Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a simple answer. Only if you want to count the dollar you pay but not the dollar you get back in order to claim that it's too expensive. It ignores all of the misleading accounting that occurs in the existing system and wouldn't be there anymore. Suppose we used to provide $1000/year value in assistance with a 10% phase out rate and then we had a 15% tax rate up to $10,000 and 25% thereafter. We switch tha…
I suppose we’re starting with two different assumptions. My assumption is UBI is tax free OR UBI is taxable income but the first $12,000 of income is tax free. Same difference, different language. Your assumption would be that UBI is taxible...like SS is now. That’s a garbage policy. If I recall, Rand Paul’s tax plan was that a person filing singly would not be taxed on their first 40K of income. Just about double th…
Not at all. What I'm saying is that the additional tax to fund the universality of the UBI would go in approximately the same place as the phase outs go for existing benefits, and they cancel out.
The advantage of putting the phase out on the tax side is that it's easier to see what's happening, so you don't accidentally create one income range where the marginal tax rate is 10% and an adjacent one where it's 110% because five independent programs all phase out at the same income level. Or impose higher marginal rates on lower income people than higher income people.