Universal Basic Income vs. Negative Income Tax?

[Globalist Cosmopolitan]

Automation is destroying an ample amount of jobs. According to PwC, 38% of US jobs will be automated by 2030. Many, such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, have endorsed implementing a UBI. Many have suggested implementing a negative income tax as an alternative to a universal basic income. Which one do you prefer?

I'd prefer a negative income tax.

[parochial boy]

UBI, but it is nowhere near being a sufficient response to automation. The major danger with UBI is that is would allow us to paper over the gaps, and happily see society become dominated by a tiny capitalist class who hold all the levers of economic power.

If automation is to be that widespread, I believe it will require some form of genuine democratic ownership of most of the economy.

[Strudelcutie4427]

I honestly think we should take an "Amish Approach" to this. Automation is becoming a big problem and eventually the time will come where there are no jobs left. I really think we have enough technology right now as it is, and i see further development a more of a threat than a benefit

[vanguard96]

I think half of the automation people probably would have said the same thing in the 19th century.

It's a fear of the unknown coupled with lack of vision of the potential for new types of jobs that will be around when automation will be further occurring.

For the original question though I would not give it to everyone - and I would eliminate all other means tested benefits and eventually phase out of all entitlements as the system here in the US is running aground. A negative income tax was proposed as a least worst alternative in this case by Milton Friedman, Charles Murray (yes, the Bell Curve guy), and F.A. Hayek at one time or another even though none were very eager about it and gave a lot of qualifications.

The big issue is the disincentive of leaving welfare and other public assistance, the so-called 'benefits cliff'. Right now the benefits go away quickly so people are discouraged from taking raises, promotions and such because doing so will immediately remove benefits and subsidies worth far more than the raise. But if they don't take the promotion they will stay in the same place and dependent.

Many other libertarians do not care for the disincentives of the UBI and wonder about how it would work in today's world of special interests and in the US with the poor record of rolling out programs they predict it to be a disaster.

Other critics particularly on the GOP side wonder about fraud - and I suspect would have a lot of strings to how the money is spent so as not to waste it. While the altruistic types wonder about how to care for people that are irresponsible with the UBI money or still fail.

I say if there was a system like this it would be only one shot and then you have to ask for charity. Some can't accept that. I say, look at cases on social media or the news of people and companies donating to those who are having hard times as a sign of non-governmental aid that does occur and can warm their hearts.

[Lechasseur]

I honestly think we should take an "Amish Approach" to this. Automation is becoming a big problem and eventually the time will come where there are no jobs left. I really think we have enough technology right now as it is, and i see further development a more of a threat than a benefit

Agreed

[Lechasseur]

I haven't studied the issue enough to be honest, but my instinct le ans towards Negative Income Tax

[RI]

A classical NIT preserves incentives to work while a UBI does not.

[Kingpoleon]

A basic income that guarantees everyone who makes less than $15,000 the amount of up to $15,000 a year that also makes sure no one will lose money by taking a raise.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A classical NIT preserves incentives to work while a UBI does not.

Isn't it the opposite? With NIT, if you're below the level, you'll make the same amount regardless of whether you work or not, whereas with UBI you just add it on top of whatever else you earn.

I'm actually not sure which one is best. I'd prefer UBI if feasible, but the amounts of money you need to raise to pay for it is pretty daunting.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A classical NIT preserves incentives to work while a UBI does not.

Isn't it the opposite? With NIT, if you're below the level, you'll make the same amount regardless of whether you work or not, whereas with UBI you just add it on top of whatever else you earn.

I'm actually not sure which one is best. I'd prefer UBI if feasible, but the amounts of money you need to raise to pay for it is pretty daunting.

With NIT, you don't earn the same regardless of whether you work, but would be closer than with a UBI. 
For NIT with a $30k standard deduction for example, and NIT rate of 50%, $0 becomes $15k, $10k becomes $20k, $20k becomes $25k, and $30k is $30k.

[The Self]

All good libertarians must support a private-sector UBI.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A classical NIT preserves incentives to work while a UBI does not.

Isn't it the opposite? With NIT, if you're below the level, you'll make the same amount regardless of whether you work or not, whereas with UBI you just add it on top of whatever else you earn.

I'm actually not sure which one is best. I'd prefer UBI if feasible, but the amounts of money you need to raise to pay for it is pretty daunting.

With NIT, you don't earn the same regardless of whether you work, but would be closer than with a UBI. 
For NIT with a $30k standard deduction for example, and NIT rate of 50%, $0 becomes $15k, $10k becomes $20k, $20k becomes $25k, and $30k is $30k.

Huh, I see. That sounds a bit baroque, but I would be OK with it as long as the baseline were sufficiently high (15K seems reasonable).

[Blue3]

I thought Negative Income Tax was Universal Basic Income?

[mencken]

Could we table discussion about paying the least successful members of society (even more than we already do) until obesity among the American poor becomes a nonissue? Surely the presence of abundant stored excess calories ought to indicate that their basic needs are being met (and then some) in the most literal sense.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The best thing about UBI is that it also eliminates a huge swath of the government bureaucracy.

"Income equality" isn't a problem, poverty is. Once we can address the latter, the socialists yapping about the former are exposed for simple cash-grabbers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

UBI must be understood as a supplement to existing welfare programs, NOT a replacement.