@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
People completely accept the idea of a basic de-income (i.e. taxes). And they accept that below a certain amount you pay nothing. It's bizarre they can't accept that hey maybe below that "pay zero" level, the tax amount flips sign as well?
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Negative income tax! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Again, though, negative tax and basic income _are actually mathematically different_. So is max(min_income, income). They are three different kinds of modifications to the income equation, and should be thought about separately!
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
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.