests providers (agriculture in food stamps and housing industry and current owners, for examples of each) make out like bandits. It's a classic case of the government "picking and choosing the winners and losers."

 

EDIT: Forgot the link above. Added now.

 

And,so some don't claim I only look at this as an "already established law" of economics, here's an article refuting the NIT (and by extension, the guaranteed income theory): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259761/against-negative-income-tax-jim-manzi

[JJ Husker]

 

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.

 

I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.

 

All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.

 

So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it.

 

But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government.

 

The 2 plans as presented are not the same thing. Friedman directly said his negative income tax would not work at the 100% rate. That is what simply giving everyone an amount, say $20K, would be the equivalent of. He said it would destroy incentive to work. He then went on to use a 50% negative tax rate as an example. The other issue is, we already have EITC which is a form of a rebate to those who work. It fails to address those who don't/can't work. So, I guess my question would be, does this new mincome plan replace preexisting EITC credits and all forms of tax deductions or not? Because, if it does replace them, then many of my inflationary concerns get tempered very quickly. However, the OP plan as I interpreted it, was a totally new thing that did not necessarily have to replace existing tax code issues. The only thing it was mentioned that it would replace was the highly inefficient welfare type programs. There is a huge difference in considering this based on what all is and isn't affected. Another thing to consider that makes a big difference is where is it funded from. It matters if it is handled with dollars already in the system somewhere or where those dollars come from if they aren't already in the system. If we're going to start (or more accurately, continue to on a much larger scale) redistributing more income through the taxation system, I believe it is important to address who and how that is done. That OP article really provided no details other than a general idea. Call me a sticky wicket but I don't take too well to grandiose ideas with no details. As an idea it is interesting. But it is severely lacking any amount of detail where I could say I think it is good or support it. I guess when an idea is as poorly presented as that one is, my default position is it is bad until it can be shown to work. I really do like the negative tax idea though. Like really like it.

 

Am I less of a dick now? It's ok, you can say no.

[Moiraine]

My fault on the math. Friday brain.

 

Correction - $3000 per person.

It would be per adult, though. Which would make it $4100. But as has been mentioned, there is more cost to the system we have now. So it'd be a little over that.

 

It makes more sense to me to redistribute the wealth (uh oh I said some bad words) and give the 1 trillion to 80% of the people, the ones with the lowest wealth. That would make it $5160 per adult not including the cost we'd save by getting rid of the complicated system.

 

 

One major issue I have is, is disability considered welfare and part of the 1 trillion? 'Cause those who truly need it have to keep getting a living wage.

 

 

JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results.

[JJ Husker]

JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results.

I understand that and don't really have a problem with it. The problem I had was somebody was promoting it like there were no unaddressed issues and falsely representing another related but different plan as being one in the same. I tend to be a stickler for details when that starts happening.

[cm husker]

 

 

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.

 

I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.

 

All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.

 

So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it.

 

But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government.

 

The 2 plans as presented are not the same thing. Friedman directly said his negative income tax would not work at the 100% rate. That is what simply giving everyone an amount, say $20K, would be the equivalent of. He said it would destroy incentive to work. He then went on to use a 50% negative tax rate as an example. The other issue is, we already have EITC which is a form of a rebate to those who work. It fails to address those who don't/can't work. So, I guess my question would be, does this new mincome plan replace preexisting EITC credits and all forms of tax deductions or not? Because, if it does replace them, then many of my inflationary concerns get tempered very quickly. However, the OP plan as I interpreted it, was a totally new thing that did not necessarily have to replace existing tax code issues. The only thing it was mentioned that it would replace was the highly inefficient welfare type programs. There is a huge difference in considering this based on what all is and isn't affected. Another thing to consider that makes a big difference is where is it funded from. It matters if it is handled with dollars already in the system somewhere or where those dollars come from if they aren't already in the system. If we're going to start (or more accurately, continue to on a much larger scale) redistributing more income through the taxation system, I believe it is important to address who and how that is done. That OP article really provided no details other than a general idea. Call me a sticky wicket but I don't take too well to grandiose ideas with no details. As an idea it is interesting. But it is severely lacking any amount of detail where I could say I think it is good or support it. I guess when an idea is as poorly presented as that one is, my default position is it is bad until it can be shown to work. I really do like the negative tax idea though. Like really like it.

 

Am I less of a dick now? It's ok, you can say no.

 

 

Yes, I know what he said. But if he set his minimum income level at $30k, then it's really no different than setting a guaranteed income at $15k. The principles are exactly the same, but he has added a nuance that he hopes will diminish disincentives to "live off of the guaranteed income). On the flipside, his approach still disincentivizes in some ways work that takes you to his minimum income threshold. The advantage of the basic income is everyone partakes, either in the form of a check from the government or a credit again income tax owed. That said, I"ve long argued that a NIT is preferable to the current system (if we refuse to go to "a consumption + rebate" tax model, which is my favorite approach).

