The Negative Income Tax

" If Mr. Mario knows that he could get 1000$/month anyway, he would have the power to negotiate his salary in a fair way with his employer. Mr. Mario would probably say "Listen boss, if you don't pay me more than a 1000$/month, I simply quit, I will get mincome anyway"So you see, employers will have to offer wages higher than mincome if they want to attract any employees."Ok, fair point. And how much will he ask his employers ? Perhaps 300$ more seems fair to you ? It is not enough ! Who would work over a hundred hours a month to earn extra $300 knowing they have already 1000 in the pocket ?I wouldn't, most people wouldn't : It would be working for like 2$ dollars a hour (150 hpm, 300$)So the employer would have to give much more ! It would push salaries to double and the burden would be for the employer only.That's because the state does not give a dime to people already earning over $1000.The state would be just left giving $1000 only to every single unemployed person. In Switzerland this represents 3%. Of course it will be cheaper than other initiatives. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...So... Employers would take the burden for the remaining people. Employers are not just large multinationals making astronomic profits. Employers are mainly small businesses and liberal professions. The latter category has everything to loose and this could cause severe damage to our whole economy.****************************************************************************************"Consider this: Why do most western countries have Universal Health care and free education? Easy! Because most people realize that if you want to work, you must be healthy and educated. So the state ensures that everyone is healthy and educated enough to enter the labour market."I see it this more like an opinion (role of the state) than an actual argument. Also I will assume that by free you mean paid by taxes (But let's not play on semantics.).*****************************************************************************************Finally let's talk about your "Star Trek style." "vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labor, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery." Quote from Cicero "De Officiis" According to this kind of claim, employed labor has no intrinsic value beyond its fruits. It's quite self-explanatory : people do not work hard because they like it.... but because of the value of the fruit of their labor. (That leads to Marxist theories that the capitalists are stealing the fruits of the proletarian labor efforts and blablablabla but this is also off topic).Let's come back to the topic. My point is that even if we had robots doing every thing for us, robots themselves would be the fruit of some people's hard work !Technological progress is the fruit of a society based on industriousness. What makes you think that encouraging laziness wouldn't begin its to decline ?"You can't have your cake and eat it too" if you know what I mean....****************************************************************************************My conclusion is that there are enough indicators to show that in the long run, permanently implementing a Negative Income tax would be harmful to our economy. Of course, some may benefit from it in the short term , but in the long term we would be, on average, worse off.