[ultraforce]

Would it be possible to do a modified system where they instead of losing the universal income unemployment benefits. There could be a system where the benefits are lowered in proportion to the income earned from jobs, that allows for those who are able to and want to work but are only able to find low paying jobs to have benefits that do not discourage them from doing work.

[AnthonyMouse]

> There could be a system where the benefits are lowered in proportion to the income earned from jobs

The thing you are referring to is called taxes. The more money you make the more taxes you pay and there comes a point that you're paying more in taxes than the amount of the basic income.

Phase outs are a pure scam. Their purpose is to conceal imposing higher marginal rates on low and middle income people so that higher income people can pay lower rates.

[briandear]

What's wrong with equality? Everyone pays the same rate.

[AnthonyMouse]

That is in fact the thing that a UBI allows you to do without compromising progressivity.

[zhemao]

That's basically a negative income tax.

That is, if you make below a certain amount, the government gives you money until your income reaches some base level.

[Already__Taken]

Does that have any negatives that basic income doesn't? To me it sounds like a direct subset of that UBI aims to achieve. So a solid stepping stone towards it.

[aninhumer]

Basic Income and Negative Income Tax are an in fact equivalent, in that you can achieve identical income functions with either just by choosing the right tax bands.

However, their framing leads to different expectations. For example consider a flat income tax of 25% on income less $20k (going negative below that so unemployed people get $5k credit). Raising the negative rate to 50% sounds kind of progressive, since you're giving more to poorer people, but frame it as Basic Income, and yes you're increasing the baseline from $5k to $10k, but you're also implementing a 50% regressive tax band up to $20k earned income.

Another point is that they'll tend to be implemented differently due to framing. Basic Income is likely to be part of the welfare system, and since it's unconditional, you can just register once and receive it in perpetuity. Negative Income Tax is likely part of the tax system, so to get it you potentially need to submit a tax return saying "Earnings: $0" every year, which makes it more embarrassing.

[zhemao]

It still requires a level of means testing. People might hide sources of income in order to get more payments. On the other hand, since you aren't handing a check in the same amount to every person in the country, it wouldn't require as high an income tax rate to sustain.

[protomyth]

I support a prorated version, but the common criticism is that it's more open to fraud and harder to implement. I still think a prorated[1], guaranteed minimum income is better than a basic income.

1) something like reducing that payment by $0.50 per $1 earned as an example.

[samatman]

It's just an unnecessary wrinkle. Taxing earned income is the same as doing what you propose, but incurs higher coordination costs. Also, using your example, it's regressive taxation unless the base rate is higher than 50%.

[protomyth]

I don't think paying everyone is a good idea and will encourage inflation to make the program useless. I'm fine with regressive when talking money given to you.