Replace Welfare with the Negative Income Tax

FeasabilityThe compromise Valladrex calls for is not really a compromise between our two positions, but rather a compromise between supporters of the current bloated system and my position of eliminating the system. If the compromise is between Valladrex's and my position, it is really no compromise at all because I'd just be giving up my position to support his. Granted, his position may be more feasible since so many people have grown accustomed to drawing money from the government sow. I'm not bashing my opponent, because in reality, I would probably hold my nose and support the NIT if it came up in Congress. I'd still be holding my nose, because the income tax system is VERY malleable to political pressure, http://americansforprosperity.org...http://www.msnbc.com...and I would not expect the gain to last long. As I pointed out earlier, the nearly flat tax in 1986 was quickly chopped up to create a campaign issue "against" the wealthy, and a profitable edge for those who made thier support to Rep. A and Sen. B.Some reading this might want to ask me what exactly would happen to people right after the current system was eliminated. Well, those who could would get employed out of necessity doing SOMETHING for now. Those who are able but won't work will get hungry, then will actually have motivation to work. Some people will realize they maybe don't need as much as they thought to get by. But what about the genuinely needy who truely can't? This is why I said "quickly phased out" and not immediately eliminated. If some people have been unemployed for generations, or thier whole life on the dole, they'll need one last hand out and hand up and order to brace before the rug is yanked out from under them. I propose offering a lump sum "early retirement" for every welfare recipient. It will surely cost less than $1 trillion a year in perpetuity to give all 50 or 60 million, or 100 million Americans $100,000.00 each in a tax free lump sum or annuity. (100,000,000 x 100,000 = $10 trillion) This would give time for individuals to ramp up charities, and for us all to find out who really needs help. In the mean time, the government would offer information on how to get and keep a job, and put more emphasis on public schools training students to be employable when they graduate. The quick payout would satiate many users of the current system, making it more politically feasible.http://www.foxnews.com...Of course, my plan is not intended to eliminate programs people paid into, like SS and unemployment. Those are seperate issues.EquityI still disagree with Valladrex's view of equity. It is one matter to require taxes from workers to pay public servants, supply public roads and "common defense," (police, fire, military). It is an entirely different matter to require tax from a private citizen to pay another private citizen for NOT DOING WORK. This is not fair to the worker, and incentivises the non worker, if he has the ability to work, to not try any harder. NIT does help bridge the gap for someone who's scraping by to advance at work, but it does nothing to incentivise in a posative way those who do not work.Shall we let them starve?Generally speaking I would not support a government program that proports to prevent starvation. If you are starving, who's to blame you for using it? It might help you survive, but it won't help you thrive or succeed. Some people are in such a bad way, I'm afraid no amount of charity or government assistance will make them succeed. That's the messed up world we live in. And, no people don't only fail due to thier own faults, I didn't mean to make it sound that way. So let us line up outside my door all the people who of no fault of their own can't succeed. If they ask for help, that's fine. But I should be under no outside compulsion to give to these strangers. When I turn around, I see my wife who spends her full time taking care of our son. Why should those strangers use the police power of the government to take bread from my family to give to them? Will charity always be adequate? No. Will my best always be adequate? No. That's the way it is for me, that's the way it is for everyone. What's fair is me providing for MY family FIRST. Charity is wonderful, but it is icing on the cake, and not a requirement. Charitable giving must come from a cheerful and willing heart, or it means nothing, as our current system does. It's just extortion.Making a way for people to subsist for no labor by forced taxation of others is not fair, and it is idealistic and unrealistic to expect a country to last long when there is a system that allows people to live for nothing. NIT is still a toxic incentive to not work.