google15
See my other post for answers to the rest.
Agreed, which is why I object to your statement that: We already know how to design a program that won't discourage work. It's not that basic income discourages work more or less, but that it evens out the marginal tax rate. This might be a good or a bad thing, but your original post contains no argument either way. You run a very strong risk of the reader misinterpreting what you are saying, and believing that there will be a uniform improvement in incentives across the whole population.
which all else equal can be expected to have less effect on behaviour than concentrating the effect on a subgroup which will then be much more compelled to react to it.
I think the main argument behind the current system is that low income people need the money, and therefore are less affected by the marginal tax rate.
Moreover, how the taxes are collected is separate from the basic income. If we find that it is for some strange reason better to charge a higher marginal rate to lower income people than higher income people then we can have a basic income and yet still do that.
Either "basic income" should be used to denote a flat tax plus basic income, or a varying marginal tax plus basic income. Your first post implies the former to the exclusion of the latter. I think you are changing the definition because it's important to you that basic income "win", but really there are two separate issues, which are negative taxation vs welfare, and fixed vs varying effective marginal tax rates. Each of these issues should be decided independently on their own merits.
At any income level you can make arguments why their work output would be more/less sensitive to taxation. We are talking about a difference in a difference (how much one group changes their work in response to tax, vs another) and not absolutes, which complicates matters. E.g. poor people need the money more, so maybe they are less responsive to marginal tax rates.
Also, there are some taxes where the disincentive effect is beneficial. Basic income funded by a carbon tax seems like a good combination.
Pollution taxes are a good idea for their own sake, but they will only cover a tiny percentage of basic income or welfare.
But because budgets have to balance, the current system has the advantage that it can have lower marginal tax rates on higher income earners.
Whether it makes sense to impose an especially high marginal tax rate on poorer people (and a lower marginal tax rate on richer people) is a complex question. But to claim that basic income solves the problem of incentives is wrong. Basic income just moves the disincentive effect to a different segment of workers.
[0] http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/11/10/CIRCULA...
[1] The regression models included calendar time in 2-y intervals as the time scale, and were stratified by age in years. In the multivariable analysis, we further adjusted for body mass index (BMI), physical activity, overall dietary pattern (aHEI), total energy intake, smoking status, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and alcohol consumption, all of which were updated from follow-up questionnaires.
Breakfast: Coffee
Lunch: Turkey and avocado sandwich (1 Avocado, 4 slices bread, lettuce, cucumber, 4 slices of sliced smoked turkey).
Afternoon snack: 1 banana and 43g pure almond butter.
Dinner: Varying meals made in batches to make up ~2000 calories per day. This week (qty per day) was turkey chili: 1 can red kidney beans, 8oz ground turkey, spices, and a few corn tortillas.
I started out with much more complex recipes, but simplified the diet to minimize preparation time. Also the lettuce, cucumber and bananas I get from work.