From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:49:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.232314.14520@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.163509.12337@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>
>>>Basically, yes, and it would be a lot more efficient than hiring the
>>>thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats to deliver the complicated
>>>set of social programs which essentially do the same thing now.
>>
>>no.
>>there are some important differences. first and foremost is that this
>>money would be paid to all those who are currently working as well
>>as those who are not. it would destroy the incentive for anyone
>>with earning potential less than $15,000 to work. it would create
>>a de facto $7.50 minimum wage, hurting canada's companies.
>>
>
>There is no incentive as it is...the existing social programs are
>much more lucrative than a negative income tax...and we institutionalize
>a bigger problem by the creation of huge social program bureaucracies...
>no-fault "welfare" is cheaper...and the money saved on less bureaucracy
>can be directly at putting in place an education and training
>infrastructure to provide opportunity for people to rise, and not
>excuse for people to stay on the dole, which is what the current
>system does.

then why not work on getting rid of the social programs, instead
of replacing them with ones which are only marginally better?
we need serious, major changes.

>>>If we are going to have a social safety net...it might as well be
>>>the most efficient one possible, and the negative income tax is
>>>that.
>>
>>another major problem with this, and i do see it as major, maybe others
>>don't, is how it legitimizes social welfare. it sends the message that
>>there is nothing wrong with allowing yourself to be borne upon the backs
>>of others. it will accelerate the already out-of-control social spending.
>>
>
>Social welfare is already legitimized, and in a much more disgusting,
>expensive, and inefficient way, and that has created a poverty trap
>and huge government bureaucracies dediciated to the survival of the
>underclass.  The existing social safety net is not a trampoline...
>it is like a fly trap...anyone who falls in is trapped.

then let's get rid of it. don't get me wrong -- i understand your
point about the negative income tax being better than the current
system. but if both systems are bad, why not work toward something
else?

>>>The same goes for the flat tax...it reduces the need for bureaucrats
>>>in tax department, and reduces the need for wasting valuable human
>>>resources in the fields of tax law and accounting. 
>>
>>flat taxes will never work because the general public is under the
>>impression that the more money you make, not only the more tax
>>should you pay, but the higher *percentage* of income should you pay.
>>a flat tax would be labelled "regressive" and shouted down by the
>>majority who has the most to gain from higher marginal tax rates.
>>
>
>The general public is under that impression because of propaganda
>from the left and from the rich.

i can understand that from the left, but why the rich? if i make
$250,000 a year, what do i have to gain by higher tax brackets
that kick in at $75,000? loopholes? they'd have to be pretty big
to justify the differences in the tax brackets.


>The left is absolutely stupid...
>they argue for a progressive tax system...but since they are never
>in power, it is never imposed...

how do you define progressive? the current system is, in my mind.
any system which has tax brackets is progressive, isn't it?

>and the rich who are in power,
>institute a tax system which looks progressive, but is riddled
>with loopholes...

are they really so large that the net effect is less than a flat tax?

>and creates unproductive and wasteful jobs for
>bureaucrats, lawyers, and accountants.

very likely true.

>The way to get the rich
>to pay taxes is to have flat taxes.  The majority loses from
>a progressive tax system...not gains.  

i don't know about this.
tell me more about why you think so.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics