ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th April 2019, 11:09 AM   #361
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you have a source on that?
It was Milton Friedman's original idea. Unfortunately, most explanations about NIT are so poor that many don't get this. Average and marginal tax rates are two entirely different things.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 11:17 AM   #362
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It was Milton Friedman's original idea. Unfortunately, most explanations about NIT are so poor that many don't get this. Average and marginal tax rates are two entirely different things.
I first learned about it in a youtube video of him talking about it, and he never said (in that video) what you're saying.
Where did he say what you're saying?

eta: here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2019 at 11:19 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:34 PM   #363
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
* GROAN * Not a YouTube! And one that is so soft that I can't understand what they are saying to boot!! If you want me to know the actual words that Friedman used then you will need to find something in print.

As an example of poorly worded descriptions of NIT, consider this:
Quote:
Theoretically, this would work by giving people a percentage of the difference between their income and an income cutoff, or the level at which they start paying income tax. For instance, if the income cutoff was set at $40,000, and the negative income tax percentage was 50 percent, someone who made $20,000 would receive $10,000 from the government. If they made $35,000, they would receive $2,500 from the government. (This is different from a universal basic income in which everyone, regardless of income level, receives the same amount of money.)
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-...-tax-explained

It may not be apparent to you but that is saying exactly what I am saying.

Here is a Wikipedia explanation:
Quote:
Example:
  • The income tax rate is 50%.
  • The tax exemption is $30,000.
  • The subsidy rate is 50% and equal to the income tax rate.
Under this scheme:
  • A person earning $0 would receive $15,000 from the government.
  • A person earning $25,000 would receive $2,500 from the government.
  • A person earning $30,000 would neither receive any money nor pay any tax.
  • A person earning $50,000 would pay a tax of $10,000.
  • A person earning $100,000 would pay a tax of $35,000.
Again, the maths is exactly how I explained it (but this is not obvious).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:57 PM   #364
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
* GROAN * Not a YouTube! And one that is so soft that I can't understand what they are saying to boot!! If you want me to know the actual words that Friedman used then you will need to find something in print.

As an example of poorly worded descriptions of NIT, consider this:

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-...-tax-explained

It may not be apparent to you but that is saying exactly what I am saying.
Well, it's a youtube of Milton Friedman, who was not only very smart but who I believe invented the idea, so it's not the normal "argument by youtube". Sorry about the poor audio quality. There are better quality audio versions out there, too, but it's irrelevant, because I much prefer text-based discussion, as well.

Thanks for the MIT link! OK...

I'm not seeing that quote address any demographic besides the people getting money out of the gov as opposed to paying in. It doesn't rule out or even suggest ruling out progressive taxation above the cutoff.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:03 PM   #365
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
The MIT link never goes into what happens in terms of tax rates to people above the cutoff, either. It just says at the end, after only addressing what happens below the cutoff:

Quote:
Ready to go deeper?
Watch Milton Freidman speak about the negative income tax in this 1968 interview.
...aaaand, they link to the same video I linked to above.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 10:13 PM   #366
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'm not seeing that quote address any demographic besides the people getting money out of the gov as opposed to paying in. It doesn't rule out or even suggest ruling out progressive taxation above the cutoff.
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The MIT link never goes into what happens in terms of tax rates to people above the cutoff, either.
See what I mean about poorly worded explanations (and erroneous conclusions about "cut off")?

Let's look at the Wiki example the way that I would explain it:
Quote:
Example:
  • The income tax rate is 50%.
  • The basic allowance is $15,000.
Under this scheme:
  • A person earning $0 would get an allowance of $15,000 and pay $0 tax for a net receipt of $15,000.
  • A person earning $25,000 would get an allowance of $15,000 and pay $12,500 tax for a net receipt of $2,500.
  • A person earning $30,000 would get an allowance of $15,000 and pay $15,000 tax and would thus neither receive any money nor pay any tax.
  • A person earning $50,000 would get an allowance of $15,000 and pay $25,000 tax so their net tax bill would be $10,000.
  • A person earning $100,000 would get an allowance of $15,000 and pay $50,000 tax so their net tax bill would be $35,000.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 10:36 PM   #367
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
See what I mean about poorly worded explanations (and erroneous conclusions about "cut off")?

