[hehehaha]

With UBI, people will be more selective in their job search. With negative tax rate not so much since you would need to work in order to benefit. I am not a fan of them because they will simply push out cost of living and the poor will be back in same relative economic disadvantage. The only realistic solution I see is free education even into adult age.

[bhupy]

I'd argue that this is a feature, and not a bug. It gives the lower-income worker leverage to walk away from a bad job without fear of starvation.

[RangerScience]

Yup. If all jobs have to compete with the null-job, then there will be no jobs worse than just getting up to your own devices.

[andrewflnr]

Absolutely, this is one of the most important reasons to have it IMO.

[akvadrako]

> With negative tax rate not so much since you would need to work in order to benefit

This is not how NIT works. You can read this for an intro:

https://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-nit-and-unc...

[hehehaha]

You still need to work and have income. If I am missing something I’d love to know.

[akvadrako]

NIT means your income starts in the negative. So if you don't work you have -10k income, for example. With a 10% tax rate you'll get 1k back.

[maxerickson]

I don't think people talking about a negative income tax are aligned behind it being non refundable.