@oihhow yes of course it is. When Mr. Friedman first presented this idea it was presented as a bridge. The issue he was compromising on was that any major shock to the system has negative effects. This system was designed to be implemented as a short term solution during the change between the government taking care of people therefore making them less of a person and people being truly free and taking care of themselves.
There are serious costs to the negative income tax which you have not mentioned and you should consult some professional papers on economics before you make these kind of videos.
A negative tax would eliminate medicaid, because it would no longer be necessary, allow for drastic cuts and reforms to medicare and social security because the biggest slice of those two programs are geared to the working class poor, food stamp would be eliminated, and the entire entitlement system would virtually need not be in existence. Add the negative income tax amendment now! It creates equality without destroying capitalism and pro-growth economic policies.
@QuickSilverD Did you not even watch the video? Yeah of course there will be some people who just sit on their ass and collect $10,000 for doing nothing; but the incentive is there to earn more. Even if all you get is some shitwad part time job and earn $10,000 in a year by yourself you would get an additional $8,000 from the government and end up with a cool $18,000 for only doing $10,000 worth of work. Sounds good to me. And 25% tax isn't unreasonable to ask from rich people.
@raptors11111 I watched the video, in that especifit example 10,000 is way too much credit deduction. you can live well with 10k a year, I mean just imagine every bum and homeless guy on the street would get the money right? it is too much of an incentive to not work. obviously a lot of people would still work, but many others would not.
and in this especifit example, before 40k you are not even a tax payer, and last time I checked average income was like 35k in the US, so at least 50% of ...
@QuickSilverD Part 2: .... people would be a drain on the system.
Maybe a NIT would be more reasonable with a much lower tax credit or a much higher tax rate, but as it stands this idea would not work in the real world
@QuickSilverD Yeah I get what you're saying man, $10,000 per year is a lot less than what you get on the current welfare system though. In Ontario, Canada where I live according to a December 2008 report the average welfare received by a single person was $16,456 per year plus health benefits. In the NIT system the guy would only get $10k but he would have incentive to work a bit more to earn more than that.
@raptors11111 True, very true. However I'm guessing not everyone would qualify to recieve welfare. I don't know exactly the requeriments but I'm sure that there most be homeless people in Canada that are not recibing welfare. Under a NIT they would recieve payment so long as they were citycens.
Not to mention the potential for abuse. Say someone makes 12k doing odd jobs here and there (not working for a company) what's to stop them from claiming only 7k income and getting a bigger paycheck?
@QuickSilverD Yeah I see your point for sure. But don't people already do that sort of thing now? I know the NIT doesn't solve the issue of people lying about income but I'm not really sure how it could be solved. Its not that huge of a deal though I don't think. The difference between earning 12k and earning 7k is only about $1200 difference in tax at 25%. Its not like an extra $1200 is going to put this guy into the middle-upper class when he only makes 12k to start with. I see your point tho
@QuickSilverD Yeah I see your point for sure. But don't people already do that sort of thing now? I know the NIT doesn't solve the issue of people lying about income but I'm not really sure how it could be solved. Its not that huge of a deal though I don't think. The difference between earning 12k and earning 7k is only about $1200 difference in tax at 25%. Its not like an extra $1200 is going to put this guy into the middle-upper class when he only makes 12k to start with. I see your point tho
It's also not a flat income tax as the uploader suggests. It's a redistributive progressive tax. A more efficient one than the current welfare system (which, in defense of Friedman, is all he was arguing in the first place), but nonetheless a tiered income tax.
It's a great idea in theory, but think about how government works. It wouldn't always stay at a rational number. First, there would of course have to be yearly adjustments for inflation, and secondly, I imagine it would take, oh, 10 seconds before politicians realize "Hey, if I raise the negative income tax I'll get votes." So suddenly the left wants to raise it to $15,000 while the right wants to leave it alone (or more realistically, raise it to only $12,500), and we're back where we started.
@aggrajag2813 I hear you man, and it is a very good example of how the politicians act for their own self interest and getting votes, and they do not act economically. However, at the end of the day Friedman was an economist, not a politician, so it is his duty to come up with these ideas, and the politician's job to implement them correctly.
Not a bad idea, still not sold to leave the progressive income tax but this is the best alternative IMO, better than flat or consumption tax and really not a bad at all.
Fantastic video. I've been wondering exactly how this works for some time and thanks to your BRILLIANT explanation, i'm writing to my local conservative group for recommendation! Not that they would take it up in the UK, David Cameron is something of a socialist...
