Universal Basic Income Has Never and Will Never Work OR Where Does Wealth Come From?


Carborendum

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

 I enjoy debate. But I get tired it I have to go too in depth

Oh okay. The best debates I’ve ever had are with a guy I’ve known for 20+ years. He was a hardcore socialist, but I’ve moderated him down to “just left wing” now. We joke that in a few years he’ll be a Trump supporter. 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UBI is sort of practiced in the US already by a very Socialistic program (perhaps the Only TRUE socialistic program in the United States.  It is completely socialist in many ways.  This organization does NOT actually provide or produce any credible goods, does not create anything more out of it's labor than what it is given out of the taxes that fund it, and is a key on how socialized medicine, housing, and other items in the US might work if we turned completely socialistic as they are).  This program is the United States Military.

It is ironic how many of them live in a socialistic society but are, they, themselves, against socialism or having anyone else live in that type of society.

No matter what the rank, they receive a minimum amount of money no matter what they are doing as long as they are not criminally charged (via military justice).  They have housing either supplied, or they are given a housing allowance.  They have free medical care given (or mandatory medical care in some cases).  The DO protect our interests abroad, though they haven't really been called up to protect us from an attack on the mainland for many years.  Thus, as far as something that produces money...the military doesn't actually have a positive product produced.  The money that is spent is money they gain from what is given to them by the US government. 

If Taxation is stealing, and then that stolen money is given to fund an organization like the military...what do you call the people living off of that "stolen" money?

Would they be Thieves???

For some reason, I don't feel comfortable with this line of thought, but if we TRULY are going to say that taxation is theft, than that money is stolen money and those who are funded for their entire occupation and lives would be the ones who are living off that stolen money?

I think this is a dumb line of conversation.  Taxation isn't THEFT anymore than the military is made up of a bunch of parasites that live off of society without producing any products that actually create value to that society in general.

Neither is true.  Both are part of what we would a social contract.


(Add to that idea, that the government basically forced a bunch of us to serve many decades back...where draftees were paid but most of them would rather have not been in the military and been back at home instead).

----------------------------------------------------------

The Government cannot rule without the consent of the governed.  Thus, what the government does is allowed by those over whom it governs.

Taxes are part of that social contract.  I don't like many of the taxes today, but paying them is part and parcel of how the government is supported in order to run the programs it does. 

These programs (such as the military, welfare/medicare/medicaid, social security...the three biggest items which draw  money from our goverment today) are run by the government. 

If we do not LIKE how these things are done, it is up to us, in our Democratic Republic to make that known to those who represent us.  If they don't represent us, it is up to us to try to elect someone else.  IF we can get enough people to agree to our ideas, then such ideas can go forth.  If NOT enough people agree, or have different ideas, it probably will go nowhere.

These program then are seen as public goods.  They produce NOTHING of value inherent to a capitalistic society, in that no monetary good that can be sold for profit is produced.  HOWEVER, the government in utilizing these programs produces a net positive on society.  There are different purposes behind these net goods, even though from a monetary point of view, they detract, rather than add to, the amount of physical products being created.

The Military obviously is there in case we are attacked.  They are there to defend us.  It is not a constant need, but it exists as a backup so we don't have to scramble to build up a military (as we have in past times) if something happens.  In addition, we use the Military to project force and hence push our Diplomatic goals across the globe.

Social Security is there so we don't have our old folks starving to death in the streets.  It was supposed to be SUPPLEMENTAL income, but many use it as their primary souce of income today.  This is to make it so when people get old and feeble they have a way to eat.  Similarly, Military and government retirement is to ensure that those who have served our nation are able to be housed and eat rather than become homeless and starving after their service is done.  This is normally seen as a social good, even if it produces no physical product in return.

Medicare and Medicaid is seen to try to also provide for these people (along with Tricare...which some see as a branch of this).  Welfare is also a back up to try to keep those who are unable to do so, fed and sometimes housed. 

The reasons for these ideas of social goods go back to WHY we have governments in the first place. 

