NIT versus UBI

Give your best argument has to why negative income tax is better than universal basic income.

NIT: any work shif must pay more $ than the state pays someone to do nothing; small businesses can't hire someone, no matter how quick or easy the job is, unless they can beat the state's offer; big businesses have great incentives to lobby to keep the NIT value low enough that their pay is attractive enough to potential workers, but high enough that small businesses can't afford to offer competitive pay; the state must keep tabs on everybody's income.

UBI: in the end, working always gets you more $ than not working, UBI isn't something you get for not working enough unlike the NIT, it is something you get on top of the $ you get from working; small businesses can employ anyone that thinks the pay is worth their time, they aren't competing with the state; big businesses have less incentives to lobby for lower UBI (could relive tax burden but would also lower demand for their products because consumers would have less $ to spend) and raising UBI wouldn't push small businesses out of the market (the small businesspersons can put $ from their own UBIs into the paychecks of her employees); the state only needs to keep tabs on who is alive (since that is the only requirement for UBI) and would only have to concern itself with the income of the super-wealthy (who, in theory, could still keep most of their profits as long as there was still enough $ going into the state to pay UBI to everyone).

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Could you give more reading on UBI?

I always thought it was shitty govt handouts but this is a conpelling argument

If the productivity pay gap is fixed, there's no need for any of that.

Universal Basic Income is more fair than negative income tax, although more expensive as well. Personally I support UBI over NIT.

Free market is the best alternative.

Less money goes to managing a byzantine bureaucracy which is what both NIT and the current systems require. I'd argue that UBI is a better use of the tax-payers' money.

The $ difference between UBI and living expenses could, instead of being blown off on movie tickets, be saved to start new private businesses by individuals or pooled by a large collective to start a new private business by a cooperative. Researchers could do something like this too, reducing influence of corporations and political parties on scientific research. People that already have their businesses can invest their UBI on those, to keep up with market trends. Hard-working parents wouldn't be burdened by their NEET children. UBI could massively reduce private debt and actually make the market more dynamic.

That's true. Before we implement either though, we have to make sure that we can survive off of almost entirely automation alone, because I don't know about you but as soon as either is implemented I'm embracing full NEET-life.

Sounds too good to be true. What about inflation though? There's no way people would always agree to increase the amount every five years or so, in order to adjust with the inflation.

what about just paying workers more

You could always meet half way and have the gub/biz go 50/50 up until a certain point.

I heard distributism was a nice third way ideology, does it even work?

Stop with your distributism meme. It's just a stupid oxymoronic dialectical synthesis or capitalism and socialism that attempts to appease capitalist ideological sensibilities while trying to accomplish what socialism aims to accomplish.

There's nothing special about distributism except that it doesn't make sense because it tries to take only the "good" from both ideologies without actually being a coherent system.

>What about inflation though?
>Implying inflation has non-monetary causes

1. If needed, and you think 5 years is a good time block, instead of voting on UBI every five years, UBI could be indexed to quinquenal inflation.
2. Central bank doesn't need to emit as much money because there is less need to ease debt (you get enough to get by without borrowing) or lowering unemployment by depreciating wages (UBI is supposed to make up for the loss of jobs to automation, after all).

What think?

I used to be in favor of UBI, but came to realize it would just be a way to put capitalism on life support.
Corporate lobbying would be used to keep the UBI as low as they possibly could, meaning a massive amount of people would still live shitty lives, and be under constant pressure.

So, the revolution needs to happen before a UBI is implemented, otherwise it will, honest to god, lead to the eventual undoing of society.

Why should someone living under UBI have anything other than a shitty life? As soon as UBI is implemented I'm never going to work ever again, so why should I be expected to have a comfortable life?

....

Is UBI a sign that capitalism is on it's death bed? it's literally trying to sustain market consumption by giving workers money to buy products since their labor will no longer be needed under mass automation

Yes, exactly.

People have talked about it for decades, but only now is it starting to be actually necessary to implement to prevent the market collapsing completely.

I thought the point of BOTH was that you effectively eliminate wellfare traps so it's always better to do SOME work than NO work, financially. Unlike many systems currently in use where you instantly lose a significant portion of your benefits if your income is above certain point, and therefore it can be better to have a shitty part time job(or no job at all) than a shitty full time job because the latter would put you above the threshold mentioned above.

Keeping UBI as low as possible is the same as keeping demand for their products as low as possible. Unless there is only a single corporation or person paying for everybody's UBI (which would be the same as a non-democratic totalitarian state in a non-market economy), the upper class and for-profit organizations are incentived to hold each other accountable (avoinding free-riders at the top), or the the tax burden for UBI would fall disproportionately on themselves (as nobody else could effectively be taxed).

>trying to sustain market consumption by giving workers money to buy products since their labor will no longer be needed
This sentence doesn't make sense. If the means of production can be run without employees, then the managers of the means of production are effectively the only workers left. Everybody else only enjoys the products of the labour of the few workers left.

UBI eliminates the welfare trap because you always get the same in addition to your work's pay. NIT not so much, because the closer your pay gets to the number the state has set, the less the state pays you.

That is a fair point, but I don't think it would work that way.

People are irrationally attached to their possessions when it comes to the state taking off their money.

Watch Kurzgesagt explanation of UBI. It's a really good youtube channel and the description has the sources of the studies they cite
youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc

Capitalists have no reason to implement UBI, because the money for UBI comes from their own pockets. They are literally better off just letting everybody starve and having the factories produce stuff solely for themselves.