From: root@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca (Superuser)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Keywords: welfare poverty social programs public finance
Organization: RWSYS Exporter BBS system
Date: Sat,  2 Jan 93 23:24:55 PST

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
> [ Christopher ]
[.... deleted stuff]
> 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 got stuck on welfare for a time. I got off "a bit-at-a-time". Eg.

Year 1, I managed to work some casual jobs for probably 60 days out
of 365.

Year 2, I made a goal to work the majority of the work days in the
year. I worked 123 out of 200 workdays.

Year 3, I had a full time job.

There is not much incentive in the present structure. In fact, I felt
like I needed to hide from welfare the idea that I might be able to
work (in case I really couldn't, as I suspected). I am also extremely
dubious of some of the 'training' programs offered through the welfare
agencies. They are often not worth the effort in terms of the occupational
possibilities.

But your args suggest an idea to me. It's based on the notion that the 
longer a person stays on welfare, the harder it is to get off. A graduation 
of welfare rates could be offered. When you first get welfare it is at a rate 
that will allow you some diginity as well as some food, but it declines month 
by month to a bottom. Each time you take a job, even a short one, it begins
to rise again. Whether it comes by way of NIT or monthly trips to the
welfare office is yet to be decided. 

Now, I'm not sure about these numbers, but here is an idea for someone 
living in Vancouver who does not work.

Month   Amt.
1	$1000 (maximum obtainable from public coffers under any circs)
2	$950
3	$900
4	$850
5	$800
6	$750
7	$700
8	$650
9	$600
10	$600
.	.
.	.


Now, the rule about work should be that each 10 hrs of work in a month
allows total income to increase to the next higher $50 increment. (total
income includes net income from work). 

This means if you've been on welfare for a year without working you will
be getting $600 per month. But if you go out and do 4 x 8 hour shifts in
a month, receiving say $7 per hr (net), you will pocket $224 from your job,
and the 32 hrs will put your allowable income (in the first month of work)
up by $150 to $750. You cheque from welfare will be $750 - $224 = $526.
If you do it a second month, you go up to $900 allowable income. On the
third month, you'll hit allowable of $1050, and 4th month $1200, but
maximum from public coffers is $1000.

The point is to get people to work as much as they can, and to encourage
it to become a habit. Whether the scale runs from $600 to $1000 as I have
suggested, or it somewhat different, the point is that it offers incentive
in both an upward AND a downward direction. There can be different scales
if need be, for visably disabled people, and those who are not.

Once your total income reaches the poverty line, you will hit a ceiling
where you'll loose welfare dollar for dollar. (There is probably a better
way to handle this withdrawl of benfits).

Any way, on any month you don't work at least 10 hrs, you loose $50 in
allowable income (and welfare/NIT).

> >charles
> 
Randy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
root@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca (Randy Wright)                     Exporter BBS
(604) 581-0518  8N1  (Bell 103/212A, V22.bis)  interactive login: guest
Anon uucp:  ogin: uguest     MACHINE=uguest LOGNAME=uguest MYNAME=rwsys
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics