@Jonathan_Blow Another way to think about basic income is to simply say that you want to add a constant term into your income equations. It's really not complicated or weird. If an equation for income was f(?) before, f'(?) = f(?) + C now.
-
Show this thread
-
There's really nothing weird about that, and the only real argument you can have about it is what C should be. It's obviously _possible_ that C should be 0, but it does seem more likely that it is some non-zero value, since there are a lot more of them :)
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow
C is essentially a reformulation of tax in a manner that the amount of tax you pay is not always >= 0
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sumaleth @Jonathan_Blow
Not exactly? Tax is a function of your other income, so it is (at least) linear, never constant. It's like f(x) = a*x. Basic income is a fundamentally different equation - like f(x) = a*x + b. Right? It's not that different from just saying "let's switch from linear to affine".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow
The implementation can keep them separate but I mean at a conceptual level. As another way that it could be described.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But they are conceptually different in a very important way. Basic income is _not_ a negative tax, those are two different things, and you don't want to conflate them because they are fundamentally different types of economic tuning parameters.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.