Replace Welfare with the Negative Income Tax

Conflict of interest: Government as Charitable Organization "The biggest problem with government doing the job of long-term charity to its citizens, especially in a system with elected officials, is that it becomes a conflict of interest. Our representatives seek to get themselves reelected. If increasing the amount of taxpayer funds going to people increases the number of votes from the beneficiaries in that district, that could be a huge temptation to an official. The simple and well constructed NIT would quickly be corrupted, just as many other programs have been mutated into payouts for special interests and vote buying. The changes over the years to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and US Farm Bills are prime examples." Skynet brings up a legitimate issue with government assistance to the poor. It is true that the NIT would be subject to special interests attempting to increase or decrease the amount of money the NIT gives to the poor. In response to this criticism, I assert that the NIT would be less subject to these changes by special interests. The negative income tax is basically a modification of the federal income tax system. The federal income tax system is not as vulnerable to bloated, pork-barrel spending and adjustments by politicians to help their specific districts when compared to the welfare system. The 126 federal welfare programs, in contrast, are very much up to variations by people to benefit in specific ways. In total, yes it could be effected and changed over time, but it is much harder and far less vulnerable to these modifications when compared to the current system. Equity to the Providers Skynet brings up an argument that the NIT is not fair because the funds would "come almost exclusively from people who do not partake of the system, and it's not voluntary." The problem with this idea is it can be extended to the idea that taxation is never justified without the consent by each individual. Skynet claims that "It's reasonable to pay for fire and police protection, public services like national defense, reasonable public servant's wages, public roads, and maybe even some other programs he does benefit from." What may be reasonable to you may be completely unreasonable to someone else who pays taxes. For example, an man may not want to subscribe to the police protection system, and would rather defend his property himself or hire private security. It's still involuntary and therefore it isn't justified to force him to pay for something he doesn't want. The truth is, taxation is a necessary evil. There will always be things that the government ought to use resources for in order to maintain a prosperous, free society. Things like national defense, the court system, infrastructure, education, and a social safety net can be justifiably funded through taxpayer money so long as they increase the net freedom, well being, and prosperity of the general populace. "But paying to raise another man's family? That's not equitable, when this young man is taking nothing, and trying to provide for his own future family. It's far more equitable for each person to pay for themselves and thier own family." It's a balancing of freedoms. Yes, a man may not want to pay for another man's family. Yes, involuntarily paying for it may decrease his own freedom. But what if not paying for someone else through taxes causes the ability of someone else to have the opportunity to succeed in life decrease to nearly zero? Is it truly a fair system when one does not have enough resources to eat, have shelter, receive an education, and begin to be self-sufficient later in one's life? America ought to be a land of opportunity. Some people have very little opportunity to exit their current adverse circumstances and become successful in life. If the private market can't provide this opportunity better than government, then this is one thing the government should provide. The negative income tax is the most fair, efficient, and cheapest way to go about providing people enough resources to live and have a chance to get on their feet. Supporting Private Charity My opponent supports the use of private charity to help the poor. I do as well. In fact, I would also support the advancement of private charity through tax credits. He claims that private charity is more efficient and generally better than government assistance. I agree with this. The problem is private charity doesn't guarantee assistance to every person, and so the government needs to help those that don't get helped by others Should We Let People Starve? "Should children go hungry? No!" If you don't think children should go hungry, then it sounds like you would support government assistance to poor children if they aren't being helped through private charity. Would you then support a welfare system for at least children? "But should adults who don't work or make stupid mistakes that cause them to loose their jobs or not advance be given incentive to not make those mistakes? Yes." Not everyone who lost their jobs in the Great Depression were at fault. Forces completely outside their control caused the economy to decline, businesses to close, and hence jobs to be lost. It's not a stupid mistake by them that caused them to go unemployed and no longer able to support themselves or their families. In circumstances like these, it makes sense for there to be some type of system to alleviate poverty and misery through government assistance. " It's called learning through trial and error, and it's one of the best and most memorable learning tools. Being hungry incentivizes the worker." It's misguided to think that it's simply error that causes people to lose their jobs. Nobody was able to predict what was going to happen. There was nothing to learn that could have prevented so many people from losing their jobs. Hunger could be an incentive to work, but it would be pointless to have people go hungry if there really is not enough jobs to fully employ everyone. And there really wasn't enough jobs at the time. "if someone wants to learn to fish, I'll give him a few free ones, but the rest he must catch on his own". Life is not that simple today. Learning skills doesn't guarantee that there will be a job opening for someone with that skill. The world changes and is unpredictable. What was once a popular job may be completely replaced by a new technological breakthrough. There needs to be a system to allow those that can't find a way to support themselves to have the means to survive until they can support themselves. "If someone absolutely cannot take care of themselves through no fault of their own, and have no family, that is the time for true compassion and generocity by the willing, not bueraucratic handouts pulled by force of law from the working class." You and I both know that compassion and private charity has never been efficient and perfect enough to guarantee help to every person with such circumstances. In a utopia, idealistic society, it would be and I would fully support this idea. But in reality, the only way to ensure everyone has enough resources to live is through government. Political Feasibility Skynet, you have stated that "NIT is better than our current system, but history and human nature strongly indicates it will be corrupted quickly." If you truly believe that that NIT is better than the current system, then I have a proposition for you. The current political landscape basically guarantees that there will be a system to help the poor. Your desire for welfare being ended and having no more government assistance to the poor is idealistic and infeasible. As you said, politicians get elected for the specific purpose of guaranteeing benefits to their constituents. Because of this, it would make sense for you to call for a compromise. The current political landscape could indeed support a smaller, cheaper, more efficient, more fair system to help the poor. The negative income tax is much more politically feasible than your idea of ending welfare entirely. If you think that the size of government should be decreased and taxation should be decreased, you should support the negative income tax. This is a system that trends toward your goals, even if it doesn't accomplish them entirely. Support the negative income tax because it is indeed better than our current welfare system.