I think the point is that gradual phase out instead of cliffs does not require UBI. It's a feature of UBI, but it can be done without UBI too.
Re:Policies that make the poor less poor
by dragonwriter on Monday June 21, 2021 @10:44AM
(#27579658)
> I think the point is that gradual phase out instead of cliffs does not require UBI.
Yeah, UBI is just “gradual phaseout” plus “eliminate duplication of function between the multiple welfare bureaucracies and between th aggregt of them and the tax bureaucracy”.
You can in principal do the first without the second, if you have a strong ideological devotion to government waste, but since switching to a gradual phase-out, ceteris paribus, increases the cost for any given level of support for those most in need, realizing available efficiencies at the same time is kind of important for practicality.
Yes it is. In fact, its the central argument advanced by advocates on both the left and right who have advocated UBI (or the equivalent-policy-under-a-different-name of "negative income tax".)
> it’s an argument for gradual phase-outs instead of cliffs.
Gradual phase-out (through the effect of income taxes, at the marginal tax rate set by the earned income) instead of cliffs (through traditional means-tested funding mechanism) is the central point of UBI.
If you are a “fan of UBI” and you don’t understands UBIs central function and motivation, what is it exactly you are a fan of?