> In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level; in other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
Edit: I'm not economically literate enough to say I fully support this, but the idea is appealing
1. UBI aims to streamline redistribution of wealth and remove a lot of bureaucracy around it, reducing a lot of the cost of the current system
2. Why the middle class specifically? Upper class could shoulder most of the costs (if there are) easily
>I would not be ok going to work to pay people that have decided that they are fine living on the UBI and don't want to work anymore.
Then don't work. We already have taxes for things which are way less useful for society. You could choose not to work and live on with the bare minimum. That's the freedom UBI brings. Now probably you'd do something or another out of boredom which would end up being useful to society anyway. You'd just do it for free instead of having to convince someone to pay for it.
EDIT: A better way to put it is to see UBI as an investment into people instead of as a cost. You give them what they need to live so that, in aggregate, they can innovate more and worry less about making ends meet. Notwithstanding the fact that this is something we can do, for somewhat cheap and would help a lot of people.
What makes you think so?
There are a lot of discussion online about the costs/benefits of UBI. This article has an US-centric view on how this could be afforded
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-bas...
I'm not sure which veteran benefits they want to get rid of specifically, but this could be a bad idea. One of the main ways to increase economic class if one is poor is to serve in the military and have the pay for college after they get out (yes, the payment could cover part of it, assuming they aren't using it for living expenses which would be mostly covered during their enlistment). The VA is under funded and doesn't have a great record, but that's so highly beneficial to many.
… as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, veteran's benefits, WIC, Medicaid, SS Disability, and disaster relief. I'm sure those currently receiving these benefits will be thrilled to find out that they're being replaced by a flat UBI payment of $15k/yr (minus taxes) with no allowance for special circumstances or hardship.
> [SS and Medicare removal] would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned.
Undoubtedly, but what are the odds of that happening?
That's just Medicaid; it gets worse when you consider all the other programs being cut.
Even allowing for realistic reductions in bureaucratic overhead, you can't just cut narrowly targeted programs and spread the same amount of money evenly across the entire population without significantly reducing the money available, on average, to the original beneficiaries.
[0] https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-facts-and-...
The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace.
And now you're back where you started—you haven't eliminated these need-based programs at all, or reduced the bureaucracy. You've just added the UBI as an extra expense.
To whom? The government, sure. The individuals using those programs, probably not. Healthcare costs alone would likely wipe that out (for the demographics using Medicare). Rent in many areas would eat more than half.
Affordable housing is a separate issue and point of concern no matter who is paying.
You could say that housing costs are a larger issue. However that issue is largely a non-issue for the demographic we are talking about currently since they qualify for stuff like HUD assistance (which would be removed under the plan).
The actual amount varies by region and income, but e.g. the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (which is financed by HUD) says[0]:
> For CY2020, HACLA paid more than $582 Million to private Landlords on behalf of more than 44,000 participant families.
That works out to an average (mean) of $13.2k per year per family—and they're only covering a portion of the rent. A couple living on UBI and no longer receiving Section 8 vouchers would spend about half of two UBI payments making up for the loss of Section 8, while the other $16.8k/year needs to cover the rest of their rent, food, clothing, transportation, medicine, and any other necessary expenses for both of them.
Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. The same problem exists under the current scheme as well.
Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income. Some would use their initial UBI payments to move to cheaper locales. Grants could help.
Over 85% of HACLA's revenues in 2020 came directly from HUD[0]. Another 10% were from other government grants (which would also be cut). The numbers reported before were just for the Section 8 program, which AFAICT is administered by HACLA but fully funded by HUD.
> Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable.
That 50% is the part paid by Section 8. The part not paid by Section 8 is expected to be about 30% of income, which at the 2020 poverty level for a family of two would be about $5k (30% of $17.2k), so the total rent is more like $20k or 65% of their pooled UBIs. And again, this is just Section 8. If you qualify for Section 8 housing you probably qualify for some of the other programs which are also being eliminated.
> Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income.
Possibly, but then again we're talking about people who are already living in these places and still qualify for housing assistance. Telling them to get a (better) job or move somewhere cheaper isn't a viable solution. If these were reasonably solutions with UBI they would also be reasonable solutions without UBI.
> Grants could help.
I hope you're not suggesting federal grants since those, too, would be eliminated under this proposal. And really that just gets back to programs targeting specific needs.
An excellent point to keep in mind that receiving assistance doesn’t mean you have no other source of income, so the situation likely would not be as dire as you suggest.
You seem to be hung up on the proposal from the CNBC link? Which is a strawman purposely designed by the right wing think tank AEI with the flaws you’ve keyed in on, so that it can be easily batted down like a strawman should.
No, and it's pretty disingenuous for you to put words in my mouth.
It's not so much what HUD spends as what those individuals would need to pay. $500 is an extremely low estimate that would still mean $6k per year (assuming they live in the cheapest stuff they can find). Average costs in most cities for a studio apartment are generally over $1k, giving about $12k per year.
This is only one of the many things eliminated under the proposal. Healthcare is the real big rock and could bankrupt anyone needing substantial care. Even just premiums run from $150-300 per month for the cheapest plans (depending on various factors).
This is a transfer from the very poorest to the middle and upper middle class (how much revenue does a tax on millionaires really accomplish?)
I'll take it because it would benefit me, but that doesn't make it great policy. Also most UBI supporters aren't usually on the same side of an issue as AEI.
Although this is fixable by taxing more the middle class if that's what we wish to do (aka, not being "budget-neutral")
Reach people have disproportionate political influence so the can carve some exemptions for themselves and they have resources to exploit unintentionally created loopholes. Middle class typically have no ways to avoid taxes.
It seems like 45tn in asset seizures would cover the additional 15k/yr for around 10 years.
But I would be very worried about the impact on capital markets and company formation.
I would immediately leave the US if this kind of seizure got through the House and looked like it might pass the Senate.
And the country did not collapsed. It actually entered a era or unparalleled prosperity ( but that had little to do with taxes )
In 1945 tax rate was around 90% IIRC
Honest question : you do understand that a 100% tax rate means that 100% of revenu are taxed correct. ( as opposed to 100% are taken by the state ). Of those 100% only a percentage of it is actually “lost”.
Sorry if it’s obvious but the catastrophic scenario you are describing seems to correspond to “let’s take all the rich folks money, all of it”
Source on high historical tax rate in the US around 1950 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...
Marginal income tax rate of 90% != Wealth tax (for which we haven't even tested constitutionality)
Also, nobody paid close to 90% thanks to generous loop holes and strategic tax avoidance: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-...
I was pointing out a historical period where taxes were setup differently than now. We tend to forget it was the case; and it seems to be out of the collective psyché.
Indeed in 2022 nobody pays close to 90%. I was referring to the 1945 to 1960 period. ( see linked article, nice read )
Then you replied "It actually happened not that long ago, in the US" and cited that the US used to have a 90% marginal income tax bracket.
A 90% marginal income rate is not in the same universe as a 100% wealth tax rate.
> see if its worth the second earner working or if they make more just staying home
The available experimental outcomes show that by and large, people that stay at home on a properly-designed UBI are those who can thereby make highly-valued contributions to the household, such as by raising young kids. Otherwise, they choose to work just as much.
No, ideally, we would raise taxes on the upper class, to give money (compared to the status quo system where we already have means-tested poverty support aid) to the people choosing to do more work (since means-tested aid gets cut with additional income, but UBI doesn't, except by the effects of progressive taxation.)
One way to do part of this:
* Roll payroll taxes into progressive income tax (including basing eligibility for payroll-tax funded programs on total income, not just income currently subject to payroll taxes.) For Social Security, this may involve adding one or more additional “bend points” to the benefit formula.
* Eliminate favorable rates for long-term capital gains, taxing them at normal income tax rates; to better target fairness for gains that genuinely require an extended period and which would be overtaxed if treated as income in the year of realization, allow freely recognizing income (not just capital income) for tax purposes in advance of realization, and additionally allow deferral of some portion of windfall (based on recent past years as baseline) gains over a period of several years.
You already pay taxes, and they are already used to fund other people. The idea would be to allow people to choose individually how to spend this money. The goal is efficiency, fair distribution of benefits and elimination of bureaucracy and administrative overhead.
Of course, there's a huge administrative overhead involved as well, plus there's a big case going on now of people falsely being accused of defrauding the system because some department got rewarded for finding fraudsters, or whatever the issue was. It financially ruined many people because they went from getting a bit of money to help make ends meet, to getting charged €30,000 or more in back pay and fines.