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 23:31:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.193624.10283@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.013912.12749@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>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 :-)
>
>true. we have gotten off topic.
>
>>   (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
>>    :-) :-)
>
>please tell me how any of the positives above are anything more than
>wishful thinking, things the gov't *always* promises but *never* delivers.
>
When has the government ever promised removing entire ministries, and 
replacing the entire social service system with this kind of system?

Let me explain:

1. Government gets out of the social service business completely.
2. Because no-one would accept otherwise, a social democrat 'progressive'
   system is retained (not because I want it, but because I can't change
   it). The taxes paid support: minimal government operations: courts,
   military, weights & measures, diplomatic corps. The rest of taxes
   go to tax-and-transfer (negative income tax, vouchers, call it what you
   will)

The theory is: why are people paying out tax money for inefficiently managed
services, when the bulk of social service money gets spent on ourselves.
I say cut out the middleman, let me buy services if I can afford them.
Since the majority of Canadians subscribe to the notion that 'government
should do "something" for the poor, etc.' Neither you nor I can change
that. But *perhaps* we can make sure that: as long as we are going to
be forced into a government run charity system, that we might as well
make it run as efficiently, and as close to free market principles, as
is possible under these extreme, socialist, non-libertarian circumstances.

If we can keep the socialists happy, by providing the same level of 
services, but significantly cheaper and better run, then that's fine
with me. *Perhaps* a system so organanised will wean people off of government
dependency (even if people are still getting cheques under N.I.T., they
will have to shop around; maybe they'll develop a taste for enterprise,
instead of passively accepting every single service).

You also mentio a 70% figure for social spending. The way you mentioned
the figure made it seem as if that 70% were all handouts, charity, pork etc.
How much of that money come from middle class taxpayers? How much simply
gets spent back on them? A significant proportion I imagine. 
At least cutting taxes AND services for people who can afford it is
a good step. That leaves a certain % of money that wouldn't actually
be spent back on the person paying the taxes (ie the part of taxes
that get dropped into welfare, services for OTHERS).

This is an incremental step: cutting taxes and services for those who
can afford them. That leaves the people who can't afford them: now
you can either A. continue letting government pay for and provide
services for them. B. just give them the money that would have been 
spent / administered by government. I favor B., as it would let them
purchase services on the free market. That leaves government with
less to do (which is good).

SO let's go through this:

Do you favor removing the services and their corresponding taxes?
(ie, so YOU can spend it on services you want, presumably more efficiently
 than government can)

if yes:

I'm sure *you* would rather see the remainder of those taxes paid
(ie the ones that go to government subsidies, welfare etc.) cut too,
but since you've already said that this isn't likely to happen:

  1. would you rather leave that remainder of your tax money
     spent and administered by government, providing services?
  2. would you rather have the government just hand it out, since
     at least it would cut administrative costs, and make it go further?
  3. alternate? since the socialists aren't going to let go of YOUR 
     money, how do you propose that your money gets spent on
     'social services' for others?

The constraints of current politics restricts what we may regard as ideal.
So how do we get as much as we can, while placating our enemies just enough?

>>OK, that ought to be a start.
>>PLease, let's keep on topic....
>
>sure. i am still waiting for some proponent of this system to tell me:
>
>1. what, other than socialistic desire to fulfill "need", they have
>   to justify the existence of a guaranteed income;
>
Reality? The fact that opposition would be too great? Pragmatism:
if the socialists are going to rob us, to pay for services for others,
perhaps we can minimize the collateral damages?

rationale: at least get government out of the service providing business
(except police, military, courts). This lets free enterprise provide
services in a better, more efficient manner, thereby reducing costs.
The socialists are presumably appeased by the money transferred to the
poor, so they aren't railroaded by the free market.

>2. what, other than blind faith or wishful thinking, they have to to
>   make them think NIT will be successful or better than the current
>   monstrosity, or that existing systems will be disassembled;

by cutting out goverment from the service providing business, at least
it is allowing partial free market type reforms. At least that is
a positive step.
>
>3. how they expect to prevent industry from driving even faster to
>   the US border to get away when it is faced with competing with
>   the government for labor;

If the system is made to give at least no more out in money or services
than it does already, at least it won't be any worse.
>
>4. why, if this system will not *drastically* reduce costs, we are
>   considering it, when the country is being bankrupted and we must
>   act *now* to stop the red ink. even those who believe in 
>   "streamlining savings" can't possible think they will make a major
>   dent in the deficit and debt problem.
>
I think it will reduce costs, cross the board. (by allowing free markets
to take up services where the government withdraws from)
>
>NIT is not free market. it is governmental expropriation and transfer
>of wealth. do you have faith in that? why? it doesn't work now...

NO it isn't entirely. But we can change the provision of services so
at least the service side IS free-market. That is positive. The
fact that it still has government expropriation and transfer of wealth,
doesn't make it any worse.

>
>--
>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