Let's look at the Wiki example the way that I would explain it:
This is one of those thing where wiki is not a valid authority. There aren't even any sources listed in that section! It's pure wiki writers/editors. That's not evidence.

We do know Friedman was not a fan in general of progressive income taxation. But the concept of a NIT is not limited to TF's opinions on revenue generation.

I can't find anything besides the "welfare" (what happens below the cutoff, where people are getting money and not paying in) aspect defined in any of the scientific literature on the topic. NIT apparently only refers to what happens "below the cutoff". I'm more than open to actual evidence that such is not the case, though.

All that said, I found this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/b...cene.html?_r=2

Quote:
In the face of huge budget deficits, is such a program affordable? In an article in 1943, “The Spendings Tax as a Wartime Fiscal Measure,” Mr. Friedman proposed a progressive consumption tax as the best source of revenue to meet critical national objectives. In addition to reporting their incomes to the I.R.S., people would also report their savings, as they do now for 401(k) plans. The difference between income and savings is annual consumption. That amount, less a standard deduction, would be taxed at progressive rates. High tax rates on consumption by the wealthy, Mr. Friedman argued, would generate additional revenue with only minimal sacrifice.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2019 at 10:40 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 10:52 PM   #368
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
This is one of those thing where wiki is not a valid authority. There aren't even any sources listed in that section! It's pure wiki writers/editors. That's not evidence.

I only chose Wiki because the example was more detailed. The MIT example can be explained in the same manner:
Quote:
Theoretically, this would work by giving people an allowance and the net money received or paid would be the of the difference between that allowance and the income income tax payable. For instance, if the allowance was set at $20,000, and the income tax percentage was 50 percent, someone who made $20,000 would receive $20,000-$10,000 for a net of $10,000 from the government. If they made $35,000, they would receive $20,000-$17,500 for a net of $2,500 from the government. (This is NOT different from a universal basic income in which everyone, regardless of income level, receives the same allowance.)
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 12th April 2019 at 10:54 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 11:05 PM   #369
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I only chose Wiki because the example was more detailed. The MIT example can be explained in the same manner:
Why did you add a red "not" to the MIT quote?

I'm missing something.

eta: WAIT...I think I see now...

etaa: Nevermind. No, I don't understand. They're just talking about it as a welfare program, and they're ignoring what happens above the cutoff in terms of revenue generation/tax collection.

eta #3: WAIT, I do see it. Ok...(sorry, it's late. I haven't been sleeping well lately. lol)

eta#4: you just altered their whole quote. This is silly. No wonder I was confused. Heh.

No, you can't just take their quote and alter it with your point to prove your evidence-free point. That is not the way this works.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2019 at 11:11 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 11:15 PM   #370
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
ACTUAL quotes from MIT:

Quote:
Theoretically, this would work by giving people a percentage of the difference between their income and an income cutoff, or the level at which they start paying income tax. For instance, if the income cutoff was set at $40,000, and the negative income tax percentage was 50 percent, someone who made $20,000 would receive $10,000 from the government. If they made $35,000, they would receive $2,500 from the government. (This is different from a universal basic income in which everyone, regardless of income level, receives the same amount of money.)
NOTHING there about how to generate revenue/collect taxes, or anything about what happens above the cutoff of $40k.

VERY RELEVANT, from MIT:

Quote:
What is negative income tax? The negative income tax is a way to provide people below a certain income level with money.
They could not be more clear there.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 11:17 PM   #371
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
eta#4: you just altered their whole quote. This is silly. No wonder I was confused. Heh.
Are you arguing that the amounts that the two individuals receive are different under my explanation?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 11:33 PM   #372
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Are you arguing that the amounts that the two individuals receive are different under my explanation?
I don't care about your explanation, because it's based on the false premise that the NIT addresses taxation/revenue generation when it does NOT. It's strictly a welfare scheme for people below a certain income, and nobody besides you and a wiki writer are using it to demonstrate a tax collection policy.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 11:38 PM   #373
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
The bottom line is the ONLY thing that matters. If an alternative explanation gives a different bottom line then it is incorrect. Otherwise, it is correct.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 11:49 PM   #374
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The bottom line is the ONLY thing that matters. If an alternative explanation gives a different bottom line then it is incorrect. Otherwise, it is correct.
Well, the bottom line here is welfare payments to what's generally presumed to be "the poor".

