Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

What do you think of the Negative Income Tax

TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.
I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.
A1tre
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2017 11:42:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.

If the family with an income of 80k recieves 5k, doesn't that implay the bottom rate can be negative, -6.25% in this case?

I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.

Why do you think monetary handouts are superior to welfare?
TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2017 3:15:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/1/2017 11:42:44 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.

If the family with an income of 80k recieves 5k, doesn't that implay the bottom rate can be negative, -6.25% in this case?

I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.

Why do you think monetary handouts are superior to welfare?

It gets rid of all the bureaucracy, gets rid of the welfare cliff, and saves us money by getting rid of all the complex distribution bearos.
A1tre
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 12:03:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/1/2017 3:15:42 PM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 4/1/2017 11:42:44 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.

If the family with an income of 80k recieves 5k, doesn't that implay the bottom rate can be negative, -6.25% in this case?

I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.

Why do you think monetary handouts are superior to welfare?

It gets rid of all the bureaucracy, gets rid of the welfare cliff, and saves us money by getting rid of all the complex distribution bearos.

Do you believe those recieving the handouts will make wiser investments than the government with its welfare programms?
16kadams
Posts: 10,536
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 3:55:31 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

Friedman invented it
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 4:41:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/3/2017 3:55:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

Friedman invented it

"It was described by British politician Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s and later by United States free-market economist Milton Friedman." Further proof of the patriarchal view of history.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 4:50:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/3/2017 4:41:54 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/3/2017 3:55:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

Friedman invented it

"It was described by British politician Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s and later by United States free-market economist Milton Friedman." Further proof of the patriarchal view of history.

The perfect solution to the welfare dilemma comes along, and all your concerned about is the genitalia of one of its proponents? That's just about as stupid as complaining about how Friedman was circumcised- so f*cking what? I am only familiar with Milton and Rose Friedman- and I'm not Brittish so I wouldn't know about Juliet Rhys-Williams.
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 4:56:01 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/3/2017 4:50:15 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 4/3/2017 4:41:54 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/3/2017 3:55:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

Friedman invented it

"It was described by British politician Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s and later by United States free-market economist Milton Friedman." Further proof of the patriarchal view of history.

The perfect solution to the welfare dilemma comes along, and all your concerned about is the genitalia of one of its proponents? That's just about as stupid as complaining about how Friedman was circumcised- so f*cking what? I am only familiar with Milton and Rose Friedman- and I'm not Brittish so I wouldn't know about Juliet Rhys-Williams.

What I was saying is that a woman was actually the first one who thought up of "Negative Income Tax", but you were oblivious to it (making the claim that Friedman was the one who "invented it"). Considering you seem to pride yourself on your knowledge of economics, it just shows you the male-leaning view of history as you never even heard of her, even though she was the first. Also, it shouldn't matter what ethnicity you are. "Thought" is supposed to ascend beyond ethnicity. I'm not European, yet I still know about some of the theorists that hailed from there. Also, claiming a system is "perfect" is just foolish, no system is.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 5:42:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
What I was saying is that a woman was actually the first one who thought up of "Negative Income Tax", but you were oblivious to it (making the claim that Friedman was the one who "invented it"). Considering you seem to pride yourself on your knowledge of economics, it just shows you the male-leaning view of history as you never even heard of her, even though she was the first. Also, it shouldn't matter what ethnicity you are. "Thought" is supposed to ascend beyond ethnicity. I'm not European, yet I still know about some of the theorists that hailed from there. Also, claiming a system is "perfect" is just foolish, no system is.

I know about Friedman because I researched him- Juliet did not win a nobel Prize of a Presidential medal, and is not the godfather of the most common form of Libertarianism- so she is a much more obscure figure.

It has nothing to do with gender- remember Ayn Rand? What about Rose Friedman? I take after these 2 just as much as I do Milton.
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 5:45:06 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/3/2017 5:42:37 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
What I was saying is that a woman was actually the first one who thought up of "Negative Income Tax", but you were oblivious to it (making the claim that Friedman was the one who "invented it"). Considering you seem to pride yourself on your knowledge of economics, it just shows you the male-leaning view of history as you never even heard of her, even though she was the first. Also, it shouldn't matter what ethnicity you are. "Thought" is supposed to ascend beyond ethnicity. I'm not European, yet I still know about some of the theorists that hailed from there. Also, claiming a system is "perfect" is just foolish, no system is.

I know about Friedman because I researched him- Juliet did not win a nobel Prize of a Presidential medal, and is not the godfather of the most common form of Libertarianism- so she is a much more obscure figure.

