Negative Income Tax: something both sides could support? (Congress, health care, Canada)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But indeed, there do need to be structures beyond "just give everyone money"...both to prevent a death spiral for the dollar and our economy, AND to make it so that the help that is given to people serves its intended purpose of actually helping them.
I disagree. Do we do this for social security? No. As far as I know, the recipients of it just receive a check. So, why not just give everyone social security?
Also, the point is not really to help people, at least not directly. It's not to have a Nanny State or a Life Coach, or anything like that. This is a free country- people can do what they want with the money. The point of what I am proposing would simply be to combat poverty (virtually eliminate it), and shift the income inequality a bit.
So far as poverty is defined as people making less than about 13k/year, then just give everyone a permanent 13k/year, and therefore that would be the way to end poverty.
When you pay people not to work, they won't work. That is has been proven over and over again. This isn't rocket science. Give people $10,000 a year under a certain income level, and they will intentionally stay below that income level and will stop moving up. We want people moving up and joining the middle class.
What is causing the poor not to work?
Penniless immigrants come into America every day and break their backs to earn an income, rise out of poverty, and provide a better life for their children. The failing among the multigenerational poor is mostly cultural, not a lack of opportunity to work.
Anybody can buy a bus ticket at 18 and go where the jobs are. It is a hell of a struggle and it takes time and sacrifice to achieve, but any able bodied person of sound mind can do it. Millions of poor immigrants are living proof.
Absolutely none of the Asian and African immigrants I knew who lifted themselves out of poverty with hard work ever got a "small basic income". They worked their fannies off.
That is the good thing about the Negative Income Tax though you have to be working in order to get it so unlike something like a Basic Income you can't really be lazy to get it. Sure you can move to where better jobs are but what is cost of living? Are you moving away from your support system it is not as easy as saying move to find a better job.
I know that receiving social security amounts to receiving a monthly benefit check, with the amount varying per individual and how much they paid tax into it over their careers (people who made more money get more social security), but the average amount is somewhere around $1,500. And I know that it is primarily funded via payroll tax.
So it's essentially a basic income type program for retirees, or more or less.
'Social security for all' is not my first choice for how to achieve something like this, but it was just something theoretical I mentioned. An expansion of an already existing program (like the proposed 'Medicare for all'). In theory, the age restriction of social security could be lowered, and the tax amount and funding increased. At least in theory, something similar could be set up that provides a monthly benefit check to everyone, and the funding source could be targeted taxes on the wealthiest brackets, including, yes, the 1%.
I'd like to discuss and debate the situation with income inequality, and proposals to combat it. I'd like to hear some proposals and ideas, of how to make things better. We've heard the comments and insults from the 'preserve the status quo' crew, who think this country is going great and our society is ideal. It may work for you, and it definitely works for the mega-wealthy, but we need to make changes that would benefit the whole of us, in general.
There is no reason the U.S. couldn't slash poverty at least in half, if not more. There is no reason why we couldn't have the best social safety net in the world, with some kind of basic income. There's no reason why income and wealth inequality has to be as drastic and extreme as it's become.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-29-2022 at 07:41 PM..
Reason: Removed reference to deleted post.
I disagree. Do we do this for social security? No. As far as I know, the recipients of it just receive a check. So, why not just give everyone social security?
Also, the point is not really to help people, at least not directly. It's not to have a Nanny State or a Life Coach, or anything like that. This is a free country- people can do what they want with the money. The point of what I am proposing would simply be to combat poverty (virtually eliminate it), and shift the income inequality a bit.
So far as poverty is defined as people making less than about 13k/year, then just give everyone a permanent 13k/year, and therefore that would be the way to end poverty.
I just don't believe that this solves it if we don't do anything about the other end of the financial equation.
If they were not stopped from doing so, those who control the capital in this country would pay less and charge more to a point where that would become meaningless. The vultures would gather round to grab up their pounds of flesh until nothing of it was left.
I mean, why is it so rare to see stay at home parents raising their own kids, compared to the middle of the last century? A big part of that is that when women entered the workforce, businesses were like, "aha, households have more money to spend. WE WANT IT." And before long, even if Mom or Dad wanted to stay home and raise the kids, and even with the high cost of childcare, the household NEEDED two incomes.