@theguvnorjimmy Negative Income Tax is probably one of the best ways to eliminate socialism though? Not sure where you're coming from. Its a pro-growth, pro-enterprise tax policy so the surge in growth you would get create more and more tax payers. This policy was endorsed by the IEA (Institute for Economic Affairs) a right-wing thinktank in the UK.
@theguvnorjimmy From those who make a very large amount of money who wouldn't be receiving any funds from the government, rather become actual tax payers. Good question, just rewatch the video a little slower to understand everything included.
I would disagree with Mr.Friedman on many things, however this is a policy that in the past has seen Right and Left come together, everyone from Von Heyak and Freidman on the right to Galbraith, Tobin, Keynes, McGovern and Thomas Paine on the Left, I Believe that the Negative Income Tax should be adopted Immdiatly.
@shogofuji one final point, this would be the best stimulus money could buy, much more effective than a simple tax cut. place the money in the hands of those who are going to go out and spend it right away. recessions drag on when people stop spending.
@shogofuji Also I believe that the trials showed that employment dropped by between 2 to 6 percent, the average person working a few weeks fewer per year. I think the potential for social transformation is huge here. Think of the implications for battered spouses, single parents, stay at home parents, or sex trade workers. Economic freedom would do more for these groups than the myriad of government programs already set up to help them. It's just a better way to spend taxpayer money.
He wasn't fully honest in regards to to incentives. Trials done in Indiana, New Jersey, Denver, and Seattle show that people will actually work less hours, and employment will drop.
@shogofuji This is actually a good thing. It would mean people who worked less wanted to work less instead of doing something they hate just to pay the bills. It would mean real freedom. It also means more work would be available for those who currently have difficulty finding any. And the best way to stimulate the economy and create even more jobs is to put money in the hands of people who are going to go out and spend it right away.
Well it really depends. If labor supply drops such as people working less and/or quitting their jobs. Then the price of labor increases. Depending on that increase the cost of making goods in the US goes up. Prices of making goods increases, the likelihood that companies go overseas. More job loss =/. However, lets just say that the increased cost of labor isn't significant. What we find ourselves in here is a problem of decrease in labor supply increases taxes....
Then of course what happens in a recession. More people out of work, more people working less hours. Tax increase again. Unless we have a negative income tax system that is immune to shocks or one that has built in precautions against rising unemployment then the system has a fault in it. Personally, I like the idea of a Negative Income Tax, I just feel we need to work on the flaws of the problem.
@shogofuji Sure, but aren't small tax increases to keep budgets balanced preferable to, say, increasing the minimum wage? I actually think the price of labour going up would be a good thing. Workers would no longer be forced to "submit or starve." Nor would a battered spouse. I think if we are going to have a "flexible labour market" full of shit jobs it must be flexible for labour as well as for capital. The converse is, think how much easier it would be to start a small business.
Well labor is a competitive market, not just within the US but globally. Globally the price of labor is fairly cheap, and an increase in the price of labor in the US means more jobs going somewhere else. I would like to see the price of labor go up in the US, but first it needs to go up globally.
minimum wage law is a bad policy because it makes it illegal to earnbelow a minimum wage, so that job dissapears and u end up with 0. What you want to implement is a minimum Income law to replace it. For example if a job pays $4 an hour that say gives you an income of $8500 a year. But if you structure the negative inc tax to put a minimum income floor of say $20,000, then this person would get a tax credit of 12,500 a year, boosting his income to 20,000, a better wage
@shogofuji more machines replace people and therefore more people get unemployed. machines won't really need much money as we do. the only money needed is for their maintenance, which means our negative income tax will increase.
we can conclude that basic income systems, if not now, will positively work in a very near future (and maybe it's inevitable )
If machines are replacing people in the job market, then we should see a change in the Natural Rate of Unemployment. I haven't seen any proof for that yet, so I can't really say the exchange of people for machines is happening at a significant enough level to really effect unemployment. Plus the US is more so a services market and I can't really see a machine doing sales. Maybe in the future though, heh.
@shogofuji It has been done in many more places than that and trials there have shown a relatively neutral pattern. Most of it could be attributed to people educating themselves longer and other healthy things. Also, it is not strange that some people have a negative attitude towards work in the model we have atm. For example, crap jobs (cleaner, etc.) without internal incentives need to be granted generous external incentives to truly motivate.
