From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:23:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.194507.4247@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.005748.22463@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>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.
>
>It would be useful to actually change the subject line as well.  If
>you're not talking about NIT, but rather about, say,
>"Institutionalized Fiscal Irresponsibility in Government", then it
>would be useful to say so.

my point was simply that i have seen no argument that realistically
suggests that the NIT *is* any better than the current system, which
is a brutal failure. simply changing systems for the sake of changing
can in many circumstances serve as a distraction and allow people not
to address the real problem.

>>>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?
>
>It makes the price much more explicit.
>It shows to the people who is paying, and who is recieving in much
>clearer terms than the current system where the bills get hidden very
>well.

first of all, i have yet to see evidence that this system will really
fix very much. second, it is to be implemented by an organization with
a pretty poor track record for efficiency and fairness. third,
the price is too high. choosing between two systems that are both
doomed to failure is like drawing lots for sequence at an execution.
what does it matter? we need to *reduce* the price, not just make it
more explicit. i think that should be the priority: making sure we don't
end up like other socialist countries which have spent beyond their means.
NOT replacing one antiquated, unfair, costly system with another which
may or may not be slightly better.

>>>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?
>
>I'm not clear on the exact numbers, but I think that welfare probably
>maxes out at EXPLICIT benefits of about $12K.  However, someone that's
>on welfare gets effective benefits that are probably much higher
>because of things like subsidized rent, daycare, and supplimental
>health care.
>
>What it means is that it is economically better to earn NOTHING (zero.
>nada.  Sit at home and watch soap operas) than it is to work in a job
>that earns 'em $15,000 a year.
>
>If a welfare recipient went to work, a couple thousand gets eaten by
>income taxes, and he/she would LOSE those other benefits, which
>effectively costs another couple of grand.
>
>I stand by the ">100%" assertion.

ok, wasn't disputing it, just didn't understand what you meant.
i happen to agree with you. it is similar to the argument i used
against "workfare". but this only shows another problem with NIT:
it is a system which will encourage people not to work. please explain
why if you think i am wrong.

>>>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?
>
>If taxation is considered the same as "robbing", then I suppose
>there's no difference.
>
>If you refuse to pay taxes, then this would be the moral
>justification.  Revenue Canada doesn't care about your "moral
>justification."  They work based on the law of the land.  And the
>Income Tax Act makes the taxation form of "robbery" quite legal.

sorry to be overly dramatic. my point is only to expose the premise
hidden behind the use "happier". i don't believe that such a system
makes *everyone* happier. it makes happier those who benefit from it.
that does *not* make it moral or just. my analogy of robbing a bank
was not by any means meant to suggest legal equivalence; it was meant
to say that just because the recipients like the system, that doesn't
mean it is just.

if you want to talk legality, refer to the tax code. i am not talking
about legality. laws are written by governments, which may or may not
be moral. the law as such may or may not have relevance to a moral system.

>>>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.
>
>Take your argument to the papers.  "Taxation is Slavery!"

not all, only that which is spent on unnecessary or unjust activities,
as i wrote five lines above. do you disagree? why?

>You've said it quite enough in this forum, and I think everyone is
>quite aware of what you think of taxation.

only immoral taxation. do you disagree?
is your point that you disagree but you can't say why? or is it that
i am right and you can't stand it?

>To belabour the point any
>more probably wastes peoples' time.

i don't expect my views to be popular. i am simply trying to get people
to look at their social systems from a different point of view. the more
different my view, the *less* of a waste of time it is. if i just spout
"common wisdom", *that* is a waste of time. in any event, you are welcome
to skip any articles i post if you so wish. it's still a (relatively)
free country.

>>>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*"...
>>
>>>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.
>
>I don't think that the primary issue is in fact that of *saving*
>money.  Not much money is likely to be *saved* by a NIT tax.

this *was* a claim in an earlier post i read on the subject.
if you don't agree with the claim, fine; we concur on that one.

>The
>issue is that the system is very clearly unfair to those that are just
>above the welfare line.  It's very GOOD to those on welfare, but cuts
>off in very strange places.

this implies that the new system will actually cost more than the old,
right? the old one which we can't afford now? so where is this money
supposed to come from? sorry to raise such *difficult* questions, i know
how much "happier" we'd all be if we just pretend it grows on trees...

>If by improving the taxation system, people can be encouraged to
>actually go off of welfare, then that is a "win."

i see no *evidence* that NIT will do that. i see a system that not only
does not push up those on welfare now, it *drags down* those making between
$1 and $15,000 a year, by telling them they need not bother. so why
do you have so much faith in this idea?

>The societal
>changes that would be associated with such an event might be
>economically worthwhile for reasons not directly related to the tax
>changes.

such as? sounds like a catch-all to me.

>You seem to be very good at griping about "Taxation Slavery."

i explained that above.

>Do you
>actually have any ideas to suggest that could possibly be turned into
>government policy?  Or are you only able to shoot down ideas?

you don't even want to listen to the ideas i have presented so far...
if you are serious about this, i will post some later. but be warned:
you won't like them. they call on people to be independent and responsible.
government doesn't like that. it costs them votes. which is why they
institute socialist policies and run up outrageous deficits, and why
my ideas will probably never be made into policies.

but turning the
tables on me is not valid anyway; i am shooting down the NIT because
i don't think it will work. if you disagree, *prove* to me that it will
work. because i am sick of hearing about government-supported programs
which are backed up by nothing but faith and hope. and this one seems
to fall into the same category. the onus is on the one supporting the
program so similar to others that have been shown to be failures.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals