MaxGhenis

FWIW, we'll have Maryland income taxes, including local income taxes, by the end of July: https://github.com/policyengine/openfisca-us

Thanks for the suggestion, I added a link to our documentation (https://openfisca.us) to the readme.

And for all the complexity of the tax code, it often pales in comparison to the version of the tax code we subject low-income families to: rules for means-tested benefits.

France has also developed the OpenFisca framework [1] for tax and benefit rules as code, and its OpenFisca France [2] model is widely used (I think significantly more than mlang). We've extended it to the UK [3] and the US [4].

[1] https://openfisca.org

[2] https://github.com/openfisca/openfisca-france

[3] https://github.com/policyengine/openfisca-uk

[4] https://github.com/policyengine/openfisca-us

We've also built an open-source tax and benefit calculator for the UK, which also lets you simulate custom policy reforms: https://policyengine.org/uk

Fantastic job making taxsim more accessible! We've built an open-source version of taxsim called OpenFisca US [1] which we expose in our (also open-source) web app, PolicyEngine US [2]. We haven't yet implemented all of taxsim—we only have the most recent couple of years, and not all states—but we have some advantages like implementing means-tested benefits and being able to simulate custom tax and benefit reforms, both on individuals and the population (e.g. the budgetary and poverty impacts).

I'd love to get in touch. Will email you from [email protected].

[1] https://github.com/policyengine/openfisca-us

[2] https://policyengine.org/us

Agreed. We're building an open source version of taxsim (plus benefit rules) at https://github.com/policyengine/openfisca-us.

My team at PolicyEngine [1] is also now further reimplementing Tax-Calculator in the Python-based OpenFisca framework [2]. OpenFisca US [3] includes all tax logic in Tax-Calculator, plus many means-tested benefit programs like SNAP, and some state tax logic (currently only Massachusetts is complete, though we'll finish the country in the next 12-18 months). You can try it in our PolicyEngine US web app [4].

(OpenFisca US is part of the Policy Simulation Library, and it's developed by a number of former Tax-Calculator developers, myself included.)

[1] https://policyengine.org

[2] https://openfisca.org

[3] https://github.com/policyengine/openfisca-us

[4] https://policyengine.org/us

SmartAsset is only a rough approximation based on standard deductions/exemptions and the rate structure. It excludes tax credits and other provisions that make taxsim much more accurate, especially for low-income households.

Our current static approach follows the bulk of public policy analysis, but we do plan to add dynamic responses. For example, https://compute.studio/PSLmodels/Tax-Brain which supports "partial equilibrium" which adjusts earnings based on user-provided labor supply elasticities. https://compute.studio/PSLmodels/OG-USA performs general equilibrium analysis, which also considers feedback loops labor and capital over decades, though it takes several hours to solve. (We've contributed to both of these open-source projects.)

These labor supply elasticities and other parameter values are debated (especially when it comes to deficits and corporate taxes), so we're starting with the less controversial results while also describing changes to labor incentives through the marginal tax rate charts.

PolicyEngine lets anyone simulate reforms to the UK tax and benefit system, and see the impact on society and their own household. We're working on building it for the US as well. Here's a two minute demo video: https://youtu.be/P7ELqxEHRhE

Looking forward to feedback or questions!

>Our starting hourly wages are at least $15 per hour for all full time, part time, and seasonal employees and contractors.

https://www.aboutamazon.com/workplace/employee-benefits

Yes I'd like to do that. Net tax burden (taxes - BI) still shouldn't change under the revenue-neutral approach, since they'd be equal between NIT and BI.

Agreed, though I'd hope that some lessons from basic income could be used in the disability benefit sphere too. The welfare cliffs are devastating and produce severe underemployment among PwD.

As stated in the article, 50% was chosen only because it's the rate where calculations are simplest, it's not the proposal (it'd generate way more than the current government tax receipts). Income tax rates under a revenue-neutral negative income tax could remain pretty similar for those about the threshold; it's really just replacing non-cash welfare-cliffed benefits with a smoothed cash transfer.

Do you have sources for the Spain-beach-hitting? Several studies have found that cash transfers do not reduce work incentives, except in specific populations like new mothers and teenagers. Much more significant disincentives are those generated by current programs with welfare cliffs.

Very interesting suggestion. I'm also not too familiar with the field, but it seems that most benefits are non-cash (e.g. health and housing), and cash grants tend to be <$1k/year [1]. I would guess there are many other reasons for the issues they face, particularly lack of integration into the broader economy.

