[ac29]

I'm not sure that combining BI with a flat tax, especially as high as 50% would work out. People with minimum wage or low-paid jobs would have a disincentive to work -- working full time would net them nearly nothing versus staying home, unemployed.

Napkin math: 2000 hours (approx full time hours per year) * $7.25/hr (US min wage) * 50% = $7250. Cost of transportation, child care, and other things that wouldn't be required if unemployed could easily eat most of that, netting a wage of just a dollar or two per hour.

[MaxGhenis]

As stated in the article, 50% was chosen only because it's the rate where calculations are simplest, it's not the proposal (it'd generate way more than the current government tax receipts). Income tax rates under a revenue-neutral negative income tax could remain pretty similar for those about the threshold; it's really just replacing non-cash welfare-cliffed benefits with a smoothed cash transfer.

[ac29]

I reread your article, and maybe I was being too harsh. You gave an example of a 50% flat tax (which you admitted is too high), but I think what would be more interesting is to see what a progressive tax would look like to remain revenue neutral while providing a reasonable level of BI.

I dont think basic income is tenable in the US without raising taxes on high income earners, perhaps significantly.

[MaxGhenis]

Yes I'd like to do that. Net tax burden (taxes - BI) still shouldn't change under the revenue-neutral approach, since they'd be equal between NIT and BI.