The United States should adopt a negative income tax.

This round was written by Shab, and I will write the next round. Contention 1 - Negative income tax would reduce the size of bureaucracy Are we willing to be optimistic enough to believe that, without specifying what welfare money must be spent on, the poor will choose wisely? (More in Contention 2) The issue is not “that people need money” – or, at least, not the one the Government ought to try and solve. The issue is that people are going without certain necessities and are unable to live securely. To ensure that these needs are met, there is nothing wrong with complicated systems. The current system is elaborate, there is no question. It has to be. In order to ensure that welfare goes only to those who need it, and is spent only on those things that they need, there is no solution other than a complex series of rules, regulations, and agencies. This is not a bad thing. The aeroplane is not disadvantaged compared to the horse because it is more complex. Each part plays its purpose, and the whole is indisputably better at fulfilling its function. This point is, therefore, completely irrelevant; unless our opponents can show that NIT does what it sets out to do better than any other system, not just that it is simpler, they have not fulfilled their BOP. Contention 2 - A negative income tax is better for the economy Accountability is not “shifted to individuals” when a government imposes a NIT. In fact, the opposite happens: individuals are less accountable. Under a normal welfare system, there is no incentive to waste money, since the money is bound to particular necessities. One can’t (easily) spend food stamps on televisions. When the government gives people money, however, that money is very easy to squander. What must be done when someone, after having blown their cheque on liquor, is in danger of starvation? Would the government not be obligated to help them further and make sure that they don’t… die? If so, there would be no negative repercussions to spending the money in senseless ways, since there would always be a traditional welfare safety net underneath the people. Unless our opponents advocate eliminating such safety nets altogether, in which case I find it hard to believe that they’re for any welfare whatsoever, then he must admit that granting people money with no strings attached and no accountability makes them more prone to act foolishly. On the topic of businesses, our opponents do not explain why it’s better for a business to be paid by individuals who are paid by the government rather than by the government itself. This step is necessary. Contention 3- The negative income tax allows better working conditions Here, our opponents assume two things: 1.) That the NIT uniquely grants workers leverage; 2.) That granting workers such leverage is beneficial. 1.) is very hard for Pro to prove. It stands to reason that, under even as inefficient a system as our current one, most workers will not have to live in fear of starvation. The point of a welfare system is to provide workers with their basic needs, such that they will never go unfulfilled. What else would Pro want? 2.) is even more of a problem for our opponents. Having the ability to essentially quit at any time and not only survive (for anyone can survive under the current system, so Pro must have something more in mind) but live at a standard that is acceptable is exactly the kind of incentive that causes people to refuse to work. If a worker can just stop working and be fine, why work at all? Contention 4 - The negative income tax encoruages and rewards work This contention is flat-out false. Our opponents claim that someone who earns enough to no longer receive the benefits from NIT wouldn’t “lose any net money”. This is absurd; even if the new income earned precisely covers the amount that would have otherwise been granted by the government, the person is still massively disadvantaged by losing said benefits, for now they also have to factor in labour. “Earning more” is not the same as “being granted more money”, for the former, in almost all cases, implies an incredible investment of time/capital. Note that we do not have to advocate for the current welfare system – in fact, we don’t have to affirm the existence of welfare at all. All we must do here is show that the NIT would be, at best, equal to, or, at worst, more detrimental than, any alternatives. If equality is established, any additional arguments we win against NIT would be enough to fulfill our BOP. Therefore, our opponents must show how NIT is uniquely beneficial. Contention 5 - The current welfare system defies logic; the negative income tax embraces logic This is not a unique contention. It’s essentially a wholesale combination of contentions 1 and 2. As such, we refer the readers to our responses to those points individually.