Originally, people grouped together for safety and to be able to produce more together than one individual could do alone.  Eventually, when these groups of people got large enough, some sort of organization on HOW to run the social contracts between people needed to be created.  In this, people agreed to certain things among each other for a common good.  That good could be defense, trade with each other (money in today's terms), and other items which may not be a product in and of themselves, but are seen as beneficial to society.  This is...a social good. 

The problem then comes on how to FUND these social goods.  There must be a way to make sure that those weapons bought for us to use against invaders, the storage spaces used to store our food, and other things are paid for.  Someone came up with the idea that everyone donates a little to the common good (aka...taxes) and hence...we can fund these things.

Taxes are part of that social contract.  It is part of why we live together in a society, because together we are stronger than we are individually.  AS the lord says....

Quote

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Not that I LIKE to pay taxes, but taxes are not necessarily theft.  NOW...OVERLY taxing people is seen as wrong in scripture...but taxes in an of themselves...are not necessarily theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different post on a different topic.  On the idea of UBI...I'm not sure what I think thus far.  Some experiments have shown that it works to create a better economic boost....but I would imagine it's the same type of boost you see around military bases.

The influx of money from the government at cities where military bases are helps the economies of those areas.  It's one reason why some see military bases as desireable for their local economies, both nationally and internationally.

In that same light, suddenly giving a bunch of people government money may have the same result.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea though to go all in on a national scale.  That may actually cost more money than it brings in.  I'm not sure what I think of it yet.

A better program would be that which the Lord instituted, but there are problems with that program as well.  In this program each person is given what they need.  Their needs are met.  They have enough food, housing, and clothing, but no one is given excess.  In return, everyone works and does labor.  It doesn't matter if you are the ditch digger, or the CEO, everyone is given the same amount as per their needs.  There is no stratification in this type of order where one gets more simply because they have more education, or they have the "better" job, or they come from a "better" family...etc...etc..etc.

Hence...the problems of running it in our modern day.  It's similar to what Joseph Smith ran into with Missouri. 

In Freshmen classes of philosophy and History we teach an idea of virtue vs. greed.  To run the program as described, it requires virtue.  Everyone must be willing to help out society simply because that's what they want to do.  They can't be thinking of their own selfish desires...or the program will not work.  The problem is that people are inherently greedy, and that greed disrupts the program above.

The best program is if everyone was virtuous, or cared more about society and their neighbor.  Then all would work, but no one would necessarily be given more than another simply because they wanted it.  Everyone would be given as per their needs...not necessarily their wants. 

UBI isn't this.  Until we all become Christlike, I don't think the Law of Consecration and the United Order will work all that well either.  The best it ever ran was under Brigham Young, but even then, you slowly saw it deconstructed as people wanted to have what the rest of the US was having and to get gain where they could enjoy the pleasures of the world.  After a few decades, they were no longer living under those rules and other regulations came to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Different post on a different topic.  On the idea of UBI...I'm not sure what I think thus far.  Some experiments have shown that it works to create a better economic boost....but I would imagine it's the same type of boost you see around military bases.

The influx of money from the government at cities where military bases are helps the economies of those areas.  It's one reason why some see military bases as desireable for their local economies, both nationally and internationally.

In that same light, suddenly giving a bunch of people government money may have the same result.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea though to go all in on a national scale.  That may actually cost more money than it brings in.  I'm not sure what I think of it yet.

A better program would be that which the Lord instituted, but there are problems with that program as well.  In this program each person is given what they need.  Their needs are met.  They have enough food, housing, and clothing, but no one is given excess.  In return, everyone works and does labor.  It doesn't matter if you are the ditch digger, or the CEO, everyone is given the same amount as per their needs.  There is no stratification in this type of order where one gets more simply because they have more education, or they have the "better" job, or they come from a "better" family...etc...etc..etc.

Hence...the problems of running it in our modern day.  It's similar to what Joseph Smith ran into with Missouri. 