@BJ219 I don't care what You wrote at all - You would be unable to complete second grade in country where I was born, I'm sure.
Hopely You can read and write in any other language than English...
And You should go back to school or work more on Your mind if You can't understand what Milton Friedman was explaining so simply for many years...in english.
We are not equal! Some people are smater or dumper, some hardworking some lazy, some was born in poor family some rich family BUT We all should be equal to the law - so everyone should pay THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY! for ex. $100 per week. If You don't want to work or uneable ok, You need a sponsor or charity but NOT gov. money - that's immoral! GOV. money should go ONLY for Police, Army, Court and limited adninistation but not to distribute money from one person to another! That canbe manipulated
$10,000 is too much. People aren't going to work with that big of a guaranteed income. Sometimes work is boring so why not just pocket it and be lazy. But I have developed my own system which is basically the same and it would get rid of welfare, social security, and federal health care spending.
Plus, using my own numbers which are pretty up to date this would result in a $450b loss not including def. spending and other. Also, it destroys incentive. $6,000 and 30% works better.
@TimeWarp66 Yes, when someone is earning $900/month and working 8h/day it's clear as day that he will better get $830 for free and get a black market job..
Well...there's a problem with vouchers to. Not sure you are aware of this...but most people sell them. Food stamps are almost hard currency on the street.
I will go you one better. Don't pay for people to do nothing. Period. No welfare. Yes, let them and their kids starve to death. They want food...they need to work.
And it is just ridiculous to as 10% of the people to pay 68% of the taxes, so the rich should only pay their share. No one elses. One person, one tax, one share.
What if you are disabled, and through no fault of your own, you are unable to work? No welfare for you? Die in the streets? Seems ummm... completely cruel and stupid. We are rich enough as a society to provide for the few who cannot provide for themselves.
Theirs a problem with this. You see if hobo's get pure cash as opposed to food stomps, or food/education vouchers, they could just blow the cash, and we as a society would still have to pay for their food, shelter, healthcare..etc. So we would all effectively be paying twice. I say we should just give people vouchers and get rid of government RUN programs for the needy.
Maybe we could supplement it with free financial education and addictions counseling.
No system is perfect and there will always be those who are determined to walk down the path of self destruction. There's only so much we can do to save them from themselves.
I agree. But I believe their should be a basic safety net beneath which none of us can fall. No one wants to leave their job to go on welfare, in Liberal San Francisco, welfare is only $500 a month, the concept of a welfare queen is ridiculous. Plus, it's cheaper to provide welfare then to pay for more cops and prisons
Brilliant explanation. A negative income tax is a good way to combine getting rid of poverty and reducing the role of government in society, ie. providing the best of both worlds.
@oihhow
Yes, but its alot more efficient than the welfare/entitlements we have now
adubashi 1 week ago
If everyone has ten-thousand dollars, then wouldn't home prices/food prices adjust to this?
And then wouldn't we still have homelessness and people going hungry?
Not trolling, just asking
adubashi 1 week ago
isnt giving people who dont have any income $10,000 and letting them pay no taxes still a form of welfare/entitlement?
oihhow 2 months ago
@oihhow yes of course it is. When Mr. Friedman first presented this idea it was presented as a bridge. The issue he was compromising on was that any major shock to the system has negative effects. This system was designed to be implemented as a short term solution during the change between the government taking care of people therefore making them less of a person and people being truly free and taking care of themselves.
MrPaxy69 1 month ago
Friedman was a genius!
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
There are serious costs to the negative income tax which you have not mentioned and you should consult some professional papers on economics before you make these kind of videos.
TheCrappyaccount 4 months ago
This is freaking awesome, and woud save the world. But wont happen. :(
moartoad 4 months ago
A negative tax would eliminate medicaid, because it would no longer be necessary, allow for drastic cuts and reforms to medicare and social security because the biggest slice of those two programs are geared to the working class poor, food stamp would be eliminated, and the entire entitlement system would virtually need not be in existence. Add the negative income tax amendment now! It creates equality without destroying capitalism and pro-growth economic policies.
