From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:39:12 GMT

[ Christopher ]
>>>>Much of the discussion has been very long-winded on the excessively
>>>>philosophical side.  Sure - NIT isn't the PERFECT answer.  But that
>>>>wasn't the question.  It's probably about the BEST answer that the
>>>>politicians would conceivably be able to get into place.
>>>
[ Charles ]
>>>maybe, but it serves as a distraction from dealing with the real problem.
>>>you are just substituting one bad system for another. and i have seen
>>>no evidence yet to suggest that it is even better.
>>
[ Christopher ]
>>It would be useful to actually change the subject line as well.  If
>>you're not talking about NIT, but rather about, say,
>>"Institutionalized Fiscal Irresponsibility in Government", then it
>>would be useful to say so.
>
>my point was simply that i have seen no argument that realistically
>suggests that the NIT *is* any better than the current system, which
>is a brutal failure. simply changing systems for the sake of changing
>can in many circumstances serve as a distraction and allow people not
>to address the real problem.
>

Well, then let's hack at the problem, with some specifics if we can.
A few dozen articles on politcal philosphy have gone by (fine and dandy)
but we haven't got much further on Negative income 'tax', (if we have,
I'm sure we've forgotten :-)

First, some negatives of negative income tax (does that make it positive ;-)

1. Doesn't change the motivation (or lack of) for working vs. starving
2. Could fail as splendidly as any other government program 
3. could be worse, if old system is retained, even if only partially

Some positives:
1. Could simplify things, by sacking a lot of civil servants
   (eliminate the social ministries, and let Revenue Canada collect
   taxes and print cheques...seems simpler(?))
2. could let private sector, free enterprise expand:
   Ie, if Governments withdraws from running social services, and instead
   merely hands out money, letting recipients spend it, and letting
   the private sector compete to provide cheaper, better services.
3. payments could be deindexed, letting inflation reduce costs to government
    :-) :-)

OK, that ought to be a start.
PLease, let's keep on topic....

>>>>Any more drastic alternatives would result in the "riot police on each
>>>>corner" situation, because it would just be too much for people to
>>>>adjust to.
>>>
[ Charles ]
>>>then phase in the drastic alternative gradually. but do phase it in!
>>>because the NIT is a non-solution to a big problem. and if we don't
>>>tackle the problem, it will tackle us. and then the "riot police on
>>>each corner" will happen anyway, and worse.

OK, what is your system. Details. 'Social costs'? How will you get the
socialists to bend over and say 'harder!'?

>>>
>>>how can it be otherwise? the NIT is not going to solve the enormous
>>>deficit problems due to social spending. so what kind of solution
>>>is it?

Perhaps by streamlining. Cutting a lot of departments. By targeting
funds to where they can be better used, or eliminated, since some people
don't need them anyway. Universality has been a failure, and already
there have been good steps to cut payments (Family allowance) to people
who don't need it.

And why do we hanve so many different levels of subsidies, payments, handouts
etc.? At least if we are going to stay with handouts, just give individuals
one big lump sum. Surely the administrative costs would go down?

And if people are given MONEY, and they have to shop for their services,
at least the free market can be allowed to operate in places where it can't
now. Governmnet is held ransom by powerful teachers, administrative, health
and other unions. let's see how long the unions can force ever increasing
government spending (above the inflation rate even), if they have to
cater to individual clients, instead of bullying government. The unions
have been successful at increasing costs of services, because they have only
one big fat purse to attack: government's.

>>
[ Christopher ]
>>It makes the price much more explicit.
>>It shows to the people who is paying, and who is recieving in much
>>clearer terms than the current system where the bills get hidden very
>>well.
 I agree.
>
>first of all, i have yet to see evidence that this system will really
>fix very much. second, it is to be implemented by an organization with
>a pretty poor track record for efficiency and fairness. third,
>the price is too high. choosing between two systems that are both
>doomed to failure is like drawing lots for sequence at an execution.
>what does it matter? we need to *reduce* the price, not just make it
>more explicit. i think that should be the priority: making sure we don't
>end up like other socialist countries which have spent beyond their means.
>NOT replacing one antiquated, unfair, costly system with another which
>may or may not be slightly better.

Is it doomed to failure? TOugh call.
I think it can reduce the costs of services, while improving quality.
We have one of the world's most expensive education systems. We have a
very expensive health system (although not as expensive as in the USA).
Why? I think because of having a single payer: government. A government
composed of fools is a weak link for all the special interests to attack,
and demand excessive spending. The government doesn't have the resolve to
stand up to the special interests, and can't ask the voters for more, 
so it borrows. Removing government's ability to decide how much is
spent (borrowed) and letting it reside with the people is a better first
step.

Whether or not it will fails is what we're trying to hash out. 
I'll put my faith in letting a free market settle out the costs and
distribution of services. Tax-and-tranfer (NIT) let's you do that,
while preserving some of the warm & fuzzy parts. Maybe we can talk tax
opt out for die-hard Objectivists...

Maybe we can analyze this as an 'investment' where we risk a bit of
capital in a person. Perhaps they need a push to get going, then
they can pay things back, in clear terms; not the vague 'it's good
for society kind of argument'. Let's think of ways performance
of this investment can be measured, and risks evaluated, and when
we decide to WRITE OFF that investment; yes: this guy is a bum;
we've tried to help him to help himself, but he won't, so no
more support (or less) for him. Now run this with a profit motive:
do your best to get people on their feet, so they can pay you
back with interest. Then you can cover the bad apples, and have enough
to continue. (btw, I'm trying not to abuse the word investment, as
others are trying to. Investments have returns; they aren't just
excuses to blow wads of money).

>i don't think it will work. if you disagree, *prove* to me that it will
>work. because i am sick of hearing about government-supported programs
>which are backed up by nothing but faith and hope. and this one seems
>to fall into the same category. the onus is on the one supporting the
>program so similar to others that have been shown to be failures.

Prove your do-nothing (that's what it appears to amount to) idea will
work. A little faith and hope may be necessary...but I have enough faith
(and evidence) in free markets that I think a solution so structured will
work.
>
>--
>charles


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics