The United States should adopt a negative income tax.

In this debate, we will be presenting support for a negative income tax (NIT). As defined in R1, a negative income tax is "A tax system where people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the government instead of paying taxes to the government". We will be proposing the negative income tax as being an essential part of overall tax and welfare reform, to ensure that government assistance is traceable, limited, and easily found as part of the overall tax system. Our case explicitly assumes a negative income tax as being a replacement for most, if not all, welfare programs and as one part of a broad simplification and reform of the tax system. Contention 1 - Negative income tax would reduce the size of bureaucracyOur insanely complex tax and welfare system is virtually unworkable outside of a small class of tax lawyers. Welfare payments are virtually untraceable, or at the very least requiring a massive bureaucracy to do so. To put it bluntly: our modern welfare and tax systems are broken. The negative income tax seeks to rectify a major problem: it simplies the welfare system and works broadly within the tax system. In other words, it isn't a separate bureaucracy, but rather a part of the tax system. To give an example, let's look at what noted libertarian economist and NIT proponent Milton Freidman proposed. The Economic Library sums his view up as follows:"The NIT would thus be a mirror image of the regular tax system. Instead of tax liabilities varying positively with income according to a tax rate schedule, benefits would vary inversely with income according to a negative tax rate (or benefit-reduction) schedule. If, for example, the threshold for positive tax liability for a family of four was, say, $10,000, a family with only $8,000 of annual income would, given a negative tax rate of 25 percent, receive a check from the Treasury worth $500 (25 percent of the $2,000 difference between its $8,000 income and the $10,000 threshold). A family with zero income would receive $2,500."[1]By being a mirror, or extension, of tax system, we reduce bureaucratic expenses. Rather than having hundreds of separate welfare programs, we have but a single program.Contention 2 - A negative income tax is better for the economyA major problem with modern welfare programs is their use of money. People are given welfare money, and it is limited to a single category: housing, food, education, etc. In effect, welfare implicitly assumes that it understands the needs of most, if not all, individuals who might need government assistance. The negative income tax opposes this view. The NIT is implicitly individualist; that is, it assumes people know best how to spend money, not the government.[2] The NIT is a superior method because it allows people to spend welfare in the way that works best for them and their families - it shifts accountability from government back to individuals, where it should be. Not only does it do that, however, it also allows businesses to benefit; rather than going to government to spend, or businesses having to send their food stamp or WIC vouchers to the government for redemption, the businesses get money. Again: we reduce costs, reduce waste, and increase individual accountability.Contention 3- The negative income tax allows better working conditionsKnowing that workers have a guaranteed income to fall back on empowers workers when negotiating contracts with employers. Workers know that if negotiations fail, they have a back-up plan and will not be forsaken. Employers know this also, forcing them to be more accomodating to worker demands, since workers can afford to quit. [3] All told, it is a unique way to benefit the workforce that no current welfare program offers.Contention 4 - The negative income tax encoruages and rewards workOur current welfare system haas been dubbed a "trap".[2] Because people get caught in it and can never get out. Why? Because there often is either no reason or in fact a downside to finding well-paying work. In our current system, increased pay can lead to ineligibility for benefits - more work can cause a net loss in income. Gradual income growth is often impossible.[2] In contrast, the negative income tax rewards work; working does not cause nearly as sever a penalty. Once one crosses the NIT threshold, of course, they lose those benefits, but they don't lose any net money.Contention 5 - The current welfare system defies logic; the negative income tax embraces logicPeople in poverty have different issues, but they all share a single, overarching concern: a lack of money. Our current welfare model assumes the best way to address this problem is to create a vast, inefficient bureaucracy that provides specific needs, spread out over dozens of organizations with different elgibility levels, costs, and methods of aid. To put it bluntly, this sytem is insane. It makes no sense. If the issue is that people need money, why on earth are we creating such a complex solution - and one that, simply put, hasn't eliminated the problem?The negative income tax, in contrast, operates logically. If the issue is that poor people don't have money, and we presume the government has an obligation to address this problem, why not just give people money?[4] Rather than having a virtual army of bureaucrats providing different services, offer one service designed to specifically address the problem? That's the brilliance of the negative income tax: a simple solution to a complex problem.We look forward to the opposing team's next round.References1. http://www.econlib.org...2. https://medium.com...3. http://www.theatlantic.com...4. http://www.nytimes.com...