TheFederalistVoice 4 months ago
10,000 is a lot of money for doing nothing, if anything this tax would just insentivice people to not work
QuickSilverD 5 months ago
@QuickSilverD Did you not even watch the video? Yeah of course there will be some people who just sit on their ass and collect $10,000 for doing nothing; but the incentive is there to earn more. Even if all you get is some shitwad part time job and earn $10,000 in a year by yourself you would get an additional $8,000 from the government and end up with a cool $18,000 for only doing $10,000 worth of work. Sounds good to me. And 25% tax isn't unreasonable to ask from rich people.
raptors11111 5 months ago
@raptors11111 I watched the video, in that especifit example 10,000 is way too much credit deduction. you can live well with 10k a year, I mean just imagine every bum and homeless guy on the street would get the money right? it is too much of an incentive to not work. obviously a lot of people would still work, but many others would not.
and in this especifit example, before 40k you are not even a tax payer, and last time I checked average income was like 35k in the US, so at least 50% of ...
QuickSilverD 5 months ago
@QuickSilverD Part 2: .... people would be a drain on the system.
Maybe a NIT would be more reasonable with a much lower tax credit or a much higher tax rate, but as it stands this idea would not work in the real world
QuickSilverD 5 months ago
@QuickSilverD Yeah I get what you're saying man, $10,000 per year is a lot less than what you get on the current welfare system though. In Ontario, Canada where I live according to a December 2008 report the average welfare received by a single person was $16,456 per year plus health benefits. In the NIT system the guy would only get $10k but he would have incentive to work a bit more to earn more than that.
raptors11111 5 months ago
@raptors11111 True, very true. However I'm guessing not everyone would qualify to recieve welfare. I don't know exactly the requeriments but I'm sure that there most be homeless people in Canada that are not recibing welfare. Under a NIT they would recieve payment so long as they were citycens.
Not to mention the potential for abuse. Say someone makes 12k doing odd jobs here and there (not working for a company) what's to stop them from claiming only 7k income and getting a bigger paycheck?
QuickSilverD 5 months ago
@QuickSilverD Yeah I see your point for sure. But don't people already do that sort of thing now? I know the NIT doesn't solve the issue of people lying about income but I'm not really sure how it could be solved. Its not that huge of a deal though I don't think. The difference between earning 12k and earning 7k is only about $1200 difference in tax at 25%. Its not like an extra $1200 is going to put this guy into the middle-upper class when he only makes 12k to start with. I see your point tho
raptors11111 5 months ago
@QuickSilverD Yeah I see your point for sure. But don't people already do that sort of thing now? I know the NIT doesn't solve the issue of people lying about income but I'm not really sure how it could be solved. Its not that huge of a deal though I don't think. The difference between earning 12k and earning 7k is only about $1200 difference in tax at 25%. Its not like an extra $1200 is going to put this guy into the middle-upper class when he only makes 12k to start with. I see your point tho
raptors11111 5 months ago
Sounds like a great idea... which means it will never happen.
DevastatorsPissed1 6 months ago 12
Great video and much love for this system!
Tracywithafacey 6 months ago
It's also not a flat income tax as the uploader suggests. It's a redistributive progressive tax. A more efficient one than the current welfare system (which, in defense of Friedman, is all he was arguing in the first place), but nonetheless a tiered income tax.
aggrajag2813 6 months ago
It's a great idea in theory, but think about how government works. It wouldn't always stay at a rational number. First, there would of course have to be yearly adjustments for inflation, and secondly, I imagine it would take, oh, 10 seconds before politicians realize "Hey, if I raise the negative income tax I'll get votes." So suddenly the left wants to raise it to $15,000 while the right wants to leave it alone (or more realistically, raise it to only $12,500), and we're back where we started.
aggrajag2813 6 months ago
@aggrajag2813 I hear you man, and it is a very good example of how the politicians act for their own self interest and getting votes, and they do not act economically. However, at the end of the day Friedman was an economist, not a politician, so it is his duty to come up with these ideas, and the politician's job to implement them correctly.
Tracywithafacey 6 months ago
@Zimnyification If you are concerned about people getting 10,000 for being idle, take a look at welfare, it is much worse!
yellowchellow1 6 months ago
Comment removed
yellowchellow1 6 months ago
This system is so efficient. Democrat or Republican this system works!
yellowchellow1 6 months ago
All I got from this was that people who earn nothing gain $10,000 for being idle.
Zimnyification 7 months ago
I don't know man. It sounds good, but of course I'm hearing it from somebody who loves the idea.
I guess I now need to go read or listen to somebody who thinks it's a stupid idea, and decide who I believe lol.
SailorBarsoom 7 months ago
Not a bad idea, still not sold to leave the progressive income tax but this is the best alternative IMO, better than flat or consumption tax and really not a bad at all.
tiki2188 9 months ago
This system makes a lot more sense that what we've got today, but I'm wondering; isn't this a form of wealth redistribution?
