From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:57:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.133010.11138@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.074518.8016@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.170925.18175@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec29.103313.24923@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>........
>>[ long argument between libertarians ]
>>
>>I'm sure you will concede that a tax-and-transfer system of welfare
>>(or negative income tax...ick), is a STEP in the right direction.
>>It has the benefit of being more efficient than the current system
>>(you are right about the implementation: if it were just slapped on
>>top of the same same mess, it would make things worse, not better.)
>>And it is important to take a step in the right direction, rather than
>>stay in one place, cursing the darkness around you.
>
>Well put.
>
>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.

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.

>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.

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.

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?

>What's kind of neat about it is that it makes it less important that
>the income tax system have the "graduated" rates.  The way things work
>right now is that in roughly the $5000-15000 income bracket, there's
>an effective "taxation" rate that's probably greater than 100%.

there is? how so?

>It
>then falls to roughly 26%, and then rises back to about 52%.  The rate
>of >100% is what discourages people from getting out of the "welfare
>hole."  Having a "constant" tax rate of 35% on ALL incomes over (say)
>$12000, where $12K is the "minimum" income, might make everyone
>happier.

everyone who is the recipient, that is. robbing a bank and giving
them the proceeds would make them happier too. should we do that also?

>Much of the recent discussion really has nothing to do with the NIT
>system, but rather just the complaint that "taxes are bad."

more accurately, it is the complaint (on my part anyway) that "forcing
one person to work for another" is bad. taxes are only "bad" when they
are spent on unnecessary or unjust activities.

>By the way, the Minimum Annual Income (MAI) would probably be a little
>higher than you'd expect.  The entry of the new system would be a good
>opportunity to cut off some indirect welfare benefits like
>free/unusually cheap: Health stuff, Rent, Day care.

i don't think that will happen. because all the people have to say
is "we need!" and the politicians will say "oh my, we wanted to get
rid of these other programs, but people will suffer, gee we can't do
that to them, it wouldn't be *fair*"...

>Expensive
>subsidized positions would no longer be something that they get.

baloney fed from the governmental butchers. new social spending
does not drive out old social spending. it is a lie fed to quiet
those who are on the borderline, who only would accept new spending
if it replaced old. what basis do you have for trusting an organization
with such a horrible track record?

>The
>MAI would get inflated a little to make up for this.

yeah, every year.

>The biggest procedural problem might be trying to figure out what
>happens with dependents?  Do minors get differing rates?  Or are they
>ALWAYS considered dependents?  If they're allowed to collect if they
>leave home, will this encourage a generation of children to leave home
>early?

and as we all know, the government is *great* at doing this fairly, 
efficiently and inexpensively. yeah, i see those savings just
*rolling* in.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada