The US should use negative taxation over welfare checks

I, Negative Income Taxation Liability PocketsThere is a huge problem regarding negative taxation. The idea is to make sure every citizen has a income, but the process its extremely destructive. What happens, is the IRS pays into others taxes, negating them, and giving that person more money then their tax threshold allowed,Or in layman's terms, paying however much ever a US citizen goes in debt. These are called liability pockets, and they must be reimbursed by the IRS to the tax payer. Meaning negative taxation is taking US citizens dollars, and using them to pay others bills. All liability pockets are filled following IRS policy, which means not only are we paying others debts, but were also doubling our spending.II. Negative Income Taxation Discourages Work Back in the 70's, many people in America were considering using NIT's in exchange for welfare. The government ran multiple studies on NIT effectiveness, and everyone concluded by saying that NIT causes people to work less than welfare. Trust me, I was very puzzled upon reading these results. They both accomplish the same function, so why does one cause people to work more?I didn't see the correlation at first, but upon further examination, it became abundantly clear. There is a old saying called "Don't give a man a fish. Teach a man to fish". The NIT method pays for everyones needs and expenses, whereas welfare gives that person a monthly check, allowing the man to use that money to his benefit. To clarify, one method pays directly for all expenses that negate that persons tax threshold. Welfare gives people money based on their income, and allows that person to use that money with more flexibility. Hence, one method is teaching someone to fish, and the other is giving someone a fish.III. Negative Income Taxation Causes Collateral ExpensesThis is a very important point the audience should consider. Under the NIT, the USFG pays for all expenses under the tax threshold of a person. Even if that person is on earned income, the USFG is still forced to pay the negated taxes. Meaning, someone may be able to pay back their debts over time, but the annual return will force the USFG to pay said debts, even though citizens are perfectly capable of paying them.This was one of the biggest arguments used against the NIT in the 70's. There is actually a fix, but not a good one, and I'll that in my next contention. The point is that unlike welfare, the US government is paying expenses that the people they are stimulating can afford. No one is helped by collateral expenses.IV. EITC's Make Changing the Status Quo Pointless EITC, a abbreviation for earned income taxation credits. EITC's are a form of welfare that we give people who earn income. It is a form of NIT, and the primary fix to contention 1 +3, although it only addresses 50% of the problem. The IRS gives credits to people who are earning income of any sort, meaning that as long as their making self serving, they will receive negated taxes. People This contention is astoundingly simple. By making the NIT the preferred system, then we would simply make welfare the conduit for earned income credits. Which means the welfare bureaucracy would still exist (I suspect this will be the oppositions primary argument). The opposition must accept one of the following.....#1 The EITC would have to be abolished all together, meaning people will no longer be rewarded for working.#2 The EITC would simply shift from the NIT to welfareThis will be a hard choice for my opponent. There is no plausible way he can argue #2, and if he argues #1, he would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we don't need EITC credits, which are actually quite popular among conservatives. V. Conclusion I will simply lay out what my opponent must refute, and him having the affirmative stance, he has the BOP. He must prove that liability pockets are not a major threat. He must affirm that negative taxation causes more work. He muse argue that the collateral expenses are not sufficient for resolution negation. And finally, he must prove that the EITC is not important in America.I look forward to seeing my opponent fill a incredibly impossible BOP. Good luck!http://www.nationalreview.com...http://www.investopedia.com...http://www.ubalt.edu...