• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

By Request of Dittohead not: Proposal: A Negative Income Tax

Proposal: A Negative Income Tax

  • Very Liberal: For

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Liberal: Against

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Conservative: For

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Very Conservative: Against

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,485
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dittohead not said:
Sounds like something liberals and conservatives could agree on. There aren't many issues like that.
cpwill said:
Nah. I betcha if I turned this into a poll, it would be rejected by both sides, but more by liberals.
I think you're wrong.
Try it and see.

Outlined best in this thread here, where I tied it to a Perfectly Progressive Flat Tax on Income, which is not part of this poll (only vote on the structure of the NIT proposal, not on the tax proposal, or specific rates).


Proposed: Replace the amalgamation of federal welfare programs (not including Medicaid, which is it's own bucket of worms) for our low income families with a Negative Income Tax that taxes at a rate of -50% of all not monies earned below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line, to be distributed bi-monthly.


The Federal Poverty Levels at current do not distinguish between children and adults, but state that it is $11,770 for a household of 1 and $15,930 for a household of 2. I extrapolate from that to create an FPL of $11,770 per adult, and $4,160 per child.


Work Requirements: 20 hours of work for a single-adult, and 30 hours of work for a married-couple. Work includes, but is not limited to: paid employment, volunteer work, and (for those on unemployment) a combination of volunteer work and/or job-search activities. Attending an educational or training program counts as 10 hours of work per week, unless that training program also pays (such as, for example, police academy, or an apprenticeship), in which case the full hours worked will count towards the requirement. Like in Maine, volunteer opportunities would be made available to those unable to find employment (just as the unemployment office now works to link unemployed persons with job offerings).

Child Support Requirement: For children of unmarried parents, 1/2 of the FPL for the child will be subtracted from the subsidy of the non-caregiver and given to the caregiver parent to take care of the child's needs. Each parent of a child will support the child.

Delay-Based Incentives: People currently on government assistance face high real nominal tax rates via the loss of benefits - occasionally seeing rates of more than 100% (see full proposal thread for a breakdown of some of this), which strongly discourages advancement and helps trap people in poverty. While this proposal can reduce that rate, in order to avoid further disincentivizing advancement, any reduction in subsidy will be delayed by 1 or 2 months (so, every raise not only gets you a raise, but a bonus), whereas any increase in subsidy as a result of loss of pay will be reflected in the next pay period. In this way we can pay people more for working more, without creating a budget buster.

Cost: The cost of this program above was covered by the replacement of the programs. The Federal Government spent $383 Bn on non-Medicaid welfare (SNAP, TANF, etc) in 2016. It spent an additional $150 Bn on SSDI. The EITC is worth about $70 Bn, and the Child Tax Credit is about $60 Billion. Recognizing that the program in the full proposal would replace the full child tax credit (as well as all other tax credits), but in this poll only replaces it for those below 200% of the FPL, we divide the Tax Expenditure Savings by 2/3rds to give us $40 Bn, for a total amount of $643 Billion. I'm unsure offhand how to calculate in the savings seen by additionally getting rid of the Standard Deduction for low income families (since those families are now paying a negative rate instead of a positive one), but they will additionally be significant.
 
L:KJWQ#EPO(J(O#)($j#$)(@)(#@)(#@)U(#@)(*!!!!!!! :mad:


MODS: The site timed out, I had to copy/paste, and I forgot THE DAMN POLL.

Could you please insert a poll (where we can see who voted where) of:


Very Liberal: For
Very Liberal: Against
Liberal: For
Liberal: Against
Moderate: For
Moderate: Against
Conservative: For
Conservative: Against
Very Conservative: For
Very Conservative: Against

?

Thank you kindly :-/
 
L:KJWQ#EPO(J(O#)($j#$)(@)(#@)(#@)U(#@)(*!!!!!!! :mad:


MODS: The site timed out, I had to copy/paste, and I forgot THE DAMN POLL.

Could you please insert a poll (where we can see who voted where) of:


Very Liberal: For
Very Liberal: Against
Liberal: For
Liberal: Against
Moderate: For
Moderate: Against
Conservative: For
Conservative: Against
Very Conservative: For
Very Conservative: Against

?

Thank you kindly :-/

Done.
 
What would a Full-Nerd Thread by cpwill be without Excel-based examples?

I went through and modified the spreadsheet I built for the earlier figures, and (because this interests me) combined this with my Social Security Proposal, wherein the NIT Subsidy became taxable by FICA once the FPL had been passed.


