Replace Welfare with the Negative Income Tax

Compromise “The compromise Valladarex calls for is not really a compromise between our two positions…I'd still be holding my nose, because the income tax system is VERY malleable to political pressure“ I did not mean to call for a compromise between our positions, but for a compromise between your position and the current system. You want to keep more of your money for you and your family. This is the most feasible way to substantially decrease welfare spending today. When looking at this country realistically, your proposal for ending welfare entirely is not going to happen so long as there are poor people, people that want to help them, and politicians who can use this problem to get votes. The best one can hope for is a compromise to minimize the size and scope of the social safety net. “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.” No doubt political pressures will influence what happens to the NIT, but there is also no doubt that reducing 126 programs into 1 will allow for increased accountability and oversight. It will likely be changed over time, but I’d rather have a more efficient and effective system of helping the poor be slightly modified when compared to the huge, bloated, ineffective welfare bureaucracy that we have today. The Cause of Unemployment “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.” It is a misconception to think that the majority of the those people that are unemployed just don’t have the motivation to work. Employment rates change for a variety of reasons and they fluctuate greatly. For instance, the economic growth of a country is correlated with employment rates (1). When there is a recession, increases in unemployment follows. The graph above demonstrates that recessions lead to unemployment. Obviously it would be unrealistic to think that this is because people just get lazy in predictable cycles. So what causes the unemployment to rise? When economies are expanding, businesses can grow, so they are more willing to hire workers. When economies are contracting, businesses must deal with reduced revenues and may actually have to lay off their workers. Even if a particular business has not seen any recent decreases in revenue, if its analysts project that revenue will decrease in the future as a result of a general economic slump, it may start laying off workers pre-emptively or at least halt all hiring processes (2). As a result, the majority of people gain and lose jobs not because of their motivation level, but because there is simply not enough jobs openings for everyone. Other things, like excessive regulations and the minimum wage can further lessen the ability for businesses to hire more workers. Skynet’s Proposal to Phase Out Welfare “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….The quick payout would satiate many users of the current system, making it more politically feasible.” This proposal is not a viable solution because unemployment is not a temporary issue that can be eliminated by simply giving every poor person $100,000 and expecting them to find long-term work after. This proposal ignores the very real market fluctuations that increase and decrease the amount of job openings available for people. Education and information given by the government does not guarantee a job, which can be easily proven by looking at the current high unemployment and underemployment rates for college graduates (3). The graph below demonstrates that college graduate unemployment is also correlated with market fluctuations, which means their unemployment isn’t simply because they are lazy. Overall, Skynet's proposal would leave the poor to fend for themselves after that one-time payment runs out, and poverty and suffering would increase dramatically in this country. It is not a solution, and it is certainly not politically feasible. Equity “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.” False. In many cases, getting a job while on welfare would actually decrease their net income. Welfare payments can actually pay better than a job. As Michael Tanner of the CATO institute writes to New York citizens, “Here’s an offer for you: $38,004 per year, tax free. No work required. Apply at your local welfare office.” Also, “ There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy. Indeed, surveys of them consistently show their desire for a job. But they’re also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work. (4)” My NIT proposal, on the other hand, would only give the bare minimum amount of money required for people to stay out of poverty, and their incomes could only increase for every dollar they make through work. This is not the case with the current system. The NIT encourages work while also providing a social safety net for the worst off. 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.” You continue to portray poverty as a personal motivation issue as opposed to largely an economic issue. Giving the poor money to survive is needed for them to be able later to find work and thrive. Having them suffer and starve as a result of this mischaracterization and generalization of poor people is unjustifiable and will result in a less fair, less prosperous, and less free society. Fairness, prosperity, and freedom increases by allowing people in poor circumstances to have enough to live and later have the opportunity to achieve their goals, and have a job to pay for themselves and their families. The NIT is not in support of the equality of results, but is in support of a greater equality of opportunity. “Some people are in such a bad 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.” You may very well be a generous person who would help poor people lined up outside your door. The reality is there are not enough generous people in every poor neighborhood and city in this country to ensure that no person goes without their basic needs. Voluntary action could not fully perform this important task. Only a government program can. “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.” You and your family are very fortunate to have had the opportunities to have lives outside of poverty, and through your hard work you are capable of supporting your family. The unfortunate truth is that not everyone has had the same chances that you have had, and people living in poverty, are a lot of the time, stuck in their circumstances as a result of systematical disadvantages. For instance, you may have the means to send your son to a good school, while a poor child in a poor neighborhood will likely get a poor education, decreasing their chances to succeed later in life. Your wife has the wonderful ability to raise your son full-time, while a poor mother might have to raise 3 kids while working two jobs because the father abandoned them. Was it the mother’s fault? Some may say so, but it certainly was not the fault of the children. If that mother loses her jobs, she may no longer be able to put food on the table and a roof over the heads of her children. Maybe there are private charity programs nearby, but maybe there isn’t. I don’t see how any just society could allow these children and their mother to starve and live on the streets when it certainly has the capability to provide a basic social safety net to them. And if hard times were to hit your family, I would like for there to be a system in place to help you and them get through it. This is security not just for the poor, but for everyone. Conclusion “What's fair is me providing for MY family FIRST... Charitable giving must come from a cheerful and willing heart, or it means nothing, as our current system does. It's just extortion.” It is fair that most of your money goes to providing for your family, but taxes are a necessary evil. The government will take your money even if you’d rather keep it. All taxation is extortion, because you don’t have the ability to say no. So then it’s up to people to decide what the government should use their taxes on. It’s reasonable for people to support the NIT as a replacement of the current welfare system because it will decrease taxation, decrease the size of government, increase efficiency, increase the incentive for the poor to work, and give enough money to people to live and have the chance find success later in life. I urge you to support the negative income tax for a fair, free, rational, and prosperous society. Vote pro. Sources (in link): http://www.multiurl.com...