Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we adopt a Negative Income Tax? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theconversative.com/comme...ve-income-tax/

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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I quite like the idea of a citizen's income. Its simple and cheap to administer.

    Politically there are too many special interest groups who would't like it for it to be workable but hey ho.

    And people working 40hr weeks to get taxed 50% ending up £6k better off than someone who didn't bother working at all seems warped.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So, as in that example there, if you earn £20k, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you? Is this not effectively introducing a 33% income tax for those earning £20k?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    So, as in that example there, if you earn £20k, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you? Is this not effectively introducing a 33% income tax for those earning £20k?
    In that example. They did say it was an example.

    You could have it as:
    Citizen income £12k
    12-15k - taxed 10%
    15-20k - taxed 20%
    20-30k - taxed 30%
    30-40k - taxed 40%
    40k+ - taxed 45%
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    I quite like the idea of a citizen's income. Its simple and cheap to administer.

    Politically there are too many special interest groups who would't like it for it to be workable but hey ho.

    And people working 40hr weeks to get taxed 50% ending up £6k better off than someone who didn't bother working at all seems warped.
    The figures used were purely representative of the mechanism - we can argue about the figures later. The article was just about the principle.

    And they aren't being taxed. When you earn more, the amount you receive in basic income is reduced. Which seems entirely fair. It has a fairer withdrawal rate than the current system.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I thought this was a green party policy. Would most conservatives agree to this?

    I like this idea, but mainly because it would mean I wouldn't have to work if I didn't want to and would get a basic standard of living.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think you guys have misunderstood this. I'll try and explain it for you.

    Income from work: £0.
    Cut-off: £20,000
    Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£0)) x 50%) + income = £10,000
    Final income: £10,000

    Income from work: £10,000.
    Cut-off: £20,000
    Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£10,000)) x 50%) + income = £15,000
    Final income: £15,000

    Income from work: £15,000.
    Cut-off: £20,000
    Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£15,000)) x 50%) + income = £17,500
    Final income: £17,500

    No one loses money from the negative income tax except the middle and upper classes - they would lose their current welfare benefits - excluding child related benefits.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    I thought this was a green party policy. Would most conservatives agree to this?

    I like this idea, but mainly because it would mean I wouldn't have to work if I didn't want to and would get a basic standard of living.
    The Green Party advocate a basic income - everyone irrespective of wealth gets an amount.

    Those on the right, such as Milton Friedman who advocated in the 1970s, and Juliet Rhys-Williams who devised it in the 1940s, believe it should be tapered out. I.e. the wealthy shouldn't get it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This question would be a great EPQ project!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    In that example. They did say it was an example.

    You could have it as:
    Citizen income £12k
    12-15k - taxed 10%
    15-20k - taxed 20%
    20-30k - taxed 30%
    30-40k - taxed 40%
    40k+ - taxed 45%
    That's a totally different thing to what it said in the article. In your example you're not getting your citizen's income taken away if you're earning, like it is in the link.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I think you guys have misunderstood this. I'll try and explain it for you.

    Income from work: £0.
    Cut-off: £20,000
    Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£0)) x 50%) + income = £10,000
    Final income: £10,000

    Income from work: £10,000.
    Cut-off: £20,000
    Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£10,000)) x 50%) + income = £15,000
    Final income: £15,000

    Income from work: £15,000.
    Cut-off: £20,000
    Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£15,000)) x 50%) + income = £17,500
    Final income: £17,500
    I understand it perfectly. Do you not think it removes the incentive to be earning if as you earn it gets taken away? If you earn £20k, or around that, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you, as you would have been given had you not earned that amount. So you're essentially doing £20k worth of work for only £10k profit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    I understand it perfectly. Do you not think it removes the incentive to be earning if as you earn it gets taken away? If you earn £20k, or around that, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you, as you would have been given had you not earned that amount. So you're essentially doing £20k worth of work for only £10k profit.
    If you earn £20k you keep £20k. You don't lose anything. You just don't gain anything, as it should be. As to the incentive for work, the negative income tax has far fairer withdrawal rates than the existing systems. Some welfare systems instantly cut off when you hit a certain point. This tapers it out far slower.

    You are doing £20k worth of work for £20k. This isn't a taxation system. If you earn £20k the negative income tax doesn't affect it AT ALL.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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)?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    I understand it perfectly. Do you not think it removes the incentive to be earning if as you earn it gets taken away? If you earn £20k, or around that, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you, as you would have been given had you not earned that amount. So you're essentially doing £20k worth of work for only £10k profit.
    It might change, but in certain circles, work is seen as socially acceptable and you're more attractive if you work, so there are other incentives to work.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    That's a totally different thing to what it said in the article. In your example you're not getting your citizen's income taken away if you're earning, like it is in the link.
    The outcome is the same though.

    Its much easier to administer if the payment level is flat.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    If you earn £20k you keep £20k. You don't lose anything. You just don't gain anything, as it should be. As to the incentive for work, the negative income tax has far fairer withdrawal rates than the existing systems. Some welfare systems instantly cut off when you hit a certain point. This tapers it out far slower.

    You are doing £20k worth of work for £20k. This isn't a taxation system. If you earn £20k the negative income tax doesn't affect it AT ALL.
    Yes, I agree you earn £20k and keep £20k, but you are losing the £10k you would have received should you not have earned that £20k. It's a disincentive to work low paying jobs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    The figures used were purely representative of the mechanism - we can argue about the figures later. The article was just about the principle.

    And they aren't being taxed. When you earn more, the amount you receive in basic income is reduced. Which seems entirely fair. It has a fairer withdrawal rate than the current system.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    The outcome is the same though.

    Its much easier to administer if the payment level is flat.
    The outcome isn't the same. Say you get £10k citizen's income by your method, and earn £20k. That's you got £30k. In the model in the link, the "negative income tax model", you earn £20k, don't get you £10k citizen's income, and get £20k. How can you tell me that's the same?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    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)?
    Either you're a troll or a massive idiot.

    The company and/or boss would move elsewhere. Or you'd sink them.

    You really think a CEO makes £1bn? :P Which UK companies do that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Either you're a troll or a massive idiot.

    The company and/or boss would move elsewhere. Or you'd sink them.

    You really think a CEO makes £1bn? :P Which UK companies do that?
    If we did it all over the world though.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.