What would you think of a negative income tax?

Is it a good policy idea?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/na3Bzrmljd0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Wtf is this shit? I hope this isnt another scam to allow poorfags to take zero responsibility for being poor.

How do you make negative earnings from employment?

i like it

What happens when people realize that all they need to be prosperous is vote for whoever promises to increase the income for the majority?

What happens when people realize they don't need to follow society rules, leave their house or be exposed to judgement in order to make a living?

youtu.be/na3Bzrmljd0

It's similar to Basic Income, but not exactly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

kek

Meh...this still provides zero incentive for people to not be lazy niggers. Maybe if there were a minimum income required to qualify, meaning a demonstration of willingness to at least maintain some level of employment.

Um, it's welfare, OP. We already have it.

It doesn't completely, it could be done with something like a partial employment requirement or something similar. A large part of the idea motivating it is that it would reduce or perhaps even eliminate all or much of the bureaucracy inherent to all of the other related welfare programs and save money in net.

Actually, I'm ok with this. As a single man making 100k/yr I get taxed 28% by the feds, and 9% by my state (Oregon) for a total of 37% in income taxes. If the feds adopted this system and my state adopted the adjusted version I have a 30% federal rate and a 10% state rate for a total of 40%. For only 3% we're contributing to the poor in a meaningful way. They'd get the money no strings attached even while working toward something better unlike with welfare where starting work and losing it is often worse than staying on it.

Just a fancy spin on MOAR GIBS FREE FREE FREE.

This brings the illegal immigrants.
Giving them more incentive to come is a bad idea.
Just look at Sweden.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
but really I only support this if I'm no longer paying payroll taxes for social security and medicaid then my tax rate is pretty much the same. Plus we should eliminate welfare and other social welfare and make this our sole tool for that.

youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

How about negative income tax as in unemployed and people who don't make at least the median get taxed more because they're so unproductive towards the economy

This would result in zero taxes being collected. What kind of idiot would work for 20,000 when they could not work and get 20,000

This is how you get soviet russia.
if this was introduced then nobody would work because you would get the same money for working less.

How can you tax people who don't have money? That's why I don't pay taxes, I don't work.

You're confusing negative income tax with universal basic income. Under negative income tax, working for a higher wage always results in you earning net more than someone who works a lower wage. It is never equal or lower. It eliminates welfare traps.

Do you know how taxes work? Do you know how much most people pay or make? You do know that tons of people right now effectively pay no taxes, right? We could still do this along with progressive taxes to make money.

It will only do good if all the other forms of welfare are removed
The negative income tax is a tool to replace all those systems, you get rid of the departments and bureocracy that causes waste of the resources, you let people choose what to do with the money, and it makes taxes simpler

If you mix it with other forms of welfare it won´t work and will make a mess

isn't that just welfare?

It also means I just get 20k cash for being a total nigger.

It´s welfare without the waste of departments and rules, it makes people responsible, if they blow it, they starve
if a nigger gets 20k that means someone who works it´s getting more, also, niggers already get that kind of money or more, but it´s wasted through bureocracy

That's basically the whole point of NIT, replace all welfare with a simpler payment system which cost less money to give out benefits vs our current system. Issue is that no NIT can hope to pay as much welfare as is done now, which is widely considered a bad thing.

I want you to think about that for a second when a leftist tells you we can afford to continue with the programs we have now.

CPA here

Are you fucking retarded?

No, and Milton Friedman wasn't either.

No. You're thinking you don't live in a democracy. What would happen is that we would have welfare programs on top of this.

The pet ideas of economists look great on paper but they are so autistically naive only an idiot would actually implement them.

I'd hope most people would put the time into furthering themselves or the community. Of course there would be those who would just sit on their arses. I'd buy some land and take up permaculture.

>just pay niggers to be niggers
>no questions asked

I'd abuse the shit out of this.

Bend over and assume the position.

chart is completely retarded

it should be flat from 0-20k then have blue and red portions sloping up, with the red on top (tax) and the blue part below (income pre-tax)

whoever made your shit graphic is trolling or retarded

I recently watched a Milton Friedman video on this. It makes sense because it deinsentivizes the welfare state. It'll have people earn what they need if they are below a certain income line, while gradually getting rid of benefits instead of all at once. Right now people have the mind set of "oh, I only get benefits if I'm below x income line so I'll make just below it so I can get all of the benefits"

irs would get you
read about it in capitalism and freedom

Just like they catch all the current system abusers. Sure bud.

go ahead and do it right now

I think if there is a cap, and it is more of a temporary measure (At least for working-age unemployed) it seems fine. It would gut a shit-ton of bureaucracy, and provide an easier way to pay for the elderly and disabled.

The real solution is barring women from the workplace entirely.

Do you get money for spending or something?

I'll summarize for all who don't "get it".

There is a defined value where people are taxed 0%. Suppose this is 4000 dollars. Everyone who earns 4000 dollars or less in a year is taxed nothing.

Another value is defined. That is the minimum value for living. Suppose it is 50% of 4000 dollars, 2000 dollars.

In a negative tax system, you take the gap between the minimum living value and the 0% tax value, and divide that by the fractional difference, in this case 50%.

So for a person earning 4000 dollars, he pays 0% taxes. He neither gives nor receives money from the government.

Final value: 4000.

Take a person who earns 0 dollars. He is 4000 dollars away from the 0% tax point. He receives the minimal amount, 2000 dollars.

Final value: 2000.

Take a person who earns 1000 dollars. He is 3000 dollars away from the 0% tax point. The predefined fractional difference is 50%, so he receives (4000-1000)*50% money from the government. He receives 1500 dollars from the government plus the 1000 he already has.

Final value: 2500 dollars.

Another example: a man who earns 2000 dollars. (4000-2000)*50%=1000. He receives 1000 dollars plus the 2000 he already has.

Final value: 3000.

Man who earns 3000: (4000-3000)*50% = 500. 3000+500

Final value: 3500

The merit of this system is that people are not punished for earning more, because there is no such thing as earning more but getting less. Any amount you earn above 0 dollars will increase the total amount you end up with.

>you take the gap between the minimum living value and the 0% tax value, and divide that by the fractional difference, in this case 50%
And then you add this to the income you already made.

^ what I meant to say.

i support it because it doesnt pay out to the rich who dont need it like UBI does

i advocate NIT for a long time

>thinking redistributing wealth actually helps the lower class
this is level 1 redpill, user

fuck you man it's preferable to dumping my money into medicaid, medicare, social security, welfare, disability, food stamps, fuel credits and all the other stupid social welfare shit we have right now

the free 20k~ or whatever will help out the jobless

but lets say everybody stopped working and wanted to sit at home on their 20k

people would have needs and figure out how to get those needs as long as it was still a capitalist free society

so it cant possibly end in disaster because people can still freely produce whatever they need once when those things disappear from everyone stopping working if that even happened

What happens when you give low IQ retard tier niggers and white trash extra cash? Do they use that extra cash to pick themselves up out of their situations and try to make a better life for their children?

FUCK NO.

They buy more useless shit like jewelry, TV's, game systems, gold rims, expensive cellphones, etc. They stay in the exact same situation and then demand more money when they blow it all within minutes of getting it.

and that helps the economy a little bit when they buy something locally

you want the money going back to the poor people they will probably lose it quickly and itll trickle back up

but the whole point is to provide everyone with a good standard of living

not just rich people dominating the world and owning everything and everyone else umeployed

lurk before you post

My point is that there will never be an end to their shitty situation because they have no drive to get out of it on their own. it doesn't matter if we give them an extra few grand a year or an extra 50 grand a year, they will just make the rich richer while staying fucking poor in their ghettos either not working or barely working. They will always find a reason to demand more gibs, period.

I see with my own eyes people using their welfare cards to buy grocery carts full of groceries that they subsequently load into their barely 3 year old Escalades in the walmart parking lot.

The only solution these niggers and white trash need is a Final one.

>Is it a good policy idea?
They already have "negative income"....It is called welfare, and people who cannot or will not work already can take advantage of it.

Seth Rich

no it should be modest amount like 20k whatever the NIT determines and then it doesnt go higher forever. you make a rational amount

as far as the ebt people

ebt is only 1% of the federal budget and feeds 50 million people super effective

and its only like 200 a month per person you make it seem like theyre getting as much as they want

ur just jealous

and if they have an escalade that doesnt mean theyre rich it means theyre spending their entire paycheck on that car payment and theyre still poor

you act like these people earning 200k a year are on food stamps

i dont get people like you