[sharemywin]

Sometimes the devil is in the details and if you this part

"To be revenue-neutral, some people will be worse off with a smooth curve (e.g. those earning $29k getting maximum benefits), and others will be better off (e.g. those who lose $6k of benefits after earning just over $29k). But every dollar earned will lead to improved livelihood."

can be finessed in a palatable way. Try to avoid too many you took money from grandma to give to the pot smoking college kid. You sold me on it. The only problem I see how do you convince the voter on disability complaining about the gorvn'ment and all it GD entitlements... and your also talking about the country that's about to elect the guy that wants to ban Muslims from the country.

[MaxGhenis]

The quote you selected concerns welfare cliffs, where smoothing out the payout curve may slightly reduce benefits of those near a cliff and increase benefits for those just past a cliff. This split should be independent of the "grandma/pot-smoking-college-kid" split. In general the proposal I lay out can be designed to split out benefits for retirees such that they get a different NIT/BI than others, so grandmas can sleep well.

I am curious what Trump might think of basic income. I tried to write this piece to appeal to conservatives who want to shrink the antipoverty bureaucracy, and I believe there's a lot to like about BI from both sides of the aisle.