The one thing that makes this difficult is that if you give someone money unconditionally, it has to go to everyone universally. You can’t just give it to people below a certain income level.
If you have an income level limit to determine who will get it, people will decide against working if it puts them over the limit where they lose the provided income, and people working and getting just above that limit will resent having to work 40 hours a week to make just a little bit more than people who don’t work at all.
But then if you provide everyone with money universally, how will that affect inflation? If everyone gets $1000 every month, stores know they can increase prices, corporate landlords know they can increase rents and get a piece of the pie, and eventually that $1000 is basically useless.
Milton Friedman, a conservative economist from the 20th century, advocated for a negative income tax that worked similarly to a normal income tax. If you made $0 a year and filed a tax return, the government would give you let’s say the standard deduction (currently ~13k). As you increased your income, for every two dollars (could make this 3 or 4 too), you’d lose $1 of that negative income tax, so it would never be bad to make more money.
For a 2:1 ratio you’d have to make 26k+ to get no money. Some number examples:
Normal income + negative income tax = total income
$0 + $13,000 = $13,000
$6,500 + $9,750 = $16,250
$13,000 + $6,500 = $19,500
$19,500 + $3,250 = $22,750
$26,000 + $0 = $26,000
Making more money is never bad, and it still gets money to people who need it most with essentially no bureaucratic overhead.
I’m a socialist who disagrees with the vast majority of the shit Milton Friedman spewed, but negative income tax wasn’t a terrible idea, I might even go as far to say it’s good (as long as the amount is high enough).
The one thing that makes this difficult is that if you give someone money unconditionally, it has to go to everyone universally. You can’t just give it to people below a certain income level.
If you have an income level limit to determine who will get it, people will decide against working if it puts them over the limit where they lose the provided income, and people working and getting just above that limit will resent having to work 40 hours a week to make just a little bit more than people who don’t work at all.
But then if you provide everyone with money universally, how will that affect inflation? If everyone gets $1000 every month, stores know they can increase prices, corporate landlords know they can increase rents and get a piece of the pie, and eventually that $1000 is basically useless.
Milton Friedman, a conservative economist from the 20th century, advocated for a negative income tax that worked similarly to a normal income tax. If you made $0 a year and filed a tax return, the government would give you let’s say the standard deduction (currently ~13k). As you increased your income, for every two dollars (could make this 3 or 4 too), you’d lose $1 of that negative income tax, so it would never be bad to make more money.
For a 2:1 ratio you’d have to make 26k+ to get no money. Some number examples:
Normal income + negative income tax = total income
$0 + $13,000 = $13,000
$6,500 + $9,750 = $16,250
$13,000 + $6,500 = $19,500
$19,500 + $3,250 = $22,750
$26,000 + $0 = $26,000
Making more money is never bad, and it still gets money to people who need it most with essentially no bureaucratic overhead.
I’m a socialist who disagrees with the vast majority of the shit Milton Friedman spewed, but negative income tax wasn’t a terrible idea, I might even go as far to say it’s good (as long as the amount is high enough).
deleted by creator