Canada

Giving it only to the poor, it is a charity intended to help people who are unable to support themselves.

It's also close to what we have now. If we start picking and choosing it just comes back to the current system. Wealth needs redistribution of massive orders to have an equitable society. Isn't it wild that MSFT is one of the richest companies because they ripped off Xerox in the 80s? They're not Canadian, but bad actors are rewarded far too frequently under our current system.

So let's also remove all tax deductions too, maybe carve out a system we find neccessary for society but take the tax off applied at purchase. If we feel they are needed so the product is cheaper from the consumer (ie. pharmacy drugs, textbooks, tuition, etc.), maybe even put the burden on the seller to collect the taxes at the end of the tax period. If they sell 100 textbooks at $200, and we give them to the students at like $180, then maybe the seller can recoup the difference quarterly during their tax time. This would make doing taxes easier for consumer, easier to audit for CRA as instead of potentially everyone having textbooks and having to validate you just need to make sure textbook sellers are claiming the textbook rebates.

To go even further (which I think could be necessary with rich people getting play money under UBI, or they'd squirrel it away), be done with church tax-exempt status, non-profits, donations, investment losses as reducing tax burden, otherwise it's very easy to screw the system. If you feel strongly for a non-profit, then donate! I wouldn't discourage that. But the tingly feeling you get in your heart should be it's own reward, we shouldn't have had a financial incentive. It makes the whole thing perverse IMO.

The “float” cost is minimal

But how many "rich" people are in Canada? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? It might be minimal for any individual rich person, but it can add up to a significant cost to Canada (or the relevant provincial government). That's why we need it to get to zero.

Self-employed people are required to make quarterly installments, not annual.

So we can minimize this while still paying these their NIT quarterly.

The government constantly owes you 12 months worth of payments, and isnt paying you interest on your money.

But being paid these 12 monthly payments on a monthly basis has the potential to maximize the float issue.

AFAIK, taxes are withheld from wages and paid from every paycheck, not once a year.

This may not be accurate though. I'm thinking of BaristaFIRE types here - the part time coffee store worker earns such a low income from it, that they'd obviously qualify for the non-U BI or the NIT. But take into account their earnings from interest on their massive investment holdings, and that paints quite a different picture. Hence no BI or NIT until taxes are done. Which brings us to...

Indeed, I can eliminate it (and reverse it) merely by claiming the payments came out of the previous tax cycle, rather than the current one.

That is ... brilliant!!! Yes, this solves the problem quite nicely. Basically the rich are required to pay as part of their tax their own BI in advance, before the govt doles it back out to them. Only thing I'd add is to make sure that, for those who make above a certain income (the "rich"), any tax owing must be paid in full before the UBI is paid out. This prevents the float issue from coming back for those who pay late.

When you die, your estate receives the remaining 12 payments owed to you.

And if you have no heirs, it goes back to the gov't - where it can be redistributed to others. Again, brilliant!

But the biggest reason to apply it uniformly is, IMO, the social costs. Giving it to everyone, it is an entitlement. It is the dividend the citizen receives for their ownership share of their country.

Giving it only to the poor, it is a charity intended to help people who are unable to support themselves.

Agreed for the most part. I was writing earlier that a NIT should cover some middle class folks too. The idea is that we can be more efficient by excluding the rich from this scheme, but if everybody except the rich qualify, it's still an entitlement rather than a charity, since only the rich lack the entitlement.

Think of SALT in the US - https://archive.nytimes.com/economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/the-deduction-for-state-and-local-taxes/ - my recollection is that President Obama tried to push for a reduction of SALT but had to back away due to the outcry. SALT benefitted mostly folks living in blue states, which is why it was only capped in Drumpf's first term.

That said, if UBI is workable as per your idea above, then it's academic, since giving it to the rich actually doesn't cost anything anymore. I'm fine either way - the important part is to get it out there.