Comment by brendanyounger 6 months ago
The current US federal tax system already is progressive in this way. Your first $X are taxed at 0%, the next $Y at 10%, etc. up to 37%. Your UBI in your formula is basically the standard deduction in the current system. But you still need to work or invest to make the first $X which are federal tax-free.
> money laundering
Just for the sake of precise communication: it’s tax evasion.
That kinda just means that tax evasion is still not totally precise but I still think it's closer to the mark than money laundering. They can both be either illegal or legal in similar ways and, indeed, the same otherwise-legal actions can be seen as either or both in different contexts. It's just a matter of semantics whether one's (seemingly legal) actions are better labeled as one or the other, and the tax evasion seems to more sense in this context.
Money laundering refers to making "dirty" money (profits from criminal activity) "clean" by introducing it into the general financial system in a way that doesn't easily trace it back to the crime. The way Breaking Bad used the car wash business to launder the drug money is a good example: the car wash business model doesn't have easy means of verifying the volume of legitimate transactions (e.g. inventory) so the owner can just arbitrarily perform fraudulent transactions with the dirty money. I presume it's far more complex when actual banks are involved but it's the same basic concept of making dirty money appear legitimate through some transaction.
Tax evasion is just not paying taxes. Whether or not someone avoids paying taxes through loopholes is only really a legal technicality that I don't think most people care about when discussing this topic. Corporations avoid paying the tax they should and that can be reasonably described as tax evasion even if it's not strictly illegal tax evasion.
For instance, you can time (usually, defer) your income to make sure you are never in a higher tax bracket. That doesn’t worth with flat tax with UBI.
One big problem with stock based compensation is that it pushes income into a big windfall year. The top marginal tax rate in the US is something like 52%. So, someone that would pay 25-30% effective tax in a fictional average year ends up paying 52% on multiple years worth of income.
Also, you can’t use the standard deduction to make your taxes negative. Assuming the average effective federal tax rate is 25%, to convert the standard deduction to UBI, it’d be reduced from $22,500 to $5600, but applied to the total tax owed, leading to the IRS paying you if you paid less than $5600 in taxes pre-deduction.
I think $5600 is too low. It should be enough to live off of. The 25th percentile household income in the US is $40000. $10,000 UBI per person seems more reasonable (probably still too low) to me.
those percentages only apply if you decide not to do any of the various legal variants of money laundering