I would like to see "negative income tax" (a la Milton Friedman) make a comeback in these experiments.
It's like minimum wage except the government funds the difference, and unlike UBI you still have to work to earn it, which seems to be a prevailing concern ITT.
No the difference is not simply semantics. The main difference between NIT and UBI is that your check is conditional on working.
From the article:
> De Kwaadsteniet: ‘In the condition without social security, the test participants didn’t receive a basic sum. In the benefits condition they received a basic sum, which they lost as soon as they started working. In the basic income condition they received the same basic sum but didn’t lose this when they started work.’
They test for 3 scenarios, but they miss the 4th NIT scenario, in which the "basic sum" would only be granted _after_ they get a job.
It's like minimum wage except the government funds the difference, and unlike UBI you still have to work to earn it, which seems to be a prevailing concern ITT.