Especially since she's a woman.

It has nothing to do with gender- remember Ayn Rand? What about Rose Friedman? I take after these 2 just as much as I do Milton.

One's his wife and the other is a landmark thinker thanks to her writing abilities (which is extremely rare when a woman is able to be known for such).
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 6:07:32 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I know about Friedman because I researched him- Juliet did not win a nobel Prize of a Presidential medal, and is not the godfather of the most common form of Libertarianism- so she is a much more obscure figure.

Especially since she's a woman.

No, because she wasn't the Economist of the Century

It has nothing to do with gender- remember Ayn Rand? What about Rose Friedman? I take after these 2 just as much as I do Milton.

One's his wife and the other is a landmark thinker thanks to her writing abilities (which is extremely rare when a woman is able to be known for such).

So? Milton was Roses husband, it has nothing to do with it. What's your point? You do know Mary Shelly is known for writing Frankenstein right?
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 8:58:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.
I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.

Sounds better than the current progressive tax and welfare system we have.

However, would this apply to people who are dependents? For example, I am still considered a dependent on my father, however I also have a part-time job currently. I would assume the exemptions could only be taken out on people who are not dependents right?

Either way, I actually would kind of prefer the idea that the government get its funds from fundraising rather than through a tax. Taxes are forced upon people, and is essentially a means of stealing.
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 9:00:31 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I suppose if we HAD to have a tax, this is the one I would support though.

I still would like to not have taxes at all.
16kadams
Posts: 10,536
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 5:20:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/3/2017 3:55:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

Friedman invented it

I know.

But, as to my point: "The government should restructure the welfare system along the lines of a negative income tax. (79%)" - http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
dc0404
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 12:52:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/2/2017 12:03:39 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/1/2017 3:15:42 PM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 4/1/2017 11:42:44 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.

If the family with an income of 80k recieves 5k, doesn't that implay the bottom rate can be negative, -6.25% in this case?

I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.

Why do you think monetary handouts are superior to welfare?

It gets rid of all the bureaucracy, gets rid of the welfare cliff, and saves us money by getting rid of all the complex distribution bearos.

Do you believe those recieving the handouts will make wiser investments than the government with its welfare programms?

Clearly, yes. Take a look at how well the government and Fed have ran the economy.

DC
dc0404
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 12:55:01 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.
I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.

Well, I like it! And, you explained it very clearly so I think your write-up would be the extent of the tax code. Seriously, I like it.

And, I do believe this should spur additional investment in productive sectors of the economy for those that would now be keeping more of their money. After all, the money has to be invested if a return is desired; it doesn't do any good sitting in a bank.

DC
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 1:42:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

I support 16k.
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 2:45:57 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/1/2017 1:44:47 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The Negative Income Tax is a form of UBI that only gives money to the poor, as opposed to everyone, saving us money. It institutes a flat tax but is a de facto progressive tax, let me explain:
Essentially, you get taxed 25% on all of your income above an exemption of 20k per person. For example, suppose there is a five-person household with an annual income of 80k, their total tax exemption is 100k, and this means that they have a negative exemption of 20k, and are thus paid 5k. Suppose this household earns 120k- this means they have a taxable income of 20k, and are taxed 5k- in effect, their tax rate is about 4%.
But if you earn 1 million dollars, and have a 5-person household, your taxable income is 900k, and you are taxed 225k, or 22.5% of your income.
Thus, it is a de facto progressive tax, with a bottom rate of 0%, and a top rate of 25%.
I support replacing welfare with such a negative income tax.

So in your hypothesis, the "welfare system" would end? All public welfare?
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
16kadams
Posts: 10,536
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 8:08:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/11/2017 1:42:16 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

I support 16k.

And he supports a NIT :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 8:55:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/11/2017 8:08:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/11/2017 1:42:16 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/3/2017 12:47:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/1/2017 1:45:31 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
Milton Friedman supported the NIT.

Most economists do.

I support 16k.

And he supports a NIT :P

yep!
augcaesarustus
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2017 9:39:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I think the negative income tax could work if you took in more than you paid out. For e.g. you tax at 20% but only refund 15% or 10% on the negative income. It would be more sustainable that way.
yodalearn13
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2017 10:25:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/5/2017 9:39:56 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
I think the negative income tax could work if you took in more than you paid out. For e.g. you tax at 20% but only refund 15% or 10% on the negative income. It would be more sustainable that way.

Yes you are right