Of course, I do think that may have shifted somewhat (and I would love to see data about it) since the onset of the pandemic.
Now in COMBINATION with some checks on predatory business practices...maybe. But I also think that if we put a stop to predatory business practices, AND made it easier for those who truly have a need to get meaningful help, then giving everyone a minimum income would not be so necessary at all.
And I don't know what your perspective is, how old you are or what your life's experiences have been. But I've been...not rich, but comfortable...I've been dirt poor, I've been homeless (with an infant)...I've lived life in a variety of circumstances. In my lowest times, I needed help and with a lot of effort I did get some, and the best kind was that where I could say, "Look, here is my SPECIFIC problem. If I could just get a little bit of temporary help with this one thing...and nothing more...then I can easily hit a point in a few months where we won't need help anymore."
Not the government offices of "check this box, fill in that form, Qualify? Yes or no. No? YOU GET NOTHING. Yes? YOU GET ALL THE THINGS." I did not need food stamps, I did not need cash, at one point I needed very temporary help with daycare costs so that I could start a job. Could I get that without also getting all the other stuff? No. And it made me pretty upset. Why? Because I didn't want to be a burden on society or anyone else. And you know, I think that most people would rather not feel that way, given the choice.
So, are the people who receive social security, a "burden on society?" I mean, we could be using that payroll tax money to buy even more fighter jets.
And no one should be on food stamps- I think food stamps shouldn't exist, because no one should need it. We could get rid of that program entirely, among other old programs, if everyone received a basic income check every month.
Again, we're not talking about good living. Not "burden on society" territory. $12,000 per year per adult is barely surviving in 2022's economy, and even that would be difficult on just that income alone. That's simply not enough money to discourage most people from working a job and generating their own income, so that they can rent a home and have a much more comfortable life than 12k would ever afford. 12k is just meant as a supplement, an emergency buffer, a survival safety net, a way to at least not be on the street. It's so that you can have the ability to go to interviews seeking work, and not starve to death, basically. But also it's for average regular old people who have jobs and make plenty more than that. It's to make our rent and other bills and debts and healthcare needs more affordable, etc. And it's also to shift the total income inequality situation back slightly towards the common people. You know, before we get to the point soon where less than 1% of the population owns and controls more than half of everything.
During the COVID shutdown, we gave everybody $1,000. So why can't we just do that every month? Alaska also has a small Universal Basic Income (1k to 2k depending on the year, paid to everyone in the state), and it hasn't been a problem for them, in fact I've read that it cut poverty there. And they don't even have a state income tax, or any sales tax at all, in Alaska.
There's a $1,000 per month basic income experiment going on in Los Angeles- I'm not sure if the payments have started yet, but I'm interested to hear how this goes: https://cd10.lacity.org/articles/cit...geles-economic
So, are the people who receive social security, a "burden on society?" I mean, we could be using that payroll tax money to buy even more fighter jets.
And no one should be on food stamps- I think food stamps shouldn't exist, because no one should need it. We could get rid of that program entirely, among other old programs, if everyone received a basic income check every month.
Again, we're not talking about good living. Not "burden on society" territory. $12,000 per year per adult is barely surviving in 2022's economy, and even that would be difficult on just that income alone. That's simply not enough money to discourage most people from working a job and generating their own income, so that they can rent a home and have a much more comfortable life than 12k would ever afford. 12k is just meant as a supplement, an emergency buffer, a survival safety net, a way to at least not be on the street. It's so that you can have the ability to go to interviews seeking work, and not starve to death, basically. But also it's for average regular old people who have jobs and make plenty more than that. It's to make our rent and other bills and debts and healthcare needs more affordable, etc. And it's also to shift the total income inequality situation back slightly towards the common people. You know, before we get to the point soon where less than 1% of the population owns and controls more than half of everything.
During the COVID shutdown, we gave everybody $1,000. So why can't we just do that every month? Alaska also has a small Universal Basic Income (1k to 2k depending on the year, paid to everyone in the state), and it hasn't been a problem for them, in fact I've read that it cut poverty there. And they don't even have a state income tax, or any sales tax at all, in Alaska.
