[spacetime_cmplx]

Negative income tax is an alternative to UBI, but it's discussed less often. Does anyone know why? I feel it should be easier to implement (plugs right into the existing tax system), should be cheaper (the more you earn, the less you get), and feels more in line with the progressive tax system, whereas UBI feels like an extremely coarse first approximation.

Essentially, the tax curve starts at 0 and goes up. Why not shift it down? There's nothing special about 0.

[david-gpu]

I agree that combining UBI with the existing income taxes seems like a sensible way to implement it.

It also automatically makes it available to every legal tax resident, regardless of whether they are in the country via a work permit, a residence permit, or citizenship. Taxing somebody and not providing them with an UBI would be unfair.

[s1artibartfast]

Because negative income tax credits and tax deductions are already common place and boring.

The US has a $3000 child tax credit which applies to approximately 80 million children [1]

The US has a $13,000 tax deduction, taken by >200 million people

last, Lower income folks making less than 20k already get ~40K of benefits, credits, and deductions.[2]

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/child-tax...

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-warped-welfare-syste...

[mach1ne]

UBI is easier to understand conceptually. There could be more advantages to it though, over negative income tax, but they’re a bit difficult to discover.