The US should use negative taxation over welfare checks

I’m not very good with intros in debates, so here are the reasons why NITs are better than welfare: 1. It would be more efficient. Over the current system, there would be one welfare agency, instead of multiple. Welfare payments being made by various departments (human services, labor, agriculture, housing and urban development, and education) could all be consolidated to one section of the IRS. Under the current system, there is already tax oversight on the returns that produce negative tax incomes, so there would be fewer bureaucracies, which would streamline the operation and ultimately cost less. http://www.welfareinfo.org... 2. It will force people to budget. By only paying someone once a year, it forces people to learn to save. By being better stewards of their bank accounts, it is more likely to result in better uses of money. Further, having a lump sum can provide for better spending habits in the form of capital purchases or large bulk. For example, having the money to buy a freezer, and then buying products to freeze, thus saving money in the long run. 3. Most importantly, the welfare will be reported. Imagine if a charity or debt collector or government agency could ask to see your tax return (SOP for bankruptcy and divorces). On this tax return, they would see the TRUE amount of income for the year. Further, it would be harder to assume that a family is living on more than their reported income, since there would be no further government intervention. And, since private charities can discriminate where government cannot, they are more likely to make sure the money is used properly. For example, a deacon to a church might stop by to see how things are going, and upon discovering multiple empty liquor bottles, may decide to stop offering help. 4. Welfare doesn’t work. The war on poverty hasn’t alleviated poverty, and since then, the NIT has been implemented. In 1975, the EITC was enacted. This was passed well after Milton Friedman was talking about NITs. The only logical reason was that welfare wasn’t good enough. http://en.wikipedia.org... To the rebutalls: I, Negative Income Taxation Liability Pockets There are currently NIT Liability Pockets. As Con stated, the EITC is one. Ergo, welfare has obviously failed. Further, I don’t know what he calls welfare, if not liabilities, fiscally speaking.Why is one type of liability any worse than another? “Or in layman's terms, paying however much ever a US citizen goes in debt” This statement is utterly false. According to Con, the government pays a mandatory minimum income. This has nothing to do with debt. However, there is already a mandatory minimum income, in the sense that it is not taxed. These are the standard deduction, which was revolutionized from its flat tax-style deduction of 10% of income, to its current flat rate. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... “Meaning negative taxation is taking US citizens dollars, and using them to pay others bills” This is exactly how welfare works. Lastly, what is the social security liability, if not a liability? Whose tax dollars are paying for those checks? II. Negative Income Taxation Discourages Work The moral hazard is true of any charity. Welfare also discourages work. I am unaware of any requirement to work for food stamps or collecting unemployment or social security. If people want to live a meager existence by mooching, they will. The NIT, as proposed by Friedman, is not some luxurious windfall. “Hey, deadbeat family, here is $10K. That is all you get for the year. Have fun.” Remember, there is no government aid now, so that is not a whole lot to work with. Ergo, they will likely work. Also, Con’s analogy is inapt, since the issue isn’t learning to work, it is actively doing so. It is more the adage: Why buy the cow, when the milk is free? Why exert the effort, if I can get something for nothing? Some people are always moochers. III. Negative Income Taxation Causes Collateral Expenses This is no different than welfare. Taxes are spent to be given. There is no difference. I have no idea why Con is talking about debt. The NIT, welfare, nor EITC pays debt for another. If the individual uses the money for debt, which they often do, that is not the same as saying the government is forced to pay the debts. I’m pretty sure the USFG doesn’t pay for debts eliminated in bankruptcy. IV. EITC's Make Changing the Status Quo Pointless Con admits that the EITC is NIT, and the fact that it came after welfare is evidence of welfare's existence is proof of its inadequacy. The EITC creates negative tax incomes, and is not considered welfare. The EITC, as do many actual welfare programs, does encourage people to do stupid things, like not get married or not work more. The NIT will be no different. People are going to abuse the system. At least with NITs, you will know how much these particular people are costing everyone else because it is reported on the tax return. It isn't lost in some budget report for one department over here, and a breakdown of payment made by that department over there.It will be reported clearly, as the EITC is currently.http://www.irs.gov... V. Conclusion I do not understand why Con is telling me what I must argue. I do not need to prove any of the things he says I do. Hell, I don’t even need to prove welfare is bad. Just that the NIT is better. Con has already said the NIT is “quite popular”, and has, as far as I can tell, not shown why welfare is any better, since the downfalls of the NIT are the exact same as welfare. They can be abused. They are disincentives. They cost money. At least, NITs are more transparent, absolute, and efficient. [On a related note, I find it quite hypocritical that Con forces a self-described impossible BOP on to Pro, when he makes comments stating how BOP is to be on the instigator.] http://www.debate.org...