From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:23:14 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

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.

>>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.

>>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.  The left is absolutely stupid...
they argue for a progressive tax system...but since they are never
in power, it is never imposed...and the rich who are in power,
institute a tax system which looks progressive, but is riddled
with loopholes...and creates unproductive and wasteful jobs for
bureaucrats, lawyers, and accountants.  The way to get the rich
to pay taxes is to have flat taxes.  The majority loses from
a progressive tax system...not gains.  

Gerald