YSK: In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level.
YSK: In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level.
Please edit the title of your You Should Know post to begin with "YSK". It's Rule 1 of the community. Thank you.
Thank you
As an example: this exists in Flanders (dutch speaking part of Belgium): https://www.brusselstimes.com/316484/job-bonus-for-730000-people-in-flanders-how-to-make-sure-you-get-yours
The US doesn't technically have a negative tax, but the EITC accomplishes the same basic thing. Whether it's efficient enough, or needs expansion is another story.
You say negative income tax, I hear business subsidies.
Negative Income tax could operate like UBI. The hero of neoliberalism Milton Freedman supported a scheme to transfer wealth like this.
Also, in “things that will never happen in the US” we have universal healthcare
In the US it's called "tipping"
That's just equivalent to UBI, isn't it? If you pay out UBI and get the money for it from taxes, then there's an income level below which people net gain money and above which people net lose money.
No, negative income tax usually requires that you make some money and file taxes. UBI doesn't.
One has the intention of encouraging workforce participation. The other tries to help everyone.
It is UBI with a "clawback". Conservative (Friedman's NIT version) and left wing (called Guaranteed income) versions of UBI like to place an ultra high tax/clawback rate on the lowest income levels. It is same as UBI if lower tax brackets are not the first bracket after "personal UBI received is paid back in taxes"
This gets proposed as a way to implement basic income (UBI). It is only equivalent when the lowest tax bracket is equal to the NIT.
ex: if NIT of 25% up to $40k, and 25% income tax rate up to $50k, then at $40k income, you would pay 0 net income tax. At 0 income, you would receive $10k, and at $50k income, you'd pay $2500. Every $10k of income results in $2500 extra taxes or less of a refund.
Milton Friedman's version of NIT was at 50% for low income ($20k), and then fairly low tax bracket rates (20%) above that. This means that the poorest people are taxed very high on income, and middle to high incomes pay a lower rate. Welfare and unemployment systems often use such a 50% clawback. It is a significant disincentive to work, unless you will make a lot during a year.
Refundable tax credits is a similar system of permitting net refunds to people even if they pay no income taxes.
but what about -~- LOOPHOLE WHACKAMOLE -~- its not technically free for billionaires since they have to pay so much to lawyers
Wouldn’t it make more sense to, like, have the first 12k dollars tax free and then increase the percentage for everything exceeding this threshold? The more money you earn, the more taxes you can afford to pay. Especially when you earn only little money this is important for you to survive, while $100k/yr managers could easily afford to pay 50k of those in taxes
A negative income that is better than that. It says, if you're working, but only making $12k, the state will give you money so you now have $20k. (Not real numbers.)
The idea is that it incentivizes participation in the work force, with hopes that the extra money helps you get stable and move up the payscale where you may stop needing the external support.
Living on $50k/year is not easy. The federal poverty line for a family of 4 is $31,200, and many consider those numbers to be much too low.
There's absolutely no need to target normal American households with more taxes. Billionaires already don't pay their (too low) taxes and have far, far more than they need that they've taken from the labor of others. Actually taxing them appropriately would cover everything we could possibly need and then some.
We should be raising substantially the minimum income needed before you have to pay taxes. It's fucking stupid to be levying a bunch of tax on people who are struggling to make ends meet.
The system you are describing is what most countries use. This is basically just an extension of that intended for people who make so little they need extra assistance.
Actually, the US Earned Income Tax Credit is basically a version of negative income tax.
Let's be honest, if the US did something like this, the ultra wealthy who are already not paying taxes would find ways to game more money out of the system.
But it could still help a lot of people.
What are the upside of that vs plain minimum wage?
It reduces the onus on businesses and places it on the government (and this indirectly, taxpayers).
Better for small businesses to hire and thrive.
"But I don't want my taxes to go up!"
Maybe you just need more tax brackets. Where I live, for some reason, a specialized doctor making $250,000/yr is in the same tax bracket as some C-suit making $900,000.
I definitely need more tax brackets where I live.
Very signficant benefits of UBI over minimum wage laws. if for example UBI is equal to typical minimum wage of 2000 hours/year. $14k/year in US. ($7/hour)
Minimum wage means it is illegal to hire you for less, even if you would be happy to work for less. Maybe you are happy to work a couple of hours per day at a nearby library, but would like to get beer money for doing so instead of "internship". UBI is equivalent to a $7/hour bonus on whatever wage your earn or don't earn. You have the freedom to say no to work, and so you might accept better pay offers than if you are under structural desperation to survive. That power we all have means that we don't need a minimum wage law. We all have enough fuck you money to not put up with excessive shit.
One of the key overlooked benefits of UBI is that it also encourages people to retire, move out of the workforce or drop back to part time sooner. Freeing up jobs for people to move into.
Once the house is paid off and the kids have moved out, etc. The "I dont NEED to do this" is real.
Don't give the super wealthy any ideas.