Nothing at all in the NIT about how much or how to tax people above the threshold/cutoff, be it set at $20k, or $40k.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2019 at 11:50 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 12:13 AM   #375
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Nothing at all in the NIT about how much or how to tax people above the threshold/cutoff, be it set at $20k, or $40k.
You say that because you are not reading for comprehension. In the two examples that I gave, the marginal tax rate was 50% for everybody. It doesn't change just because somebody's income crosses the "threshold/cutoff".

Note that nothing about NIT stops us having a "progressive" income tax system (where the marginal rates increase for higher income earners as it does now). However, I understand that Friedman was in favour of flat rate taxation (but I could be wrong about that).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 12:32 AM   #376
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You say that because you are not reading for comprehension. In the two examples that I gave, the marginal tax rate was 50% for everybody. It doesn't change just because somebody's income crosses the "threshold/cutoff".
Which 2 examples? The source-free wiki writer's one, and yours?

Quote:
Note that nothing about NIT stops us having a "progressive" income tax system
That's been my point this whole time.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 13th April 2019 at 12:33 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 12:45 AM   #377
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Which 2 examples? The source-free wiki writer's one, and yours?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 12:57 AM   #378
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So, yes.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 01:23 AM   #379
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
So, yes.
So find an example where the bottom line would be different to that given by my explanation.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 03:56 AM   #380
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So find an example where the bottom line would be different to that given by my explanation.
This is just the very first thing I found, and it indicates that we're both almost right:
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/...33003769204380


Quote:
Although Friedman did not give a numerical example in his 1962 essay, he later suggested that a family of four be given a guarantee of $3,600 per year (1978 dollars) and a negative income tax rate of 50 percent. Thus, the vertical distance AC in Figure 1 would be $3,600, and each dollar of earnings would reduce the benefit by 50 cents. When income reached $7,200, the benefit would reach zero, corresponding to point D in the figure.

Along with improved work incentives, Friedman (1962) noted five other advantages to the negative income tax...Indeed, Friedman also proposed folding the negative income tax into the tax system, integrating its rate with the positive income tax rate and administering it through the Internal Revenue Service. In Friedman’s view, this integration of the positive and negative income tax would reduce invidious distinctions between the poor and nonpoor or, in modern parlance, reduce stigma
Here's what the positive tax rates were in 1961:

https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1962
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 13th April 2019 at 04:09 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 04:05 AM   #381
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
We really need this discussion split from one about a UNIVERSAL basic income along the line of Yang's proposal, IMO. This is a very, very different thing from giving absolutely everyone $1k a month, regardless of income.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 04:39 AM   #382
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
We really need this discussion split from one about a UNIVERSAL basic income along the line of Yang's proposal, IMO. This is a very, very different thing from giving absolutely everyone $1k a month, regardless of income.
The essential difference between UBI and NIT is that UBI doesn't specify where the money comes from while NIT expects the income tax system to pay for the handouts.

Many countries already practise a limited form of NIT (but on a much smaller scale). Each tax payer gets a general tax rebate that comes off their tax bill. This rebate is usually incorporated in the tax scales so it is not obvious. However, the rebate does not exceed the tax that is otherwise payable so, nothing for the have-nots.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 13th April 2019 at 04:40 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 05:03 AM   #383
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The essential difference between UBI and NIT is that UBI doesn't specify where the money comes from while NIT expects the income tax system to pay for the handouts.
Incorrect.
The primary difference now that we've left the gold standard completely is that a NIT is "welfare" for the poor, whereas a UBI gives money to everyone equally, as in Yang's $1k a month for every adult under age 65 proposal.

Quote:
Many countries already practise a limited form of NIT (but on a much smaller scale). Each tax payer gets a general tax rebate that comes off their tax bill. This rebate is usually incorporated in the tax scales so it is not obvious. However, the rebate does not exceed the tax that is otherwise payable so, nothing for the have-nots.
No idea what you're talking about, but okay, if you say so. It's irrelevant.

