Resolved: The USFG should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

My opponent quotes Milton Friedman from Mises website, but if you read further in the sources you'll see that Friedman states, "it does not eliminate that incentive entirely, as a system of supplementing incomes up to some fixed minimum would. An extra dollar earned always means more money available for expenditure. [1]" We can thus see, by my opponent's own arguments, that NIT would solve this issue. In this debate we are debating whether or not NIT should replace Welfare, not whether or not NIT is good. Even if NIT is a horrible idea, if I can show that it's better than welfare, I would win the debate by doing so. People would have plenty of incentives to work as, unlike welfare, they can still earn NIT if they work a part time job, unlike welfare where you'll lose your benefits. This would encourage work and help boost the economy. If we look at the quote my opponent has provided and if you read a little bit further you'll see "(though at the cost of excluding large groups of the poor—such as two-parent families—from eligibility) [2]" We can see here that a great deal of people are actually excluded from Jodie Allen's statement and these are the people we need to be looking at. Excluding these people are harmful to evidence and it should be thrown out of the debate as to this. This actually helps me more than my opponent as it shows that with these people included, NIT is better than welfare. My opponent states that getting rid of food stamps would create a whole new problem, but this is false. People are rational beings and will make Rational Choices in the market, especially when it comes to their survival [3]. The sentence above my opponent's quote reads, "These experiments more carefully integrated existing welfare programs and offered more generous NIT plans. [2]" This explains the reasoning behind my opponent's quote. This shows the fact that the way the expirement was executed makes it impossible to be replicated on a national level due to certain controls in the expirament which would not occur under the new change in the system as under the purposed system, welfare would not be a factor at all. One of the things that people have with the Seattle-Denver expirament was there was a ton of unknown factors, like increased higher-education. Not to mention that the source that you linked had also stated that not only was this the case when certain groups of people were excluded or the fact that there was a great deal of different factors involved. The source had also stated that it was impossible to reproduce it on a national level with the intermixing NIT with welfare. This would not have happened under the proposed resolution. Glen Cain, on the NIT expiraments showed that for single mothers, that this increased their likelihood of them getting married in order for them to increase the amount of benefits they would recieve [4]. This increases family unity and increases marriage unity under NIT unlike that of Welfare. The incecntive for working would be increased as you could keep working and still make more money. The numbers I provided where at a zero income, but as soon as you start working, welfare drops off to zero while NIT would still be there to help the family. I have also showed in my last contention that it can help lift people under the poverty level while welfare keeps people under the poverty line. My opponent tries to offer a Red Herring by offering a balanced wage policy argument, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. He then states that giving people that much doesn't get people out of poverty, but I'm simply adding the NIT equation to the minority wages which shows that it gets the individual out of poverty. Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (. http://tinyurl.com...)