The US should use negative taxation over welfare checks

Con has dropped the arguments of: A larger amount can be used for capital to actually save money, like buying a freezer, then freezing food while on sale. My self-described most important argument that government aid would be more transparent. If it shows right there on the tax form, then everyone can see the amount paid, and to how many people. For example, you can see here exactly how much was spent on EITC, child care tax credits, refundable college credits (all NITs) and even deductions and exemptions. Where are the following breakdown for welfare? http://www.irs.gov... Con has refused to state how large these liabilities are, thus creating boogy-men that cannot be addressed. The only evidence Con stated was that they exist...ed 50 years ago. Further, most of his arguments were spent trying to pigeonhole me, misrepresent me, or defame me. As far as has been proven, the cost to tax payers is the same with either method, but with NITs, they will be more consolidated, and they will be more transparent. Con did not negate the former, nor even address the latter.To the rebuttals: I. My opponent seems to have a desire to mislead the audience. There is no effective difference between welfare and NITs. Con says they are not the same thing, which they are different, but not in the sense of fiscal policy. They both are payment by government to others, designed to aid the needy. The only difference is how they are dispersed. This is not a relevant distinction, nor is it enough to warrant a mislabeling of appeal to emotion. It is a simple fact: welfare and NITs are effectively the same thing, and any emotion against welfare would logically be against NITs, as they are with EITC. II. It could be true that I don't fully understand what they are, but that is the fault of Pro for not expalaining them, then saying they are not as how he explained them. This argument is quite clear and misrepresented here. Before the EITC, there was welfare, and only welfare. Con states EITC is NIT. The conclusion is that NITs have phased into the current tax law because welfare, for whatever reason, is undesirable. Con's failure to understand the arguement is not cause for his dropping the historical fact that NITs have become as favorable, if not more, than welfare. III. Con does not seem to understand that taxes are not debt, they are a potential liability, given numerous factors. NITs do not pay debt, as it is money given. Welfare, at best, pays for liabiliites, like food or shelter, which, for all intents and purposes, is the same as just giving them money to pay the "debt" of food and shelter. Ergo, instead of paying credit cards to pay for food, the welfare pays for food. Hmmm, seems like NITs might grow the economy a smidge. IV. Falsely states "another example", which is ad hom regardless. Social security is welfare. It has a massive liabilty, which is paid by others (via payroll taxes). Con cannot be spreading the lie that there is no liability when it comes to welfare. If there is not enough tax revenue to cover the welfare payments, that's a liabilty. It doesn't matter if the liabilty is before taxes are collected or after *(NITs, vs collecting taxes then dispersing them) V. First, I am unaware of these studies, as it appeard Con only gave one source, which was about the value of the EITC, which is NIT. Second, again, I don't need to prove anything, as I have already stated I don't need to claim NITs will provide more work than welfare. Third, Con dropped the argument regarding collecting welfare while not working. Fourth, even if the studies were cited in the sources, he did not state the findings. I should not have to search through studies to find the amount that entails "less". For all we know, it could be within the standard deviation. VI. If I was upset with $10K in welfare being spent, then I’d be upset about $10K in “income” being paid. This was never my argument, as I clearly said I only need to prove that NITs are better than welfare. It was wholly implied that both are government aid. I also never stated government aid was bad, as that is not relevant to the resolution. Also, we have no idea what the number would be, nor how many people would opt for the maximum amount. Further, it makes no sense that people would be less inclined to work. Again, I state that you do not need to work for many types of welfare currently. However, with NITs, the more you work, the more you make. Assume $10K and 50%. If I do nothing, I get $5K. If I make $2K, I get $4K, which is $6K. If I work some, I get more. Always, up to the point of maxing out. By the way, what is the point of maxing out for welfare benefits? Oh, that’s right, it depends on what you are applying for…..more complexity, more bureaucracy, and less efficient. VII. Welfare causes collateral expenses Con never states these liabilities, nor does Con really state how the collateral damage is different. He admits it requires taxes to fund welfare, yet…somehow direct negative taxation has more collateral damage. The Dept of Human Services has a budget of $779 billion (page 72) for Medicare and Medicaid. Serving 106 million people. That is $7,351 per person. If enough money is collected in taxes….how is that not an issue? Further, this is about ¼ of the US federal budget. Don’t tell me that doesn’t have repricussions http://www.medicaid.gov... http://www.cms.gov... http://www.hhs.gov... VIII. I’m pretty sure you’ve this is duplicated, or at least so similar, it is redundant. But, the logic is, welfare failed, so NITs were enacted in the form of EITC. Stop telling me what I need to argue. IX. This was taken out of context. I clearly stated that both systems are similar. The distinction was clearly about how the money is paid, and how it was spent. X. Con has proven my point, and has not suggested nor provided any evidence that shows that NITs will cost MORE money than welfare. So, assuming the costs (i.e. benefits paid) are the same, my argument of consolidation of NITs holds, since the administration costs would be less. XI. Does Con really not see the difference in efficiency? NIT = I file a tax return and get my aid. Welfare – I go to the Dept of Agriculture to get my food stamps. I go to the Department of Housing and Development to get rent vouchers. I go to the Department of Human Resources to get insurance. I go to the Social Security Administration to get my disability payments. That is four agencies doing what one could. How is that not inefficient? Besides the duplicated efforts, laws, labor, and time, there is the red tape that must be sorted out between different departments that can cause issues. The IRS can streamline all government aid with various schedules and forms to be completed. It is clearly more efficient to have one deal with everything, than at least four, plus the IRS for EITC. XII. First, there currently are dead and starved children and adults. This is not proof that NITs are worse than welfare. Second, this is false information, as we do not know what the minimum tax refund amount would be. In 1962, and in examples, it was stated $10,000. We do not know the current amount. However, the amount is irrelevant, as whether it was $10K or $100K, the issue is principle, not amount. Third, there is no reason to assume the money is eliminated after half of the year. This figure has no basis. Lastly, Con is conveniently ignoring the ability of friends, family, and charity to chip in. Forcing fiscal responsibility, even on the destitute, is not a bad thing. XIII. I never said the war on poverty was pointless. This is, yet again, another misrepresentation of my arguments. I said it wasn’t working. I said welfare has proven unable to solve the problem, as evidenced by the use of NITs currently.