Negative tax is a way to implement UBI. It’s mathematically equivalent to paying out a flat sum and taking a flat tax which is easier to administer but then there’s the political opinions of the mathematically uninclined asking “why are we giving billionaires money”. (And yes both schemes are progressive, flat tax alone wouldn’t be).
They’re even in favour of doing it on the EU level, and argue that the TFEU already contains the language necessary for the EU to do it.
individuals earning below a set threshold receive payments instead of paying taxes
So it is not universal. It is not UBI. The difference it not billionaires but the middle class. The upper middle class may not need a UBI, but if you give it to them, they would be inclined to vote to keep it. If you only give a non-universal/progressive negative-tax/income, the middle class would be inclined to vote to vote to keep UBI way below “basic”. Like tax breaks offered to the middle class, I hate them, but they are basically impossible to reverse because they are so popular. A UBI and whatever you want to call this is very different policies.
The difference it not billionaires but the middle class.
No. The difference you imagine would be due to the specific tax rate applied, not due to “everyone gets a flat 1000 Euro payment and pays a flat 50% tax” vs. “The tax bracket for people with income under 2000 Euro is negative”. Do the maths: With 1000 Euro and 50%, the break-even point, where you pay exactly as much tax as you get in UBI, is 2000 Euro income.
You’re getting tangled up in irrelevant details. The “universal” part is about not having means testing, about not having to take on every fucked-up job the dole office throws at you. It’s about the net amount in your pocket, not how it’s calculated.
Negative tax is a way to implement UBI. It’s mathematically equivalent to paying out a flat sum and taking a flat tax which is easier to administer but then there’s the political opinions of the mathematically uninclined asking “why are we giving billionaires money”. (And yes both schemes are progressive, flat tax alone wouldn’t be).
They’re even in favour of doing it on the EU level, and argue that the TFEU already contains the language necessary for the EU to do it.
Sure, but their’s is not flat
So it is not universal. It is not UBI. The difference it not billionaires but the middle class. The upper middle class may not need a UBI, but if you give it to them, they would be inclined to vote to keep it. If you only give a non-universal/progressive negative-tax/income, the middle class would be inclined to vote to vote to keep UBI way below “basic”. Like tax breaks offered to the middle class, I hate them, but they are basically impossible to reverse because they are so popular. A UBI and whatever you want to call this is very different policies.
No. The difference you imagine would be due to the specific tax rate applied, not due to “everyone gets a flat 1000 Euro payment and pays a flat 50% tax” vs. “The tax bracket for people with income under 2000 Euro is negative”. Do the maths: With 1000 Euro and 50%, the break-even point, where you pay exactly as much tax as you get in UBI, is 2000 Euro income.
You’re getting tangled up in irrelevant details. The “universal” part is about not having means testing, about not having to take on every fucked-up job the dole office throws at you. It’s about the net amount in your pocket, not how it’s calculated.