Joe.jpg

Rachel.jpg

Roger.jpg
 
Outlined best in this thread here, where I tied it to a Perfectly Progressive Flat Tax on Income, which is not part of this poll (only vote on the structure of the NIT proposal, not on the tax proposal, or specific rates).


Proposed: Replace the amalgamation of federal welfare programs (not including Medicaid, which is it's own bucket of worms) for our low income families with a Negative Income Tax that taxes at a rate of -50% of all not monies earned below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line, to be distributed bi-monthly.


The Federal Poverty Levels at current do not distinguish between children and adults, but state that it is $11,770 for a household of 1 and $15,930 for a household of 2. I extrapolate from that to create an FPL of $11,770 per adult, and $4,160 per child.


Work Requirements: 20 hours of work for a single-adult, and 30 hours of work for a married-couple. Work includes, but is not limited to: paid employment, volunteer work, and (for those on unemployment) a combination of volunteer work and/or job-search activities. Attending an educational or training program counts as 10 hours of work per week, unless that training program also pays (such as, for example, police academy, or an apprenticeship), in which case the full hours worked will count towards the requirement. Like in Maine, volunteer opportunities would be made available to those unable to find employment (just as the unemployment office now works to link unemployed persons with job offerings).

Child Support Requirement: For children of unmarried parents, 1/2 of the FPL for the child will be subtracted from the subsidy of the non-caregiver and given to the caregiver parent to take care of the child's needs. Each parent of a child will support the child.

Delay-Based Incentives: People currently on government assistance face high real nominal tax rates via the loss of benefits - occasionally seeing rates of more than 100% (see full proposal thread for a breakdown of some of this), which strongly discourages advancement and helps trap people in poverty. While this proposal can reduce that rate, in order to avoid further disincentivizing advancement, any reduction in subsidy will be delayed by 1 or 2 months (so, every raise not only gets you a raise, but a bonus), whereas any increase in subsidy as a result of loss of pay will be reflected in the next pay period. In this way we can pay people more for working more, without creating a budget buster.

Cost: The cost of this program above was covered by the replacement of the programs. The Federal Government spent $383 Bn on non-Medicaid welfare (SNAP, TANF, etc) in 2016. It spent an additional $150 Bn on SSDI. The EITC is worth about $70 Bn, and the Child Tax Credit is about $60 Billion. Recognizing that the program in the full proposal would replace the full child tax credit (as well as all other tax credits), but in this poll only replaces it for those below 200% of the FPL, we divide the Tax Expenditure Savings by 2/3rds to give us $40 Bn, for a total amount of $643 Billion. I'm unsure offhand how to calculate in the savings seen by additionally getting rid of the Standard Deduction for low income families (since those families are now paying a negative rate instead of a positive one), but they will additionally be significant.

Maybe I missed it, but Social Security should go too. And housing allowances etc would also stop as well as the casts for public servants in almost all social programs.

Other than that I guess I would have to look at the exact details. But some sort of guaranteed basic income or negative income system is almost certainly better than our present hodgepodge of bureaucratic measures.

PS; I can't really answer the poll, because I am not any of the political catagories. More a libertarian conservative.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I missed it, but Social Security should go too.

:shrug: the system I linked to in post #4 is designed to replace Social Security with individual accounts over time, providing guaranteed minimum benefits during the transition period. It's time to getting back to having Parents save for themselves and their Children, rather than having Children play catch up to save for themselves while also trying to pay for their Parents.

And housing allowances etc would also stop as well as the casts for public servants in almost all social programs.

"Housing" was a subcategory of "General Welfare" in the link. States can continue to have whatever program they wish - this is purely a federal proposal.

Other than that I guess I would have to look at the exact details. But some sort of guaranteed basic income or negative income system is almost certainly better than our present hodgepodge of bureaucratic measures.

I think we lose a lot with the guaranteed basic income because of the lack of work-requirements. If we pay people to be indolent, a significant portion will be tempted into that.
 
Good job, cpwill. I'll be checking from time to time to see if you were right.
 
Good job, cpwill. I'll be checking from time to time to see if you were right.
LOL, maybe we were both optimistic. You that they would vote for it, and me that they would care about policy sans partisanship.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
LOL, maybe we were both optimistic. You that they would vote for it, and me that they would care about policy sans partisanship.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

It's starting to look that way. Maybe the members here are more interested in partisanship than issues.
 
Hmm.

I'll take a look at this when I have time. At the very least, it seems worth looking into.
 
Back
Top Bottom