[RandallBrown]

I like the idea of a negative income tax. I'm imagining it as a system where if you make below a certain amount of money, you aren't taxed, you're actually given money. If you make above that amount, you're taxed.

As long as it's implemented in a way that there is still an incentive to make more money, I think it could be a decent solution to our problems.

[dripton]

I like the idea too, except for fraud. When everyone making less than X automatically gets money from the government, the temptation to work off the books and double-dip grows. (Though I don't know if it's really any more of a problem than faking disability.)

[scotty79]

There's always incentive to earn money as as long as there are things to buy that your neighbor won't be able to buy with basic income an you, with your earned money will be able.

Earners are driven by envy and competition.

[nitrogen]

Right now there's a disincentive to make more money because you lose some types of benefits when you get a job, even if that job pays less than the benefits.

[mjn]

The EITC is somewhat like that, though it's mainly targeted at families (the amounts for households without children are extremely low, with a max benefit in 2013 of $487/yr).

[TomatoTomato]

The best example of this is the FairTax. The prebate is currently based on making sure those at the poverty line pay 0% federal taxes. But, if you change this to be 2x the poverty line or something, you effectively achieve a floor "basic income"

https://fairtaxer.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/prebate-chart-...