From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:45:47 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>
>>A negative income tax (I dislike this term) would bring the 
>>subsidies out into the open, where you could see them.
>
>first of all, i have no reason to believe that the other subsidies,
>etc. would be annulled when the new system was imposed.
>
>second, your point about disliking the term is exactly a point 
>i made later -- it is government doublespeak that justifies what 
>is nothing more than welfare. 

As far as I have read on the topic (in the real world (-;), Friedmans'
"negative income tax" does not seem to differ much from the guaranteed
annual income installed by the Israeli Labour Party and enjoyed by the
repatriated Jews as from the ex-USSR and Ethiopia.  I was skeptical
when Ed Shreyer mentioned that in Manitoba during his philosophical 
before leaving to become a Liberal Governor-General and then High
Commissioner to Australia ...  I guess that hearing it from the NDP
before from Stanton Friedman tainted that idea for me. (-;

>>Basically, a certain amount of social programs,
>>ie. the rich/middle class paying money to people who are poorer/haven't
>>earned it, is NOT altruistic, and therefore makes sense (if improving
>>your self interest is your prime motivation). Why? because you have to take
>>a long term view with some things: subsidize a small amount to the poor,
>>or pay more for a police state needed to preserve your own security
>>(drastic), or wind up guilloutined with the aristocrats? Paying a certain
>>amount to the poor can actually advance your self interest.
>>(that 'certain' amount is open for study...)
>
>that is a classical argument.
>
>two problems with it: first, it is a post hoc justification for social
>spending, i.e. when social spending was implemented, "protection of
>the rich" was not on the list of objectives. but that is not really
>*that* big of a deal.
>
>second, and more importantly, you are confusing slavery with
>free action. if the "rich" and middle class want to ensure that 
>the poor don't attack them, they will protect their own self-
>interests by doing exactly what you suggest, or they will suffer
>the consequences. those are the responsibilities that come with
>wealth. but *forcing* people to do that cannot be justified. you
>can't tell someone that you are taking their money "for their
>own good". if that is true, let them decide, it's their money!

Since the parties instituting such policies are linked to The
Establishment (Liberals and Conservatives in Canada, Gaullistes in
France, British Tories, etc.), it gives credence to that classical
argument.  Couple to that the fact that business likes social peace
and helmeted cops on every corner with semi-automatics does nothing
to foster the stability that commerce requires ...

>oh, also, if it was a "small amount" which was given to the poor,
>you'd probably not see much complaint. the "small amount" part
>died long ago.

Since the Canadian Establishment and their running dogs (-; did not
anticipate downturns, we all got caught.  As has everyone else.  And
not even extreme fiscal conservatives like Ronnie Reagan and Mags
Thatcher could put a brake on things ... they threw up their hands
halfway through their first terms.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics