[manigandham]

Friedman proposed a negative income tax which is different, and arguably better, than a standard flat payment.

[balfirevic]

It's barely distinguishable from UBI for any practical purpose.

[manigandham]

Not really. It scales with income, motivates working, is more fair, and avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response.

[balfirevic]

I think you are confused about how either UBI or negative income tax works. The most important difference is that negative income tax would do payouts once a year, and even that is not a hard requirement. Other differences are accounting differences and not practical differences in how much money people have available (as they can be made identical by tweaking the tax rates and tax brackets).

[manigandham]

Of course both programs will guarantee a certain income, that’s the point after all.

But UBI decreases motivation while also inflating the cost of goods and services so that they rise to meet the new money supply.

NIT avoids both problems by scaling with income. It provides motivation without paying every one. More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power.

[balfirevic]

You are, frankly, just making stuff up. UBI proposals are not necessarily (nor usually) funded by creating new money supply.

[manigandham]

Perhaps that was the wrong wording, but giving everyone money would only inflate costs as they rise to meet the new income levels (whether that money is printed or redistributed). What else are you claiming is made up?