ETA:

Quote:
UBI doesn't specify where the money comes from
Yang says the money for his UBI will come from a 10% VAT mostly, but his math is WAY WAY off as far as I can tell.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 13th April 2019 at 05:05 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 05:44 AM   #384
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Also relevant:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
Quote:
The NIT experiments were the first large-scale social experiment to use the scientific
method of randomly assigning human subjects into treatment and control groups just as
medical researchers do when testing drugs. Some social scientists have called them, “experiments in how to conduct experiments,
” and it is arguable that they had larger influence on future social experiments than in the examination of the policy they were designed to test.

The primary aim of the NIT experiments was to test the side effects rather than the effects of a basic income guarantee. The central goal of an income support program is to raise the welfare of the destitute, and that it can do that is something that does not need to be tested.

Although the effect on poverty of most social policies (AFDC, TANF, EITC, job training,
education, etc.) requires testing, the conclusion that an NIT with a guarantee rate at the poverty line can eliminate poverty is true by definition

The effects of the negative income tax on health, homeownership, low-birthweight,
school performance, and other indicators of the well-being of recipients were tested and
reported in many studies...Most of these studies show
positive effects, even for hard-to-change variables such as school performance and low birthweight, but discussion of these effects is beyond the scope of this paper. For an overview of some of these effects see Levine et al. (2004).

Another side effect, the effect of the experiments on the divorce rate inspired a large
amount of controversy...but these findings are also beyond the scope of this paper)
Quote:
Table 1 summarizes the basic facts of the five NIT experiments. The first, the New Jersey Graduated Work Incentive Experiment (sometimes called the New Jersey-Pennsylvania Negative Income Tax Experiment or simply the New Jersey Experiment), was conducted from 1968 to 1972. The researchers originally planned to conduct the entire experiment in New Jersey, but they were unable to find enough poor whites there and had to open a second location in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania to round out a racially representative sample. The treatment group originally consisted of 1216 people and dwindled to 983 (due to drop outs) by the conclusion of the experiment. The sample size consisted of black, white, and Latino, two-parent families with incomes below 150% of the poverty line, and with a male “head,” who was not approaching retirement.2 Treatment group recipients received a guaranteed income for 3 years.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 05:51 AM   #385
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,072
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yang says the money for his UBI will come from a 10% VAT mostly, but his math is WAY WAY off as far as I can tell.
Assuming that the money comes from VAT rather than income taxes, the higher wage earners will still pay more of the tax which is mathematically the same as getting less UBI.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 05:57 AM   #386
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Assuming that the money comes from VAT rather than income taxes, the higher wage earners will still pay more of the tax which is mathematically the same as getting less UBI.
I'm not sure how the highlighted part is even relevant.

Try doing the math on how much it would cost to give $1k a month to every man and woman between ages 18 and 65 in the United States.

How much is that a year?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 06:18 AM   #387
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
I'm seeing roughly one hundred ninety million adults between ages 18 and 65 in the US.

That's one hundred ninety-five billion, two hundred million dollars a month.

Times 12 months is two trillion three hundred forty-two billion four hundred million.

How would that not cause inflation? How could a 10% VAT even touch that?

The entire US GPD is 19.39 trillion.

Yang says:

Quote:
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
Err...actually, that does add up.

Huh.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 06:20 AM   #388
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
I am officially changing my position to "agnostic and curious" about Yang's UBI.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 06:55 AM   #389
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,218
The problem with UBI is not a mathematical one, or a financial one. It's a human psychology one: people resent the notion of other people getting something for nothing. Even if it doesn't hurt them in the slightest. Even if it makes sense. Even if the data absolutely proves it's better than any other system.

The only way to implement UBI in a democracy is to do it disguised as something else, so it's not obviously UBI.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 07:04 AM   #390
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The problem with UBI is not a mathematical one, or a financial one. It's a human psychology one: people resent the notion of other people getting something for nothing. Even if it doesn't hurt them in the slightest. Even if it makes sense. Even if the data absolutely proves it's better than any other system.