 

I dont' recall if the OP article addresses tax reform directly, but through out the thread, I've stated that this would have to be coupled with replacing the bureaucracy of the current system, including IRS inefficiencies. It would also replace the EITC, the home mortgage deduction, food stamps, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. That's why many libertarians love it. Instead of the government directing money for you, it is put into your hands to spend in the market where you please (that's also another example of why this is NOT inflationary).

 

I agree that a lot of detail is required, particularly around funding. I think it's reasonably likely that I personally wouldn't see a decrease in my tax bill, for example. But, I do think that it would be ideal if we could stop treating one person who make $200,000 much differently from another person who make $200,000, or one person who makes $35,000 from another person who makes $32,000 (and qualifies for benefits via a means test), which is exactly what happens today.

 

 

I think there's a political reality in every developed country where productivity is concentrated in the hands of a minority of people that dictates we need to "share" the fruits of that productivity, if for no other reason than to avoid a "workers revolution." There are already a bunch of unwieldy, inefficient policies in place to address this reality. My only position is that this guaranteed income (with tax reform) seems like a far more efficient means of achieving what is widely considered a necessary goal (even if it's an undesirable one).

 

So, simply put; figure out how much is required and then ask everyone to pitch in based on their means - not based on their means, minus whatever special tax breaks that can be taken advantage of.

 

 

Transparency, transparency, transparency should be the theme in approaching these reforms. What drives toward a transparent evaluation of dollars actually spent and by whom.

[cm husker]

 

My fault on the math. Friday brain.

 

Correction - $3000 per person.

It would be per adult, though. Which would make it $4100. But as has been mentioned, there is more cost to the system we have now. So it'd be a little over that.

 

It makes more sense to me to redistribute the wealth (uh oh I said some bad words) and give the 1 trillion to 80% of the people, the ones with the lowest wealth. That would make it $5160 per adult not including the cost we'd save by getting rid of the complicated system.

 

 

One major issue I have is, is disability considered welfare and part of the 1 trillion? 'Cause those who truly need it have to keep getting a living wage.

 

 

JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results.

 

 

The problem with introducing a "means test" even if 80% qualify under it is that it undercuts one of the fundamental best aspects of a NIT/GI, in that it creates another welfare cliff. It would be unfair to give person working at an office in the 80th spot an income, but person in 81th spot who is working as a slightly senior person at the same office no income.

 

I think the "easiest" solution is to make it available to everyone, and people with less than that in taxable income will essentially receive a rebate (which could be reduced, if we insist on a NIT).

 

Regarding disability, I think it has to be considered (and cut) because it is probably the system most rife with abuse today. Most corruption I write off as "breakage" similar to understood losses when running a business. Disability goes way beyond that. I would hope that with guaranteed income, and therefore less need to game the system, more charity work can be focused on those who actually need it (and charities would be much closer to and able to monitor actual need). Plus, people, either personally or through their employer, should be buying private disability insurance. That's another market that government intervention has screwed up.

 

Good questions, though. Would need to hash that out.

[cm husker]

 

JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results.

I understand that and don't really have a problem with it. The problem I had was somebody was promoting it like there were no unaddressed issues and falsely representing another related but different plan as being one in the same. I tend to be a stickler for details when that starts happening.

 

 

I'm happy to see you're sort of coming around to what's actually being discussed.

 

Eventually, I think you'll see that what you're perceiving now as a fundamental difference between NIT and guaranteed income is actually illusory, or at least only a detail of a otherwise similar approach to reforms.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.

I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.

All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.

So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

 

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it.

But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government.

The 2 plans as presented are not the same thing. Friedman directly said his negative income tax would not work at the 100% rate. That is what simply giving everyone an amount, say $20K, would be the equivalent of. He said it would destroy incentive to work. He then went on to use a 50% negative tax rate as an example. The other issue is, we already have EITC which is a form of a rebate to those who work. It fails to address those who don't/can't work. So, I guess my question would be, does this new mincome plan replace preexisting EITC credits and all forms of tax deductions or not? Because, if it does replace them, then many of my inflationary concerns get tempered very quickly. However, the OP plan as I interpreted it, was a totally new thing that did not necessarily have to replace existing tax code issues. The only thing it was mentioned that it would replace was the highly inefficient welfare type programs. There is a huge difference in considering this based on what all is and isn't affected. Another thing to consider that makes a big difference is where is it funded from. It matters if it is handled with dollars already in the system somewhere or where those dollars come from if they aren't already in the system. If we're going to start (or more accurately, continue to on a much larger scale) redistributing more income through the taxation system, I believe it is important to address who and how that is done. That OP article really provided no details other than a general idea. Call me a sticky wicket but I don't take too well to grandiose ideas with no details. As an idea it is interesting. But it is severely lacking any amount of detail where I could say I think it is good or support it. I guess when an idea is as poorly presented as that one is, my default position is it is bad until it can be shown to work. I really do like the negative tax idea though. Like really like it.

