We're officially launching UBI • Hacker News Board

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#11

Post by com2kid » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

> Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax?

How reliable is the income tax collecting and distribution service in Kenya?

Is getting a check once per year more or less preferable to everyone getting a check?

How well does filing for an income tax return in a country with a 78% literacy rate?

A negative income tax is a nation wide program, this program takes places in a smaller geographical region, making it easier to get started, and a lower cost experiment than doing it nation wide.

Lots of pluses to UBI versus a national government ran program.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#12

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #5

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

Wait, aren't they essentially the same thing?

Yes.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#13

Post by eksu » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #5

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

Wait, aren't they essentially the same thing?

No.

Universal Basic Income is ‘Universal’, meaning there’s no qualification to receive it. Basically it’s flat and it goes to everyone equally, rich and poor.

A negative income tax is a progressive tax system that starts off in the negatives and works itself up as you move up in brackets or (ideally) on a smooth curve or line.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#14

Post by balfirevic » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #5

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

Wait, aren't they essentially the same thing?

They are usually very similar, depending on how your you set up your tax brackets. There might be operational differences, depending on concrete proposal (dispensing cash yearly vs. monthly, etc.)

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#15

Post by eksu » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #10

mbesto wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, aren't they essentially the same thing?

Presumably the difference is that at some income threshold you start paying taxes, whereas right below it you don't. So to me it sounds like a terrible implementation of a basic income scheme, since someone making X pays no taxes but x+n pays some fraction of n in taxes and presumably has little real incentive to work for n additional dollars when n is sufficiently small enough that x is close to x+(n - tax). And the…

You don’t have a hard and fast threashold but have it taper off on a progressive curve.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#16

Post by quaunaut » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:30 PM UTC

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

From what I've understood, it solves multiple problems that the negative income tax didn't, because it didn't apply to everyone.

To clarify for those coming later: The negative income tax is the idea that beneath a certain amount of income, you actually are given money by the government. If you're over the amount, you get nothing, and in fact are taxed a portion of your income. Depending on how far beneath the amount you are, you might get more, or less.

But that system leaves some people in a bad spot:

* Sporadic work? Now you have to wait until after you should've gotten your money to get the money to make up for it. Without a safety net(which you almost certainly do not have), you're behind on your bills already.

* The above also applies to if you hate your job.

* You're disincentivized from working if the amount you can make is beneath the amount that would give you the negative income bracket.

* Politically, it's a lot easier when everyone can get the benefit. Less claims about abusing the system if it gives everyone the same thing.

* As an employer, giving someone just 4-6 hours a week of work isn't bad unless the employee wants something different. With a NIT it might just not be worth it to the employee.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#17

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:31 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #5

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

Wait, aren't they essentially the same thing?

Other than the assumption with Negative Income Tax that the money has to come from an institution that taxes (aka the government), yes they're essentially the same thing.

Negative Income Tax is the term preferred by the right and UBI by the left, so there is probably a lot of very significant differences between any specific proposal labelled "Negative Income Tax" and any specific proposal labelled "UBI".

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#18

Post by wavefunction » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:31 PM UTC

stocktech wrote: post #6

eksu wrote: post #4

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax? I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

I too think a negative income tax is a better method, but UBI is at least testable in some form. I think we'll see UBI tested and if successful, a negative income tax will be more politically feasible than UBI.

A negative income tax requires the same sort of bureaucracy from our current means-tested welfare systems, whereas a simple UBI paid to all does not.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#19

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:32 PM UTC

UBI desperately needs to be tried out on a semi-large scale as a social experiment. We can't even form a useful moral argument about it until we know its effects. Will it start shaping local and regional policy or is it just going to quietly get discarded as a idea before its time?

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#20

Post by wavefunction » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 5:32 PM UTC

eksu wrote: post #15

wavefunction wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the difference is that at some income threshold you start paying taxes, whereas right below it you don't. So to me it sounds like a terrible implementation of a basic income scheme, since someone making X pays no taxes but x+n pays some fraction of n in taxes and presumably has little real incentive to work for n additional dollars when n is sufficiently small enough that x is close to x+(n - tax). And the…

You don’t have a hard and fast threashold but have it taper off on a progressive curve.

Sure, but my main point about it being a terrible implementation is that it's still means-tested requiring a bureaucracy that our current non UBI system features, which would be unnecessary and a cost-savings under a UBI scheme where every citizen receives $x each year.