In Freshmen classes of philosophy and History we teach an idea of virtue vs. greed.  To run the program as described, it requires virtue.  Everyone must be willing to help out society simply because that's what they want to do.  They can't be thinking of their own selfish desires...or the program will not work.  The problem is that people are inherently greedy, and that greed disrupts the program above.

The best program is if everyone was virtuous, or cared more about society and their neighbor.  Then all would work, but no one would necessarily be given more than another simply because they wanted it.  Everyone would be given as per their needs...not necessarily their wants. 

UBI isn't this.  Until we all become Christlike, I don't think the Law of Consecration and the United Order will work all that well either.  The best it ever ran was under Brigham Young, but even then, you slowly saw it deconstructed as people wanted to have what the rest of the US was having and to get gain where they could enjoy the pleasures of the world.  After a few decades, they were no longer living under those rules and other regulations came to be. 

I think one of the fundamental problems with liberalism is that it doesn’t understand that you can’t just throw money at a problem and make it go away. Give money to a drug addict and she’ll spend it on heroin. Give a house to an untreated mentally ill person and he’ll burn it down because the voices in his head tell him to. It’s not funny, it’s sad.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a bleeding heart liberal, I don't love UBI. In fact, I rather suspect UBI to be a last ditch effort to prevent that total demise of a failing society. 

@Carborendum is correct, to a point, that wealth cannot be generated without labor, and UBI encourages removing labor from the system. What would happen, however, if that assumption proved to be false?  What if wealth could be generated without labor?

The nightmare scenario happens with the introduction of technologies that can replace labor. What happens with automation eliminates the need for food service workers, logistics and transportation (delivery of goods), or retail?  There has been a facility built near where I live that farms tomatoes and heavily automates the process of monitoring the tomatoes and harvesting them at the ideal time. Automation continues to grow in manufacturing sectors. And by most measures, automation produces more consistent, reliable products. And while we may never automate all humans out of an industry, it isn't unreasonable to believe cut the workforce by a third, or half. And as automation expands, the trend seems to be that the wealth generated from automation flows up toward the wealthy, not toward those who are being replaced.

If we reach the point in society where there are significantly more people than there are jobs for them to work, UBI may become a necessary evil to prevent the blood bath of those who can't afford to live clawing back the ability to live from those who are concentrating the wealth. In other words, UBI is how you prevent the French Revolution. 

I don't want to discuss the downsides of UBI, because I largely agree with most here that it's a bad idea, and probably ought to be avoided. But I do think the growth of automation breaks the assumption that generating wealth requires labor, and we need to do some thinking about how to address that. (probably a separate discussion from the direction this thread has taken on taxation)

 

MOE's Twisted Theories on Taxation

I'm a little weird on the topic of taxes. I think sales taxes are dumb. I can get behind some use taxes, but largely, my preferred form of taxation is income tax. If I had it my way, income tax would be the only tax levied.  But let's dive down the rabbit hole.

The first foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Taxes Must Be Transparent. By this, I mean that it should not take very long to figure out how much tax you're paying. As it is now, to determine the total taxes I pay I have to add up income tax, property tax, vehicle taxes, sales taxes, taxes on my utilities, and probably a host more that I can't even think of. This is absurd.

The second foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Businesses Do Not Pay Taxes. Even if you have a corporate tax, and corporation with half a brain cell will estimate what their tax liability is, adjust prices to cover it, and claim whatever exemptions they can to reduce liability, then take the difference as profit. A corporate tax is nothing more than a hidden tax on the consumer. This also bleeds into why I'm not a big fan of property taxes. Property owners who use their property will pay taxes, while those who lease their property pass those costs to their tenants. It's an unbalanced system and creates hidden taxes for tenants, which violates the first principle.