Am I less of a dick now? It's ok, you can say no.

Yes, I know what he said. But if he set his minimum income level at $30k, then it's really no different than setting a guaranteed income at $15k. The principles are exactly the same, but he has added a nuance that he hopes will diminish disincentives to "live off of the guaranteed income). On the flipside, his approach still disincentivizes in some ways work that takes you to his minimum income threshold. The advantage of the basic income is everyone partakes, either in the form of a check from the government or a credit again income tax owed. That said, I"ve long argued that a NIT is preferable to the current system (if we refuse to go to "a consumption + rebate" tax model, which is my favorite approach).

 

I dont' recall if the OP article addresses tax reform directly, but through out the thread, I've stated that this would have to be coupled with replacing the bureaucracy of the current system, including IRS inefficiencies. It would also replace the EITC, the home mortgage deduction, food stamps, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. That's why many libertarians love it. Instead of the government directing money for you, it is put into your hands to spend in the market where you please (that's also another example of why this is NOT inflationary).

 

I agree that a lot of detail is required, particularly around funding. I think it's reasonably likely that I personally wouldn't see a decrease in my tax bill, for example. But, I do think that it would be ideal if we could stop treating one person who make $200,000 much differently from another person who make $200,000, or one person who makes $35,000 from another person who makes $32,000 (and qualifies for benefits via a means test), which is exactly what happens today.

 

 

I think there's a political reality in every developed country where productivity is concentrated in the hands of a minority of people that dictates we need to "share" the fruits of that productivity, if for no other reason than to avoid a "workers revolution." There are already a bunch of unwieldy, inefficient policies in place to address this reality. My only position is that this guaranteed income (with tax reform) seems like a far more efficient means of achieving what is widely considered a necessary goal (even if it's an undesirable one).

 

So, simply put; figure out how much is required and then ask everyone to pitch in based on their means - not based on their means, minus whatever special tax breaks that can be taken advantage of.

 

 

Transparency, transparency, transparency should be the theme in approaching these reforms. What drives toward a transparent evaluation of dollars actually spent and by whom.

I agree with all of this. I also would prefer to see the NIT with a consumption tax. However, I still maintain that the mincome plan in the OP could be a very different animal. The devil is in the details and it didn't have any.

[Moiraine]

 

 

My fault on the math. Friday brain.

 

Correction - $3000 per person.

It would be per adult, though. Which would make it $4100. But as has been mentioned, there is more cost to the system we have now. So it'd be a little over that.

 

It makes more sense to me to redistribute the wealth (uh oh I said some bad words) and give the 1 trillion to 80% of the people, the ones with the lowest wealth. That would make it $5160 per adult not including the cost we'd save by getting rid of the complicated system.

 

 

One major issue I have is, is disability considered welfare and part of the 1 trillion? 'Cause those who truly need it have to keep getting a living wage.

 

 

JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results.

 

 

The problem with introducing a "means test" even if 80% qualify under it is that it undercuts one of the fundamental best aspects of a NIT/GI, in that it creates another welfare cliff. It would be unfair to give person working at an office in the 80th spot an income, but person in 81th spot who is working as a slightly senior person at the same office no income.

 

That reminds me. If my salary was 1 cent lower I'd be paying $800 less/year on health care

[cm husker]

 

 

 

My fault on the math. Friday brain.

 

Correction - $3000 per person.

It would be per adult, though. Which would make it $4100. But as has been mentioned, there is more cost to the system we have now. So it'd be a little over that.

 

It makes more sense to me to redistribute the wealth (uh oh I said some bad words) and give the 1 trillion to 80% of the people, the ones with the lowest wealth. That would make it $5160 per adult not including the cost we'd save by getting rid of the complicated system.

 

 

One major issue I have is, is disability considered welfare and part of the 1 trillion? 'Cause those who truly need it have to keep getting a living wage.

 

 

JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results.

 

 

The problem with introducing a "means test" even if 80% qualify under it is that it undercuts one of the fundamental best aspects of a NIT/GI, in that it creates another welfare cliff. It would be unfair to give person working at an office in the 80th spot an income, but person in 81th spot who is working as a slightly senior person at the same office no income.

 

That reminds me. If my salary was 1 cent lower I'd be paying $800 less/year on health care

 

 

 

Excellent example of the problems in today's system.

 

People talk about not wanting others to be lazy, but do we want them to be stupid instead? Because no company in the world would trade a $1 of revenue for $8000 in tax credits (same ratio right? --- Friday math, as someone mentioned).

 

 

Why do we expect poor people to be more altruistic than business people? Personally, I don't expect it from either of them.