-
@ Guy Swann
2025-02-25 21:34:28
Kinda the same thing, but different implementation details and slightly different disincentives.
UBI is universal, meaning literally everyone would get it. So even if you make a bajillion dollars, you still get your $1K a month or whatever (which makes it economically meaningless on top of distorting incentives, but I digress), while a negative income tax is based on how much you make. Say under $50K you get 10¢ for every dollar less you make, and over $50K you pay 10¢ on every dollar you make.
The latter sounds more logically consistent, but comes with the huge problem of having to invade the privacy of literally everyone, the staggering cost of auditing and accounting for every individual which props up a bloated and wasteful industry of number crunchers from a huge swath of population that has no need for it, and the burden of filing taxes. Along with it then comes the political industry of creating exceptions, special interest, loopholes, etc. The idea that this would stay neutral and not be horrifically abused and turn right back into what we have today.
It’s the problem with all of it really. There’s an insanely strong incentive with no feedback mechanism that creates incredible pressure to complicate, bloat, and corrupt it because *thats what directly rewards the political institutions and their authority.*
It always SOUNDS great to have something simple and neutral, but that cannot exist in a political environment, because political incentives are the antithesis to simple, uninvolved neutrality. It’s a fairy tale.