Milton Freidman was for a Negative Income Tax, which isn't too far off from UBI in outcome, however in my opinion NIT is a better option. UBI just "claws" back in taxes the benefit back in taxes and NIT doesn't distribute the benefit in the first place. But looking at UBI, The idea is not bad - it's the execution that won't work because government will screw it up. UBI could actually save a great deal of money compared to our current system if it were executed cleanly (spoiler: it would not be). Everyone gets UBI, regardless of income. Second, aside from UBI, all welfare programs are cut, UBI is it- there are no food stamps, no subsidized housing, cell phones...nothing...All $800 billion spend of 126 welfare programs are cut all employees of those organizations are dismissed (never will happen). You get UBI, everyone get's UBI and that's it. Just getting rid of those agencies would be a huge cost savings and shrink government. That's the same idea with NIT.
Negative income tax is similar and way cleaner because it doesn't have the wasted effort of giving money just to take to it away though taxes. However, again, there is no way the government would execute it correctly. NIT rewards being a productive member of society and working. If you have a job your NIT is lessened, but it's more financially rewarding than not working - basically there is less incentive to be unemployed, depending on the rates. It could be that both are the same in the end...depending on set up. But, if you had to chose between the two, NIT is cleaner with less government.
Milton Freidman was for a Negative Income Tax, which isn't too far off from UBI in outcome, however in my opinion NIT is a better option. UBI just "claws" back in taxes the benefit back in taxes and NIT doesn't distribute the benefit in the first place. But looking at UBI, The idea is not bad - it's the execution that won't work because government will screw it up. UBI could actually save a great deal of money compared to our current system if it were executed cleanly (spoiler: it would not be). Everyone gets UBI, regardless of income. Second, aside from UBI, all welfare programs are cut, UBI is it- there are no food stamps, no subsidized housing, cell phones...nothing...All $800 billion spend of 126 welfare programs are cut all employees of those organizations are dismissed (never will happen). You get UBI, everyone get's UBI and that's it. Just getting rid of those agencies would be a huge cost savings and shrink government. That's the same idea with NIT.
Negative income tax is similar and way cleaner because it doesn't have the wasted effort of giving money just to take to it away though taxes. However, again, there is no way the government would execute it correctly. NIT rewards being a productive member of society and working. If you have a job your NIT is lessened, but it's more financially rewarding than not working - basically there is less incentive to be unemployed, depending on the rates. It could be that both are the same in the end...depending on set up. But, if you had to chose between the two, NIT is cleaner with less government.
I've been trying to think of a private way to do UBI.
If a group of people (no matter the size) agree on things... Couldn't that group of people create their own UBI instead of waiting on the government?