• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • mumblerfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sure, but their’s is not flat

      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.