Skip to content
Fair Future Income logoFair Future IncomeFFI policy atlas
Back to home

Models & Mechanisms

Policy Models Differ More Than the Label Suggests

UBI proposals vary by funding source, payment level, recipient group, and whether they replace or supplement targeted welfare programs. These choices determine the political coalition, the distributional profile, and the fiscal cost.

4 funding routes3 public asset framesNegative income tax to carbon dividendDividend, tax, rent, sovereign wealth
4 funding routes3 public asset framesNegative income tax to carbon dividendDividend, tax, rent, sovereign wealth

Mechanisms

Negative Income Tax

Negative Income Tax designs phase support through the tax system and are typically less universal in payment flow, but can preserve a guaranteed income floor. Associated with Milton Friedman, the NIT delivers net transfers to households whose income falls below a threshold, phasing out as earnings rise. While administratively efficient, it can reintroduce phase-out complexity and delayed payment timing.

Mechanisms

Social Dividend

Dividend models distribute returns from public assets, sovereign wealth funds, carbon rents, data royalties, or natural-resource revenues. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend is the best-known operational example. Social dividends link cash payments to shared ownership of common assets, making the revenue source transparent. Their adequacy depends on the volatility and scale of the underlying asset returns.

Mechanisms

Land Value Taxation

Land Value Tax-funded models treat unimproved land value as a common asset and use recurring land rents to fund a cash dividend. This approach discourages land speculation, captures location value generated by the community, and provides a non-distortionary revenue base. It requires strong valuation institutions and local transition rules.