The third foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Governments Should Be Limited to Providing Universal Services. The military is an easily agreed upon example. I think Police, Fire, and EMS are relatively easy to agree upon. Personally, I would argue for including electrical, water, and internet (ISP only, not content). I think there's a good case for some portions of health care to be universal (specifically, annual physicals, well child visits, maternity care, and vaccinations). Lastly, I would personally prefer a well funded and highly competitive education system (and by competitive, I mean public school teacher positions should be well paid, highly sought after, and sensibly evaluated...again, another topic for another time)

Whether you agree on the inclusion of all of those services is an interesting discussion, and actually a rather valuable discussion for a society to engage in. These principles, in my opinion, make it much easier for people to engage in the discussion of "what services does our society value, and how much do we need to contribute to pay for them?" 

 

So why do I prefer the income tax? Mostly for the pragmatic purpose of it being relatively easy to track. (Admittedly, not as easy as land, but hidden taxes and all). And it wouldn't really work unless we are willing to divorce "corporation" and "person." Otherwise you get people able to claim negative income, and other weird shenanigans. It only works if income is synonymous with "new wealth" and only corporations are able to make a profit or take a loss. 

I've gone on too long. make me your new punching bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

The first foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Taxes Must Be Transparent. By this, I mean that it should not take very long to figure out how much tax you're paying. As it is now, to determine the total taxes I pay I have to add up income tax, property tax, vehicle taxes, sales taxes, taxes on my utilities, and probably a host more that I can't even think of. This is absurd.

We agree fully here my friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A strong growing economy containing vast amounts of wealth, can survive all sorts of assaults on it that might destroy a weaker economy.  From that standpoint, UBI could be made to work in the US, because the main body is healthy enough to survive 100 mosquitoes attached to it sucking away to their heart's content.  There is a limit to the amount and size of mosquitoes, before pain, then illness, then death is experienced.   Those are my thoughts on UBI.

 

But all this opining about wealth and production and labor reminds me of this poser.   Riddle me this: 

A travelling businessman drives into a small town, and heads to the local resort.  He's scoping it out for possible use for an upcoming business retreat.  He sells specialized electronics, and will need to reserve two floors of the resort.  He also needs to verify the resort has sufficient electrical supply and wifi, and asks the resort manager if he can spend 4-6 hours to do a bunch of electrical and wifi testing on those floors.  The manager agrees, for a refundable $200 deposit, to cover any damage that might occur.   

Dude hands the manager two $100 bills heads up to the floors and begins testing. 

Manager takes the $200 and gives it to his food supplier, paying an overdue bill.

The food supplier gives the two bills to the butcher, paying a bill.

The butcher gives the two bills to the farmer, paying a bill for the grain that feeds his cattle.

The farmer gives the two bills to the town prostitute, paying his overdue bill.

The prostitute gives the two bills to the resort manager, paying her bill for the last time entertained a client at his resort. 

By this time, the businessman is done with his testing.  There is no damage, so the resort owner returns the $200.  

The businessman drives out of town, saying he might or might not reserve those two floors, and will make his decision in a few weeks.   

So, in the space of a few hours, the townspeople produced nothing of value, a net zero dollars came into the town from outside, and yet by moving two pieces of paper around, the entire town is now out of debt.  

My question: What the crap?

(I think I know the answer, which basically refutes Karl Marx's theories about capital, but I'm hardly an expert at this stuff.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

As a bleeding heart liberal, I don't love UBI. In fact, I rather suspect UBI to be a last ditch effort to prevent that total demise of a failing society. 

You're sounding like a free-market conservative already :).

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

The nightmare scenario happens with the introduction of technologies that can replace labor.

Agreed, it would certainly be a nightmare scenario.  But this is more of a human nature problem than a monetary one.  Here's why.

Even if we were to assume that such a Utopian society were possible, and let us envision that we have reached that point.  What then?  Where does innovation come from?  What motivation to learn and grow?

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Creation and purpose are basic human needs. 

A fundamental principle of human motivation is that we must have needs/wants/lack or we have no motivation.  No motivation means we never care to choose anything.  If we were to ever actually achieve such a thing prior to divine purpose, what mindless beings would we become?

Those whose needs lie in the power and influence range, that means that enslaving the human population will be a very easy task.

I heard that there is an old Arabic curse: May all you greatest desires be instantly fulfilled the moment you imagine them.