MickeyDee0341 10 months ago
@MickeyDee0341 Yes, it is.
Zimnyification 7 months ago
Fantastic video. I've been wondering exactly how this works for some time and thanks to your BRILLIANT explanation, i'm writing to my local conservative group for recommendation! Not that they would take it up in the UK, David Cameron is something of a socialist...
UberFatManSam 10 months ago
where do all of the $10,000 credits come from?
theguvnorjimmy 10 months ago
@theguvnorjimmy from the 25% tax on the richer earners.
UberFatManSam 10 months ago
@UberFatManSam But this would not be anywhere near enough money to be able to give to everyone. Hence, socialism fails.
theguvnorjimmy 10 months ago
@theguvnorjimmy Negative Income Tax is probably one of the best ways to eliminate socialism though? Not sure where you're coming from. Its a pro-growth, pro-enterprise tax policy so the surge in growth you would get create more and more tax payers. This policy was endorsed by the IEA (Institute for Economic Affairs) a right-wing thinktank in the UK.
UberFatManSam 10 months ago
@theguvnorjimmy From those who make a very large amount of money who wouldn't be receiving any funds from the government, rather become actual tax payers. Good question, just rewatch the video a little slower to understand everything included.
MickeyDee0341 10 months ago
I would disagree with Mr.Friedman on many things, however this is a policy that in the past has seen Right and Left come together, everyone from Von Heyak and Freidman on the right to Galbraith, Tobin, Keynes, McGovern and Thomas Paine on the Left, I Believe that the Negative Income Tax should be adopted Immdiatly.
AwakenFromTheSlumber 11 months ago
10000 a year would cover the cost of food for a year. . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
jacksaysgo 1 year ago
@shogofuji one final point, this would be the best stimulus money could buy, much more effective than a simple tax cut. place the money in the hands of those who are going to go out and spend it right away. recessions drag on when people stop spending.
donteatthefishsticks 1 year ago
@shogofuji Also I believe that the trials showed that employment dropped by between 2 to 6 percent, the average person working a few weeks fewer per year. I think the potential for social transformation is huge here. Think of the implications for battered spouses, single parents, stay at home parents, or sex trade workers. Economic freedom would do more for these groups than the myriad of government programs already set up to help them. It's just a better way to spend taxpayer money.
donteatthefishsticks 1 year ago
It is an intriguing idea, seems a little too good to be true but damn it sounds nice.
This is coming from a pretty far leftist increasingly dissatisfied with it...
tiki2188 1 year ago
He wasn't fully honest in regards to to incentives. Trials done in Indiana, New Jersey, Denver, and Seattle show that people will actually work less hours, and employment will drop.
shogofuji 1 year ago
@shogofuji This is actually a good thing. It would mean people who worked less wanted to work less instead of doing something they hate just to pay the bills. It would mean real freedom. It also means more work would be available for those who currently have difficulty finding any. And the best way to stimulate the economy and create even more jobs is to put money in the hands of people who are going to go out and spend it right away.
donteatthefishsticks 1 year ago
@donteatthefishsticks
Well it really depends. If labor supply drops such as people working less and/or quitting their jobs. Then the price of labor increases. Depending on that increase the cost of making goods in the US goes up. Prices of making goods increases, the likelihood that companies go overseas. More job loss =/. However, lets just say that the increased cost of labor isn't significant. What we find ourselves in here is a problem of decrease in labor supply increases taxes....
shogofuji 1 year ago
@donteatthefishsticks
Then of course what happens in a recession. More people out of work, more people working less hours. Tax increase again. Unless we have a negative income tax system that is immune to shocks or one that has built in precautions against rising unemployment then the system has a fault in it. Personally, I like the idea of a Negative Income Tax, I just feel we need to work on the flaws of the problem.
shogofuji 1 year ago
@shogofuji Sure, but aren't small tax increases to keep budgets balanced preferable to, say, increasing the minimum wage? I actually think the price of labour going up would be a good thing. Workers would no longer be forced to "submit or starve." Nor would a battered spouse. I think if we are going to have a "flexible labour market" full of shit jobs it must be flexible for labour as well as for capital. The converse is, think how much easier it would be to start a small business.
donteatthefishsticks 1 year ago
@donteatthefishsticks
Well labor is a competitive market, not just within the US but globally. Globally the price of labor is fairly cheap, and an increase in the price of labor in the US means more jobs going somewhere else. I would like to see the price of labor go up in the US, but first it needs to go up globally.
