The entire concept of a basic income guarantee, originally, was to remove the perverse incentives of needs-based programs, which can unintentionally trap people into dependency and poverty by punishing them for taking steps to improve their situation.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/10/did-lbj-say-ill-have...