I'm reminded of the mythical example of Aldea and the quote from Dostoyevsky: 

Quote

...what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities?

Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species...

He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. 

 -- Dostoyevsky

Summary: If we have every desire granted, we'd start to create suffering just so we wouldn't be so bored.

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

If we reach the point in society where there are significantly more people than there are jobs for them to work, UBI may become a necessary evil to prevent the blood bath of those who can't afford to live clawing back the ability to live from those who are concentrating the wealth. In other words, UBI is how you prevent the French Revolution. 

I don't want to discuss the downsides of UBI, because I largely agree with most here that it's a bad idea, and probably ought to be avoided. But I do think the growth of automation breaks the assumption that generating wealth requires labor, and we need to do some thinking about how to address that. (probably a separate discussion from the direction this thread has taken on taxation)

Glad we agree on that.  But for a practical matter, we would never get away from the fundamental principle of scarcity.

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

MOE's Twisted Theories on Taxation

I'm a little weird on the topic of taxes. I think sales taxes are dumb. I can get behind some use taxes, but largely, my preferred form of taxation is income tax. If I had it my way, income tax would be the only tax levied.  But let's dive down the rabbit hole...

The first foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Taxes Must Be Transparent...

The second foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Businesses Do Not Pay Taxes... 

The third foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Governments Should Be Limited to Providing Universal Services...

 "what services does our society value, and how much do we need to contribute to pay for them?" 

Apart from the first line, I agree with all of these points.  I do, however, disagree with what you'd include in "universal services".  This is what economists call "public goods".

I'd go further to say that utilities should be privately owned.  But government should have the function of ensuring that there are competitors in any market.  No monopolies.  The fact that many utilities tend to be natural monopolies, makes competition difficult through free market forces alone.  So, government is required to intervene.

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

So why do I prefer the income tax? Mostly for the pragmatic purpose of it being relatively easy to track. (Admittedly, not as easy as land, but hidden taxes and all)...

The typical libertarian position is that the use tax is pretty much the only form of fair taxation is the use tax.  You say that income tax is easy to track?  It only appears that way because of a monstrous system that is currently in place.  Use tax is much easier to track. 

Income today is tracked through an invisible system that is extremely extensive (AND invasive) and requires virtually universal voluntary compliance.  That is the only reason why government can track and enforce it so easily in today's world.

The use tax tracking is much less intensive and is not at all invasive.  Businesses by their nature have to keep track of all their income and expenses.  If they don't, they can't determine if they are making a profit or not on each product/service.  And are there specific places to invest more resources?  Should we eliminate a non-producing product line?  These are things that businesses would be wise to do on their own if they don't want the business to fail.

Individuals and households don't need to do that.  They just keep an eye on their bank account balance and that's all.  But with income tax, we need to keep track of everything that the government allows us to consider a deduction.  If not for income tax, there would be NO reason to do that.

We also consider the nature of the taxation.

Income tax: Theft/extortion.  What else do you call it if you tell someone, give us some money or we'll (insert consequences). If you want it to be transparent, income tax (especially the way it is done today) is not transparent.  We don't really see it until the end of the year.

Use tax:  Cost for services rendered.  And it is voluntary.  If you know what the tax is on the item you're buying, you can decide at that point whether you want to engage in the transaction or not.  No one is forcing you to pay that tax.  You choose at the point of sale.  You can even make it progressive (as many states do) by having no tax on necessities, moderate tax on common goods, and high tax on luxuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this Carb? I think its a generally well accepted principle in economics that more money in the hands of more people generally leads to prices going up, which reduces the purchasing power of that money. 

Sorry, I misread your initial post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milton Friedman has already been referenced – I will reference him again especially for the benefit of @Carborendum .  But I would bend the idea of basic income to what Milton calls the negative income tax.  For those interested here is a video of Milton explaining his negative income tax:

 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/8/2023 at 12:47 PM, Traveler said:

Milton Friedman has already been referenced – I will reference him again especially for the benefit of @Carborendum .  But I would bend the idea of basic income to what Milton calls the negative income tax.  For those interested here is a video of Milton explaining his negative income tax:

 

 

The Traveler

I could listen to him for hours.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

I wonder why smart (?) people in our government do not listen to a real economist.   In either party.

