Should we adopt a Negative Income Tax?

What are the arguments against just doing what loads of people say and taxing the **** out of big corporations (say only let the CEO have about £10 million at most out of the billion he makes a year), then giving everyone the basic income, for security, raising minimum wage to a decent level, and not taxing workers earning under about £100,000-200,000 a year (or maybe more)?

Yeah I know, but pretty real figures are needed to demonstrate how it'd be a suitable replacement.

Thats pedantry really, the outcome is the same. 'Bedroom tax' ring any bells? Even if its not technically a tax, its the withdrawal of income at a set rate.

If we did it all over the world though.

Yeah simples.

But even then - WHICH UK COMPANIES PAY THEIR CEO £1bn?!?!?

I wouldn't call it pedantry at all... removing benefits and taxing someone are two distinct things. It bugs me when politicians conflate them.

Sorry that was just an example figure. Hadn't looked into it...I don't take much interest in politics/economics. I was just wondering why we couldn't do this. Just seemed like an easy solution.

Its not an easy solution when your figures are so massively out of whack.

The CEO of BP, the UK's largest listed company (well top three at least) last year pocketed £9m in total renumeration - ie including pension contributions.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/06/bob-dudley-chief-executive-bp-triples-pay

http://www.theconversative.com/commentary/should-the-conservative-party-adopt-a-negative-income-tax/

what do you think? Is it time for a negative income tax?

That's not great ... we could let him have £1 million, and impose this is a worldwide rule. You get 1 million at most a year.

That's not great ... we could let him have £1 million, and impose this is a worldwide rule. You get 1 million at most a year.

Yeah its not gonna raise much money though...

And why would the USA or Japanese sign up to this?

We could tax wealth as well as income. Apparently most wealth is concentrated with a few people. It doesn't seem like the most efficient use of the money.

How about this, each country imposes this law, but it gets to keep the taxes for spending in its own country.

That way, we deter people from emigrating to pay less tax, and most people of each country will want to vote it in because it will lift them out of their low standard of living.

'No'.

Primarily, I oppose the citizens income. I don't think each person is entitled to the same level of help from the state and I think that it does not address the primary issue putting people into relative poverty which is slow wage growth.

I agree with curtailing welfare over a set amount but i'd rather just use some of those savings to increase the money you get from existing benefits if needed or better yet use it to provide all job seekers with a bus pass for example so that their existing benefits go further.

I can see why a lot of people like it and indeed libertarians seem especially bullish but i'm not a fan personally (though I do support a large increase in the minimum wage and measures to increase wage growth generally).

The problem with the existing system in dealing with poverty is that so many do not know what they are entitled to. That means they don't collect. That means they suffer poverty needlessly. The current system fails those who most need it. It is bureaucratic, ineffective, and expensive. By adopting a negative income tax policy we can help more people for less money. Fine, a few 'undesirables' get benefit as well, but in my opinion, that comes second to helping those people that actually need it.

While I haven't included it within the article, we should also remember that most crime results from poverty. By tackling all poverty, for everyone, we can reduce crime significantly.

I agree entirely but that's an argument for the IDS universal benefit in my opinion along with greater transparency in the system (perhaps one could register to vote online once a year and at the same time be obligated to go through a process which tells them what state help they are entitled to).

Loosely but Brown (though I hate to admit it) and the coalition appear to have had some success here (at least in my area and my wider perception anyway).

You may not have noticed, but universal credit is turning out to be a failure - why? Because of the complexity of the system.

You may not have noticed, but universal credit is turning out to be a failure - why? Because of the complexity of the system.

Yeah simples.

But even then - WHICH UK COMPANIES PAY THEIR CEO £1bn?!?!?

The rich have unlimited funds and owe the poor everything.

Where have you been?