{"insight":{"id":"100746734","lede":"The author proposes an expansion of the EITC in order to capture many of the benefits inherent in a basic income, while avoiding some of the usual points of contention and political disagreement.","slug":"a-universal-earned-income-tax-credit-refundable-up-to-the-first-usd10-000-on-inco","title":"A universal earned income tax credit (refundable up to the first $10,000 on income) would cost roughly $1.3 trillion per year.","showTitleAsQuote":null,"epistemicStatus":"empirical","reports":[{"id":"19519421","title":"Basic Income","slug":"basic-income"}],"tags":[{"slug":"implementation","name":"Implementation","id":"69609492","lede":"","ledeExcerpt":"","featured":true},{"slug":"policy-design-details","name":"Policy Design Details","id":"100414960","lede":"

The details of a policy can fundamentally transform its effects. For example, a basic income that replaces all other welfare appeals greatly to conservatives and libertarians, while one that supplements the existing welfare state appeals to progressives.

\n\n

To evaluate any policy in full, we must know the details of its implementation.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"The details of a policy can fundamentally transform its effects. For example, a basic income that replaces all other welfare appeals greatly to conservatives and libertarians, while one that supplements the existing welfare state appeals to progressives.\n\nTo evaluate any policy in full, we must know the details of its implementation.","featured":true},{"slug":"negative-income-tax","name":"Negative Income Tax (NIT)","id":"23932842","lede":"

Negative Income Tax (NIT) is a form of basic income that phases out as recipient earned income rises. NIT is composed of an "income floor" and a "phaseout rate". The income floor is the amount of cash a recipient with $0 of earned income receives. The phaseout rate is how much the cash benefit is decreased per additional dollar of earned income.

\n\n

For example, consider an NIT with an income floor of $13,000 and a phaseout rate of 50%. A citizen with no income would receive $13,000 per year, often broken up into monthly payments. If the citizen gets a part-time job and begins earning $20,000 per year, they would still receive $3,000 per year in NIT benefits.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"Negative Income Tax (NIT) is a form of basic income that phases out as recipient earned income rises. NIT is composed of an \"income floor\" and a \"phaseout rate\". The income floor is the amount of cash a recipient with $0 of earned income receives. The phaseout rate is how much the cash benefit is decreased per additional dollar of earned income.\n\nFor example, consider an NIT with an income floor of $13,000 and a phaseout rate of 50%. A citizen with no income would receive $13,000 per year, often broken up into monthly payments. If the citizen gets a part-time job and begins earning $20,000 per year, they would still receive $3,000 per year in NIT benefits.","featured":null},{"slug":"welfare","name":"Welfare","id":"23933425","lede":"

Welfare refers to government-sponsored assistance programs intended to ensure that all members of society can meet their basic needs. Examples include social insurance, Medicaid, and disability insurance.

\n\n

The vast majority of welfare spending goes to those who cannot actively participate in the labor market, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"Welfare refers to government-sponsored assistance programs intended to ensure that all members of society can meet their basic needs. Examples include social insurance, Medicaid, and disability insurance.\n\nThe vast majority of welfare spending goes to those who cannot actively participate in the labor market, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.","featured":true},{"slug":"earned-income-tax-credit","name":"Earned Income Tax Credit","id":"100746766","lede":"

The EITC is one of the most successful antipoverty programs in the history of US social policy. It provides a work credit that returns money back to low-income earners at tax time, effectively boosting the earnings of low-income wage-earners.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"The EITC is one of the most successful antipoverty programs in the history of US social policy. It provides a work credit that returns money back to low-income earners at tax time, effectively boosting the earnings of low-income wage-earners.","featured":null},{"slug":"universalism","name":"Universalism","id":"101707811","lede":"

One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens (and taxed to adjust distribution afterwards).

\n\n

Universal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.

\n\n

Targeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens.\n\nUniversal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.\n\nTargeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.","featured":true}],"sources":[{"id":"100746732","lede":"The author proposes an expansion of the EITC in order to capture many of the benefits inherent in a basic income, while avoiding some of the usual points of contention and political disagreement.","link":"https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol26/iss1/4/","slug":"eitc-for-all-a-ubi-compromise-proposal","kind":"Academic Paper","title":"EITC for All: A UBI Compromise Proposal","year":"2019-01-01","researchers":[{"id":"100746733","location":"","name":"Benjamin M. Leff","seoDescription":"","slug":"benjamin-m-leff"}]}]}}