Comment by kgwgk
9 years ago
Take the NIT situation, with a set of people i=1,..,N paying some amount X_i (maybe negative) of taxes. Now give all of them the same basic income BI, while changing the taxes paid [received if negative] by each of them to Y_i=X_i+BI. Do yo see the equivalence?
Yes, of course the rich are going to end up paying for BI no matter what. At some point the government is just taking $1000 out of your wallet and handing it back as BI, depending on your income.
But this is explicitly what the proponents of BI want. It's as much about the optics as who pays for it. I.e. the idea is to create a program that draws its political support from everyone getting paid a check, similar to how Roosevelt enacted social security to include all citizens, even those who were millionaires and had no need for it.
Which is what sets it apart from Negative Income Tax.
So it’s not like it at all, but it’s the same and it’s just that it looks different. Ok then. I can see why talking about receiving money is more popular than talking about taxes.
I'm not an advocate for BI but I think I've given you an accurate summary of what BI proponents would say about a NIT. E.g. listen to this Econtalk episode[1] where the host / guest have a debate on this exact topic.
Your argument that BI would be revenue neutral for some taxpayers and therefore we should just use NIT to avoid the sillyness of the government taking $1 from you just to give $1 right back to you isn't wrong, but it's missing what BI proponents are trying to achieve.
It's mainly about achieving roughly the same ends with different optics, and the comparison to Social Security is often brought up. Enacting any system like this is going to be politically difficult, and BI proponents believe that "everyone gets the same" is an easier sell than "this is another subsidy for the poor".
1. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.ht...
1 reply →