The only way to implement UBI in a democracy is to do it disguised as something else, so it's not obviously UBI.
But they don't resent it when they're getting it themselves, too. Only Wall Street and far, far right republicans hate social security, for example. Nobody resents poor people using the interstates or the national forests besides the libertarians. No one resents free fire dept service for people who don't pay property taxes.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 13th April 2019 at 07:05 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 07:11 AM   #391
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,218
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
But they don't resent it when they're getting it themselves, too. Only Wall Street and far, far right republicans hate social security, for example. Nobody resents poor people using the interstates or the national forests besides the libertarians. No one resents free fire dept service for people who don't pay property taxes.
I think you're overly optimistic about what other people resent.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 07:13 AM   #392
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think you're overly optimistic about what other people resent.
They hate "the poor" in general, but love their own benefits more, it seems.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 08:29 AM   #393
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,067
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yang says the money for his UBI will come from a 10% VAT mostly, but his math is WAY WAY off as far as I can tell.
He says the money will come from VAT, plus savings from current welfare and other programs, plus savings from other costs that he claims will be reduced, like the prison system, plus new revenues caused by an economic boost from UBI itself.

I might be missing something, and it’s entirely possible that his math is still wrong or at least optimistic, but one of those sources falling short of the total in no way shows that the sum of all of them does.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 08:43 AM   #394
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
He says the money will come from VAT, plus savings from current welfare and other programs, plus savings from other costs that he claims will be reduced, like the prison system, plus new revenues caused by an economic boost from UBI itself.

I might be missing something, and it’s entirely possible that his math is still wrong or at least optimistic, but one of those sources falling short of the total in no way shows that the sum of all of them does.
See my updates in posts 387 and 388.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 10:54 AM   #395
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
We really need this discussion split from one about a UNIVERSAL basic income along the line of Yang's proposal, IMO. This is a very, very different thing from giving absolutely everyone $1k a month, regardless of income.
Let's say the UBI is 1000 and there is a flat tax of 50%. Then the formular for what you owe in taxes is:
income tax owed = 0.5* income - 1000

If your income is 0 then you owe -1000. IE you receive 1000 instead of having to pay. If your income is 1000, then you owe -500; meaning that you get 500 in addition to your income of 1000.
At twice the UBI you break even and neither pay taxes nor receive negative taxes.

Naturally one could also introduce multiple tax brackets instead of having a flat tax.

Mathematically there is no difference between this and giving everyone the UBI tax free and taxing the first dollar they make.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 10:56 AM   #396
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The problem with UBI is not a mathematical one, or a financial one. It's a human psychology one: people resent the notion of other people getting something for nothing. Even if it doesn't hurt them in the slightest. Even if it makes sense. Even if the data absolutely proves it's better than any other system.

The only way to implement UBI in a democracy is to do it disguised as something else, so it's not obviously UBI.
Those are my thoughts, too. It would have to be justified as a form of citizen's dividend along the lines of what they have in Alaska.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 11:04 AM   #397
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,622
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Those are my thoughts, too. It would have to be justified as a form of citizen's dividend along the lines of what they have in Alaska.

Well, Yang already calls it "Freedom Dividend" in public appearances. What could be more American than that?
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2019, 11:12 AM   #398
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,061
Vaguely on topic: https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1116803201817284614
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 08:03 AM   #399
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,767
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The problem with UBI is not a mathematical one, or a financial one. It's a human psychology one: people resent the notion of other people getting something for nothing. Even if it doesn't hurt them in the slightest. Even if it makes sense. Even if the data absolutely proves it's better than any other system.

The only way to implement UBI in a democracy is to do it disguised as something else, so it's not obviously UBI.
That’s why Yang wants to call it the Freedom Dividend. Who is against Freedom? Only Commies! Who is against dividends? I don’t know, but it sounds good and maybe the Commies hat them too.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 10:57 AM   #400
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,099
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The problem with UBI is not a mathematical one, or a financial one. It's a human psychology one: people resent the notion of other people getting something for nothing. Even if it doesn't hurt them in the slightest. Even if it makes sense. Even if the data absolutely proves it's better than any other system.

The only way to implement UBI in a democracy is to do it disguised as something else, so it's not obviously UBI.
I think you’re on to something, but not sure I agree entirely.

For example, the folks who would philosophically oppose UBI don’t lament lottery winners or people who inherit fortunes.

So it’s more to do with rewarding perceived laziness at the expense of those who work.

Viscerally I’m sympathetic to this viewpoint. But I acknowledge that at some point there may simply not be enough valuable work to afford everyone a decent living in a given economy.
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.