There's a $1,000 per month basic income experiment going on in Los Angeles- I'm not sure if the payments have started yet, but I'm interested to hear how this goes: https://cd10.lacity.org/articles/cit...geles-economic
Yeah it would be interesting to see how it goes.
I still don't agree that just giving everyone cash would be better than programs more targeted to resolve specific needs. I've known enough drug addicts in my lifetime, the help that they need is not simply a monthly stipend. It's not that I am on the side of, "just keep doing everything to benefit the rich and the hell with the poor"...it's that I believe that more specific and targeted solutions would be a better way to improve quality of life for those who need help.
And yes, those who receive social security ARE a burden on society but that isn't a bad thing. A society that has any decency whatsoever should help the elderly to retire and the disabled to survive. A compassionate person who is capable of working and doing their part should have no problem shouldering their bit of that burden. None at all. I know that I don't.
I disagree. Do we do this for social security? No. As far as I know, the recipients of it just receive a check. So, why not just give everyone social security?
Also, the point is not really to help people, at least not directly. It's not to have a Nanny State or a Life Coach, or anything like that. This is a free country- people can do what they want with the money. The point of what I am proposing would simply be to combat poverty (virtually eliminate it), and shift the income inequality a bit.
So far as poverty is defined as people making less than about 13k/year, then just give everyone a permanent 13k/year, and therefore that would be the way to end poverty.
Social Security is very different in that those that receive the benefits paying for it prior and reducing benefits if take it early or pay in less. Not at all close to a negative income tax.
The point is to ealp those that REALLY need it without disincentivizing them from getting off the assistance - you help no one by creating a "welfare queen" that never wants out. Just giving money will just move the poverty line up - it will do nothing to fix any issues.
Just to be clear, the problem is NOT income inequality - it is how to provide basic subsistence for those that have no intention of bettering themselves. Those trying to attack it as income inequality really do not understand the issues.
So, are the people who receive social security, a "burden on society?" I mean, we could be using that payroll tax money to buy even more fighter jets.
And no one should be on food stamps- I think food stamps shouldn't exist, because no one should need it. We could get rid of that program entirely, among other old programs, if everyone received a basic income check every month.
Again, we're not talking about good living. Not "burden on society" territory. $12,000 per year per adult is barely surviving in 2022's economy, and even that would be difficult on just that income alone.... And it's also to shift the total income inequality situation back slightly towards the common people. You know, before we get to the point soon where less than 1% of the population owns and controls more than half of everything.
During the COVID shutdown, we gave everybody $1,000. So why can't we just do that every month? Alaska also has a small Universal Basic Income (1k to 2k depending on the year, paid to everyone in the state), and it hasn't been a problem for them, in fact I've read that it cut poverty there. And they don't even have a state income tax, or any sales tax at all, in Alaska.
There's a $1,000 per month basic income experiment going on in Los Angeles- I'm not sure if the payments have started yet, but I'm interested to hear how this goes: https://cd10.lacity.org/articles/cit...geles-economic
SS funds do not go into the same budget that funds weapons - your premise is flawed.
Food stamps (SNAP) are there to ensure that the money is buying food and not going toward buying drugs, alcohol and the like. Even if they provide basic income, these food programs really need to exist to ensure basic nutrition for low income folks.
Again, income inequality is not the issue, someone making $500K does not prevent you from making $50K. You also seem to confuse income with wealth - what is owned is very different from income - low income folks can be worth millions and more than a few high income folks can be bankrupt. The % of wealth owned by the different groups has not changed much at all in the last 30+ years.
During the COVID shutdown - not everyone got money - you had to make less than a certain amount - many never got a penny. The Alaska funds come from the oil payments - which some of the liberals have tried to shut down. Most of the basic income experiments have been total flops - they have been tried many times, the issue is that it costs a lot with no clear benefit.
Social Security is very different in that those that receive the benefits paying for it prior and reducing benefits if take it early or pay in less. Not at all close to a negative income tax.
The point is to ealp those that REALLY need it without disincentivizing them from getting off the assistance - you help no one by creating a "welfare queen" that never wants out. Just giving money will just move the poverty line up - it will do nothing to fix any issues.
