In the May 23, 2017 edition of Basic Income News, Karl Widerquist laments the tendency of some basic income commentators to overstate the cost of a basic income. The typical methodology used to generate these overestimates is as follows:

As Widerquist points out, the reason this is an overestimate is that it fails to consider the fact that even though everyone would receive the amount referred to in b above, not everyone would be net beneficiaries of this amount.

Suppose the amount referred to in b were $10,000, meaning that under a basic income scheme, everyone would receive $10,000 per year. But in every basic income proposal Ive seen, although the basic income wouldnt officially be taxed, all other income would be. This means that at some income level, there would be those whod owe at least $10,000 in their annual tax bill. Since the amount theyd owe in taxes would be at least as large as the $10,000 basic income, they would no longer be net beneficiaries. Their basic income would, in effect, have been taxed back from them. Under a basic income scheme, there would also be those whod be net beneficiaries of a basic income but not of the full $10,000 amount. All of this might be easier to see if we did a bit of math.

Again, assume that our basic income comes out to $10,000 per year per person. Suppose all other income is taxed at a marginal rate of 25%. The use of one rate is to keep things relatively simple. Here is the key equation for the basic income system being described in this paragraph:

Net Income = $10,000 + (1 .25) * Other Income

Now lets play with this equation a bit. Suppose someone had no other income. Wed then end up multiplying $0 by (1 .25) which would give us $0. And $0 + $10,000 would mean this person would end up with a net income of $10,000. That is, theyd be a net recipient of the full basic income benefit level.

Now consider someone with other income of $30,000. Multiplying $30,000 by (1 .25), we end up with $22,500. Once we add this to the $10,000 basic income, theyd end up with a net income of $32,500. Lets look more closely at whats happened here. The person made $30,000 in other income. If they didnt have to pay taxes, wed have (1 0), which is just 1, instead of (1 .25). So theyd keep all $30,000 plus the $10,000 basic income for a net income of $40,000.

Looked at this way, we see that the tax on other income is effectively a tax on the basic income as well. That is, the fact that the person with $30,000 in other income only ends up with a net income $32,500 instead of $40,000 means that $7,500 of their basic income has been taxed back to the government.

Next, lets take a look at what happens to someone with other income of $40,000.

Wed have to multiply (1 .25) times $40,000, ending up with $30,000. And $30,000 + $10,000 is a net income of $40,000. If this person paid no taxes on other income, wed add their $40,000 in other income to the $10,000 basic income for a net income of $50,000. With taxation, their actual net income is $10,000 less than $50,000. That is, weve taxed back all $10,000 of their basic income. So this person would no longer be a net recipient of the basic income.

Finally, suppose someone had other income of $100,000. Wed end up multiplying (1 .25) by $100,000, which comes out to $75,000. Since $75,000 plus $10,000 is $85,000, this persons net income would be $85,000. Now if they didnt have to pay taxes, they end up with a net income of $100,000 plus $10,000 or $110,000. But with taxes, their income is only $85,000. We see that not only has their $10,000 basic income been taxed away, so theyre no longer a net recipient of a basic income, but theyre paying enough in taxes to help finance someone elses basic income, someone with much lower other income than they have.

If we think carefully about these examples, we see whats wrong with some cost estimates of a basic income: they assume the tax rate in the equation above is 0%. But as I said above, every basic income proposal Ive seen, assumes that all other income would be taxed at some positive marginal tax rate. This means, of course, that our net income equation will include a term where some positive marginal tax rate will be subtracted from 1. We used a 25% rate for illustration, but really any positive rate will do. This is because any positive marginal tax rate on other income, although not officially a tax on the basic income, is effectively a tax on basic income. And this means some people wont be net recipients of the benefit. Understanding this point is key to arriving at better estimates of the cost of a basic income guarantee.

Michael Lewis has written 6 articles.

View post:

Net incomes under a Basic Income system - Basic Income News