From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:24:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.233112.15923@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.193624.10283@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan2.013912.12749@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>please tell me how any of the positives above are anything more than
>>wishful thinking, things the gov't *always* promises but *never* delivers.
>>
>When has the government ever promised removing entire ministries, and 
>replacing the entire social service system with this kind of system?

they have promised many other things and changed their mind later, no?

>Let me explain:
>
>1. Government gets out of the social service business completely.

if they really did this, you'd have me much closer to your side.
i simply find this impossible to swallow. i just don't believe that
the leopard can change its spots *that* much.

>2. Because no-one would accept otherwise, a social democrat 'progressive'
>   system is retained (not because I want it, but because I can't change
>   it). The taxes paid support: minimal government operations: courts,
>   military, weights & measures, diplomatic corps. The rest of taxes
>   go to tax-and-transfer (negative income tax, vouchers, call it what you
>   will)
>
>The theory is: why are people paying out tax money for inefficiently managed
>services, when the bulk of social service money gets spent on ourselves.
>I say cut out the middleman, let me buy services if I can afford them.
>Since the majority of Canadians subscribe to the notion that 'government
>should do "something" for the poor, etc.' Neither you nor I can change
>that. But *perhaps* we can make sure that: as long as we are going to
>be forced into a government run charity system, that we might as well
>make it run as efficiently, and as close to free market principles, as
>is possible under these extreme, socialist, non-libertarian circumstances.

i reluctantly agree to the practical admission of the foolishness
of the majority of Canadians (though i will never admit that they
are being just in what they demand). i therefore agree with your general
concept.

>If we can keep the socialists happy, by providing the same level of 
>services, but significantly cheaper and better run, then that's fine
>with me. *Perhaps* a system so organanised will wean people off of government
>dependency (even if people are still getting cheques under N.I.T., they
>will have to shop around; maybe they'll develop a taste for enterprise,
>instead of passively accepting every single service).

it won't.

>You also mentio a 70% figure for social spending. The way you mentioned
>the figure made it seem as if that 70% were all handouts, charity, pork etc.
>How much of that money come from middle class taxpayers? How much simply
>gets spent back on them? A significant proportion I imagine. 
>At least cutting taxes AND services for people who can afford it is
>a good step. That leaves a certain % of money that wouldn't actually
>be spent back on the person paying the taxes (ie the part of taxes
>that get dropped into welfare, services for OTHERS).

a valid point.

>SO let's go through this:
>
>Do you favor removing the services and their corresponding taxes?
>(ie, so YOU can spend it on services you want, presumably more efficiently
> than government can)

sure.

>if yes:
>
>I'm sure *you* would rather see the remainder of those taxes paid
>(ie the ones that go to government subsidies, welfare etc.) cut too,
>but since you've already said that this isn't likely to happen:
>
>  1. would you rather leave that remainder of your tax money
>     spent and administered by government, providing services?
>  2. would you rather have the government just hand it out, since
>     at least it would cut administrative costs, and make it go further?
>  3. alternate? since the socialists aren't going to let go of YOUR 
>     money, how do you propose that your money gets spent on
>     'social services' for others?

very practical analysis. of course i would go with #2.

you seem to have me here. so i think back to how all of this started, and
what my original goals were. my original goal was to make a big deal
of how unfair and stupid i think both systems are. if we accept the
premise that one or the other is unavoidable, and we also accept
the premise that the NIT will be cheaper, i suppose i have to go with the
NIT. but then i have accomplished my goal, in my mind: to make people
look at the fact that both are quite horrible. because i don't want
anyone to think NIT is anything it is not.

and i wanted the list of assumptions necessary for the NIT to be
of *any* use to be made explicit. which you have done.

>The constraints of current politics restricts what we may regard as ideal.
>So how do we get as much as we can, while placating our enemies just enough?

sometimes rebellion is better than acceptance. even if it just verbal.
otherwise, how do we get *real* change? i mean, how did we get where
we are now?

>>sure. i am still waiting for some proponent of this system to tell me:
>>
>>1. what, other than socialistic desire to fulfill "need", they have
>>   to justify the existence of a guaranteed income;
>>
>Reality? The fact that opposition would be too great? Pragmatism:
>if the socialists are going to rob us, to pay for services for others,
>perhaps we can minimize the collateral damages?

i reluctantly concede this point to you. but if you have read "Atlas
Shrugged", you should understand how dangerous it is to play the role
you play. 

>>2. what, other than blind faith or wishful thinking, they have to to
>>   make them think NIT will be successful or better than the current
>>   monstrosity, or that existing systems will be disassembled;
>
>by cutting out goverment from the service providing business, at least
>it is allowing partial free market type reforms. At least that is
>a positive step.

OK.

>>3. how they expect to prevent industry from driving even faster to
>>   the US border to get away when it is faced with competing with
>>   the government for labor;
>
>If the system is made to give at least no more out in money or services
>than it does already, at least it won't be any worse.

no, here you're not finished; because you still have to address those
who are currently working who will now quit the system. and there is
no way that industry can compete *directly* with people who must choose
between it and the government. under a $15,000 NIT system, i would
argue that the minimum anyone will be able to offer someone to work
will be $20,000 a year. industry can't handle that.

>>4. why, if this system will not *drastically* reduce costs, we are
>>   considering it, when the country is being bankrupted and we must
>>   act *now* to stop the red ink. even those who believe in 
>>   "streamlining savings" can't possible think they will make a major
>>   dent in the deficit and debt problem.
>>
>I think it will reduce costs, cross the board. (by allowing free markets
>to take up services where the government withdraws from)

it's not enough.
we are in *serious* trouble, which everyone is ignoring. this was
another reason i wanted to make an issue out of this NIT. because
it doesn't seriously attack this serious trouble.

>>NIT is not free market. it is governmental expropriation and transfer
>>of wealth. do you have faith in that? why? it doesn't work now...
>
>NO it isn't entirely. But we can change the provision of services so
>at least the service side IS free-market. That is positive. The
>fact that it still has government expropriation and transfer of wealth,
>doesn't make it any worse.

i suppose. (grumble grumble)

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada