Resolved: The USFG should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

Thanks for the argument Pro. The main problem with a negative income tax is that takes away incentives for people to want to help themselves. Professor Friedman even said that "like any other measure to relieve poverty, it reduces the incentives of those helped to help themselves" (https://mises.org...). A negative income tax would not solve this problem. While the current welfare system has a similar issue, the whole point of this debate is to show that a negative income tax should replace the current system. I mean, since a negative income tax guarantees a basic income that disappears as taxpayers earn more money, it takes away reasons for people to work. Another major problem with the negative income tax is that it cannot provide an income guarantee as generous as the cash and in-kind benefits already available to many welfare recipients in the United States. Jodie Allen, a senior writer with U.S. News and World Report, wrote that "the welfare system already provides a package of cash and in-kind benefits that, in many states, is worth considerably more than any likely NIT" (http://www.econlib.org...). My opponent starts off their argument by saying that "NIT would eliminate Food stamps as people would be able to spend their money on whatever they please. This would increase market efficiency as they would buy anything they want and many things they would have been unable to buy under the status quo." While food stamps have led to some problems, taking them away would create a whole new set of problems. If people choose to spend money on things that aren't food, and then they need food, there will have to be some other system to fix that problem that the negative income tax couldn't. So I wouldn't say that taking away food stamps increases market efficiency. It would still create that huge problem. My opponent then states that "Another baffle in the system of welfare has been that of Section 8 Housing. The system started off with good intention, but has began to degrade as waiting lists became longer and the Neighborhoods that they were moved into became poorer and poorer and filled with more and more violence." I happen to agree with that statement. However the negative income tax would not do anything to fix the problem. The Seattle-Denver Experiment's problem is that while it did think about welfare programs already in place, "the generosity of most of the tested plans made them unlikely to be replicated on a national scale, and more complicated to analyze" (http://www.econlib.org...). The Stanford Research Institute actually analyzed the Seattle-Denver findings and they apparently "found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives" (http://www.econlib.org...). So it has been proven that the negative income tax creates the problem of people no longer desiring to work. The Stanford Research Institute also found that that "instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup." So the negative income tax has more problems then its advocates realize. My opponent asserts that "NIT provides an incentive to work while they may still receive benefits from the government. While on comparison, at no income, they would receive $10,000 vs. welfare's $16,800, assuming it's a family of 4, but as the work increases, the NIT stays and they earn additional income while they would normally lose welfare." I fail to see the logic here. Maybe I am misunderstanding something but if the welfare system is replaced by the negative income tax, what government benefits is my opponent referring to that would somehow be an incentive for working? Lastly, my opponent writes that "Under the NIT system, the medium African-American family would receive $7,250 while the Hispanic-American family would receive $6,575. Both of which would help these families out of Poverty. This is a key thing and would be doing more to help in the 'War on Poverty' than the program we currently have." My opponent is going to have to do a lot more than to give a bare assertion like that in order to prove his point. The problem with the minorities is that they are getting less pay. The main issue here isn't that their benefits aren't good enough. My opponent wants to give the minorities 6,500 dollars but that hardly does anything to solve the main issue they pointed out in the first place. We need to balance the wages; not give more benefits that only temporarily fixes the problem. Besides, giving people around 6,500 dollars does not get anyone out of poverty. In conclusion, the negative income tax does not deserve to replace the current welfare system since it really doesn't solve many of the problems that already exist. I thank my opponent again for a good round and I look forward to the next one. Sources: a. https://mises.org... b. http://economics21.org... c. http://www.nationalreview.com... d. http://inequality.stanford.edu...