 lets pad this to $1000/taxpayer, for a benefit that averages $1600.
Replacing the program with a $1000 refundable tax credit would have equivalent cost, but would upset current recipients since it involves a $600 benefit cut. However, that refundable tax credit would be $1000 tax cut to tax payers, and a $2000 refundable tax credit instead accompanied with a $1000 tax increase, would still be an average $1000 net tax cut ($2000 - $1000) to tax payers, and an average $400 benefit increase (2000 - 1600) to SNAP recipients. All without bureaucratic and restriction hassles. A $1600 refundable tax credit with $600 average tax increase is a net 0 cost/benefit option other than bureaucratic and policing hassles inflicted on people. A $2000 or $2300 option better reflects the maximum possible SNAP benefits. Each individual refundable tax credit policy replacement contributes to a holistic program that permit other programs and laws designed ot protect the vulnerable from a harsh world to be reduced or replaced when permission burdens for survival in the harsh world are reduced.
Profit potential in income equality
Those who work depend on as many people as possible being able to afford their wares. Billionaires only want one car, phone, meal. The largest and most profitable companies all depend on many small transactions to earn their income. Income equality through taxes and redistribution directly enhances the profitability, amount and usefulness of work. It helps those with the highest incomes the most, because by definition, they have the highest share of the economy flowing through them.
Useful alternatives and supplements to UBI
The SNAP replacing refundable tax credit proposal is a pure basic income. Any tax hikes to pay for the refundable tax credits are general and universal.
GAI (Guaranteed Annual Income) is a refundable tax credit with a reasonably low targeted clawback rate that brings the benefit to 0 at a certain income level (The Canadian child benefit above is a GAI-structured refundable tax credit). Compared to UBI, poorer residents pay a larger portion of the program. And its less expensive. I recommend a $4000 GAI (as supplement to UBI and other progams) with 10% clawback from incomes of 0 to $40k or $10-50k.
ULI (Unconditional Loan Income) is somewhat similar to student loans with income based (royalty) repayment terms. There is no application/purpose criteria (other than perhaps citizenship), and additional loan amounts (the ULI limit) can be withdrawn each year. This is even less expensive than GAI for the same royalty/clawback rate as more of it is repaid individually over a lifetime. It can be partially funded by private and financial sector, and is eligible for central bank intervention/funding instead of fiscal funding. I recommend that ULI (with maximum 2% interest, and 20% royalty rate) be used to supplement minimum income alternatives such that expensive and wasteful programs (whose justifiable income support threshold is too high to achieve through UBI alone) can be eliminated: Student loans, affordable housing, R&D/Entrepreneurial tax credits and programs, farm and other corporate welfare assistance. Business ULI would be a personal loan whose proceeds are used for direct business investment. The personal responsibility avoids all scamming potential.
Citizens Income is a refundable tax credit for citizens only. Refundable tax credits in general apply to residents (who have tax applicabilty independently of citizenship). Nationalist appeal prefers a citizen only payment, and it is the best use of excess tax revenue collection. I recommend a variable citizen dividend supplement over and above core minimum poverty and welfare replacing refundable tax credits. It can also be used to repay personal ULI balances thus making that program even cheaper and private funding friendly, and without a citizenship criteria.
Carbon tax funding is singled out from other tax funding options because providing a refundable tax credit based on driving up the cost of gasoline to $6-$10/gallon and fossil fuel based electr