 

The Traveler

 

 

It’s not a matter of intelligence, it’s cognitive dissonance or plain old disagreement. They view Friedman the same way I view Krugman. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would take a shot at my idea of where wealth comes from.  I am going to suggest that wealth comes from the populace working in concert doing what is impossible for any individual.   I would also suggest that the more the populace works in concert the greater will be the wealth.

I will also suggest that the convers is also true the more there is descent or unwillingness to work not just in concert but unwilling to work at all – not only will there be less wealth but if such remains, wealth will be destroyed or fall into ruin.

I believe the great question of any economy is how to motivate work – especially to motivate work in concert throughout society.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I thought I would take a shot at my idea of where wealth comes from.  I am going to suggest that wealth comes from the populace working in concert doing what is impossible for any individual.   I would also suggest that the more the populace works in concert the greater will be the wealth.

I will also suggest that the convers is also true the more there is descent or unwillingness to work not just in concert but unwilling to work at all – not only will there be less wealth but if such remains, wealth will be destroyed or fall into ruin.

I believe the great question of any economy is how to motivate work – especially to motivate work in concert throughout society.

 

The Traveler

I think wealth comes from individuals pursuing their own self interests. Which paradoxically benefits society. Adam Smith was right 99.9% of the time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I think wealth comes from individuals pursuing their own self interests. Which paradoxically benefits society. Adam Smith was right 99.9% of the time.  

I believe you are mostly correct for a Terrestrial or secular society.  I am also a proponent of such.  However, for a Celestial or Zion society or even a class III on the Kardashev scale – I am of the opinion that there is greater wealth that is achieved when the motivation is beyond self-interest.   I think that self-interest cannot drive any society above what I believe is a Terrestrial order – which in historical or worldly sense of things is quite amazing.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe you are mostly correct for a Terrestrial or secular society.  I am also a proponent of such.  However, for a Celestial or Zion society or even a class III on the Kardashev scale – I am of the opinion that there is greater wealth that is achieved when the motivation is beyond self-interest.   I think that self-interest cannot drive any society above what I believe is a Terrestrial order – which in historical or worldly sense of things is quite amazing.

 

The Traveler

Understand totally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This thread was started to prevent universal basic income.  I included a YouTube video from Milton Friedman expressing a universal basic income he called negative income tax.  I am not sure how much or what others think of such a concept – so I thought to point out a couple of other things in relation to negative income tax:

I have posted before about the 1960 census that determined that we would eliminate poverty by transferring a percentage (2%) of our nation’s wealth (GDP) to help the poor.  This has become the mantra of liberals and progressives.  It is the framework of our social program needs.  The percentage of 2% has constantly increased and today the percentage is very close to 30% of our GDP.

This country need to know that by all the data in support of our social programs that currently we are wasting 94% of our spending on social services.  This is how corrupt our social programs have become – and for the record I am not including any payoff of student loans.

I also feel that we have gone too far to protect dependent children in the workplace.  I would also suggest that with the negative income tax we could do away with minimum wage.  If a wage was not worth it anyone could rely on their negative income tax while looking and learning new wage opportunities.   We could also change our current social security to be exclusively retirement (removing job disabilities compensations).

Of course, many poor would still have needs, but the remaining needs could be met by private – local charities (including state not federal).   

I also like the idea that everyone pays taxes – including the poor.  Why give money to the poor and then make them pay taxes on that money?  Because the poor would then have skin in the game of government and would vote to keep their money except for actual necessities provided by the government.

In the almost 50 years since Friedman suggested his negative income tax – I have not seen or heard of anything better and lest wasteful.  My suggestion is if anyone knows of something better for government helping the poor (program) please let me know.  Otherwise, I suggest you learn more about Friedman’s negative income tax and inform your neighbor.

 

The Traveler 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...