Just to be clear, the problem is NOT income inequality - it is how to provide basic subsistence for those that have no intention of bettering themselves. Those trying to attack it as income inequality really do not understand the issues.
Income and wealth inequality in general is fine, acceptable, and inevitable. EXTREME income and wealth inequality is hugely problematic in a lot of ways, and that's the situation we have in the US right now, with it only trending more and more in that extreme direction. So, yes, in my opinion, the #1 goal of any basic income or negative income tax implementation, should indeed be to combat that as much as possible.
Extreme income and wealth inequality is bad for the economy and economic growth. It's bad for political divides and polarization, social cohesion in general, democracy, economic mobility, economic participation, crime rates, health metrics, and of course, general poverty. And, it's just plain ridiculous, I don't care how you slice it. If 1% of the US population owned more wealth and had more income than the other 99%, that would be an absolutely terrible outcome and situation. And, we have been trending towards that point.
The #2, also important goal, would be to help people who need it, and provide a safety net for society. Anti-poverty and hunger and homelessness, etc.
The #3 goal would be boosting the ranges of the middle class, from lower middle to upper middle class. In terms of just a general income supplement, which could be used for rent/bills/necessities, or anything.
The overall, end goal, would be a better, less stressful society in general, in a multitude of different metrics, and intangibles. Where more people are various shades of middle class, and middle class is a relatively stronger position. There would still be relatively poor people, and rich people, and very rich people. But much less poverty. There would still be plenty of incentive to work and be productive.
Income and wealth inequality in general is fine, acceptable, and inevitable. EXTREME income and wealth inequality is hugely problematic in a lot of ways, and that's the situation we have in the US right now, with it only trending more and more in that extreme direction. So, yes, in my opinion, the #1 goal of any basic income or negative income tax implementation, should indeed be to combat that as much as possible.
Extreme income and wealth inequality is bad for the economy and economic growth. It's bad for political divides and polarization, social cohesion in general, democracy, economic mobility, economic participation, crime rates, health metrics, and of course, general poverty. And, it's just plain ridiculous, I don't care how you slice it. If 1% of the US population owned more wealth and had more income than the other 99%, that would be an absolutely terrible outcome and situation. And, we have been trending towards that point.
The #2, also important goal, would be to help people who need it, and provide a safety net for society. Anti-poverty and hunger and homelessness, etc.
The #3 goal would be boosting the ranges of the middle class, from lower middle to upper middle class. In terms of just a general income supplement, which could be used for rent/bills/necessities, or anything.
The overall, end goal, would be a better, less stressful society in general, in a multitude of different metrics, and intangibles. Where more people are various shades of middle class, and middle class is a relatively stronger position. There would still be relatively poor people, and rich people, and very rich people. But much less poverty. There would still be plenty of incentive to work and be productive.
What is "EXTREME income and wealth inequality" and why is it "hugely problematic" - what about it will impact you personally.
Basic income and negative income tax has absolutely zero to do with reducing wealth inequality and very little to do with income inequality. Why is income inequality bad anyway - why would people work hard to get ahead if they make the same amount without putting out any effort.
Income and wealth inequality has changed very little in the last 30-40 years and seems to have little negative impact on the economy and economic growth - where is the proof that it is a negative impact on the economy - if anything, the opposite is true. The politicization of wealth and income inequality seems to be mostly done by those who think bringing down others is somehow going to help them and the politicians that are catering to their votes - there is no evidence that taking them down will do anything except make everybody poorer.
The 1% does not own anywhere near what the other 99% own - they have just under 1/3 of the wealth. The wealthy have incentives to grow the economy as much or more than anybody else. It is fairly recent that those at the bottom end of the spectrum have gained wealth through owning stocks in retirement funds.
The safety nets are already in place, have been for many years - the big issues have been the dependence on and abuse of those systems.
The Middle class has been shrinking for years, mostly through moving up to the next class without help.
Why are you so stuck on wealth transfer as the best way to help - the best way is to let people grow and keep what THEY earned, not taking it away and count on some ineffective distribution. More will be helped by the jobs created by encouraging the rich to invest than will ever be gained by taxing the rich.
Last edited by ddeemo; 09-01-2022 at 11:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