As a counterexample, the Alaska Permanent Fund [2] is very popular, and economists have found it keeps thousands out of poverty.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Pegging BI to tax revenue or GDP seems like a good idea to me, though I'd prefer to start with something revenue-neutral like I lay out. As it eliminates welfare cliffs, it seems self-evident that it would not reduce employment. Many other studies on cash transfers have found that they don't reduce work incentives, except for specific populations like new mothers and teenagers, but more evidence with slowly-rolled-out programs would help address this.

Speaking of utopia, what I'd really prefer is for BI to be funded as 100% of land value tax and pollution/carbon taxes. But that could be for another article. Even if nobody's working and everything's automated, we'll still need natural resources to house people and build things, so this would be sustainable.

Separating (1) children (2) people with disabilities (3) retirees and (4) other adults, is I would say an upper bound on complexity.

The PwD piece falls more under healthcare (which I think should probably just be universal), so if their health-related benefits can be separated out, they would just get the standard basic income.

Retirees only need special consideration for political reasons, since social security may exceed basic income, but it could also be separated out into a supplemental amount to make basic income more universal. Ultimately they could converge to avoid special treatment.

And whether children get the same amount as adults is an open question among BI advocates; I don't have a preference either way and believe it should be studied empirically.

The quote you selected concerns welfare cliffs, where smoothing out the payout curve may slightly reduce benefits of those near a cliff and increase benefits for those just past a cliff. This split should be independent of the "grandma/pot-smoking-college-kid" split. In general the proposal I lay out can be designed to split out benefits for retirees such that they get a different NIT/BI than others, so grandmas can sleep well.

I am curious what Trump might think of basic income. I tried to write this piece to appeal to conservatives who want to shrink the antipoverty bureaucracy, and I believe there's a lot to like about BI from both sides of the aisle.

Part of the reason I got into BI is because my brother is quadriplegic (spinal cord injury), so I saw firsthand how extreme the welfare cliffs are for the disabled: if he earns over ~$20k/year, he loses so many benefits (which he needs, such as attendant care), that it doesn't make sense unless he's earning ~$100k/year. So I believe disability programs would benefit the most from some of the proposals in the article.

That said, they certainly wouldn't have the same BI as everyone else, just as children wouldn't and the elderly probably wouldn't as well, since they have existing programs targeted to them. The idea is just to replace non-cash benefits within each group (those four are probably sufficient), and smooth out the payout curve and find the equivalent BI for that NIT.

CoL adjustments would result from this as well: the primary way this is currently done is via housing as you mention. Any housing assistance benefit can be valued like other programs, so that could then be disbursed as cash. In practice, this means layered basic incomes at the federal/state/local level, and if done gradually they could be designed to minimize evictions.

Those with addiction issues who would spend all their money tend to have mental illness, which hinders their ability to get benefits in the current system. I suggest retaining social workers for such circumstances:

> Some of these programs will likely be more effective than their cash value — especially those serving the physically disabled and mentally ill — and should remain intact.

My goal with this piece is to deconstruct basic income into parallelizable, redistribution-neutral pieces: 1) Replacing non-cash benefits with cash 2) Smoothing the payout curve to avoid welfare traps 3) Replacing means-tested negative income tax with universal basic income

I hope this makes the idea more palatable to conservatives, as opposed to proposing a particular level of basic income (e.g. $15k/year) and then figuring out how to finance the extra cost. If we want society to redistribute more, that's fine, but IMO should be addressed separately from basic income, which can be beneficially enacted within the current redistribution parameters. The framework also clarifies how small steps can lead to BI someday, for example expanding the EITC instead of food stamps.

Fortunately, Uber is getting into food delivery, so DoorDash will soon face a competitor without the inconvenience and awkwardness of tipping. Given Uber's popularity, as well as the trend of restaurants like Joe's Crab Shack ending tipping, I'd expect DoorDash to follow suit at some point.

Obligatory plug for http://reddit.com/r/EndTipping which discusses these issues, lists tip-free restaurants, etc.

The federal tipped minimum wage is $2.13/hour, but the employer must top it off to non-tipped MW if the worker's total earnings w/tips fall short (in reality many don't ask for this for fear of employer retribution). California's tipped minimum wage is the same as its non-tipped though.