shogofuji 11 months ago
@donteatthefishsticks
minimum wage law is a bad policy because it makes it illegal to earnbelow a minimum wage, so that job dissapears and u end up with 0. What you want to implement is a minimum Income law to replace it. For example if a job pays $4 an hour that say gives you an income of $8500 a year. But if you structure the negative inc tax to put a minimum income floor of say $20,000, then this person would get a tax credit of 12,500 a year, boosting his income to 20,000, a better wage
asierra1492 10 months ago
@shogofuji more machines replace people and therefore more people get unemployed. machines won't really need much money as we do. the only money needed is for their maintenance, which means our negative income tax will increase.
we can conclude that basic income systems, if not now, will positively work in a very near future (and maybe it's inevitable )
ZigusZagus 11 months ago
@ZigusZagus
If machines are replacing people in the job market, then we should see a change in the Natural Rate of Unemployment. I haven't seen any proof for that yet, so I can't really say the exchange of people for machines is happening at a significant enough level to really effect unemployment. Plus the US is more so a services market and I can't really see a machine doing sales. Maybe in the future though, heh.
shogofuji 11 months ago
@shogofuji yes i agree, maybe in the future. :)
ZigusZagus 11 months ago
@shogofuji It has been done in many more places than that and trials there have shown a relatively neutral pattern. Most of it could be attributed to people educating themselves longer and other healthy things. Also, it is not strange that some people have a negative attitude towards work in the model we have atm. For example, crap jobs (cleaner, etc.) without internal incentives need to be granted generous external incentives to truly motivate.
freedomthrough 11 months ago
- there are incentives for people to earn more money,
- there are incentives for people to less taxes.
- people don't report their real earnings to pay taxes if he knew he has to subsidize someone else.
- If there is good incentives to get money back, why report the real numbers anyway.
flynn2008 1 year ago
that Negative Income Tax play is how to fix system called socialism - it always fails
in socialist democracy the income tax and looots of other taxes and fees that we pay in "almost" every ocasion is no.1
the no.2 is HUGE and instantly growing administation - gov. workers - they are NOT payig bills (taxes) they ARE the bill
and those gov. workers including polytics have more and more briliant new ideas that are so coostly - stright to the bancrupcy.
This idea could work - for few more years
pawel3003 1 year ago
@pawel3003 I'd take your argument more seriously if your grammar and syntax were better than a second grader's.
BJ219 1 year ago
@BJ219 I don't care what You wrote at all - You would be unable to complete second grade in country where I was born, I'm sure.
Hopely You can read and write in any other language than English...
And You should go back to school or work more on Your mind if You can't understand what Milton Friedman was explaining so simply for many years...in english.
pawel3003 1 year ago
it's interesting and kind of briliant idea for immoral democracy system now, but
the thrue is that INCOME TAX is IMMORAL! This is simple punishment for Your work! The more You work, the smarter You are the more you pay!
if You make $1 milion - You pay $250 000, when You make only 10 000 You pay 2500 and somone who is lazy and dump make none gets $10 000???
nobody should have any rights to somebodys money that was taken by force under penetly of law!
pawel3003 1 year ago
We are not equal! Some people are smater or dumper, some hardworking some lazy, some was born in poor family some rich family BUT We all should be equal to the law - so everyone should pay THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY! for ex. $100 per week. If You don't want to work or uneable ok, You need a sponsor or charity but NOT gov. money - that's immoral! GOV. money should go ONLY for Police, Army, Court and limited adninistation but not to distribute money from one person to another! That canbe manipulated
pawel3003 1 year ago
I kinda agree with this but I am just wondering how do we figure out that people earn 0 dollars
dukee155 1 year ago
$10,000 is too much. People aren't going to work with that big of a guaranteed income. Sometimes work is boring so why not just pocket it and be lazy. But I have developed my own system which is basically the same and it would get rid of welfare, social security, and federal health care spending.
Plus, using my own numbers which are pretty up to date this would result in a $450b loss not including def. spending and other. Also, it destroys incentive. $6,000 and 30% works better.
conspirator272727 1 year ago
@conspirator272727
$10,000 a year is too much!?!?!
You're telling me you can live comfortably off $830 bucks a month?
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 Yes, when someone is earning $900/month and working 8h/day it's clear as day that he will better get $830 for free and get a black market job..
wipcrk 1 year ago
Interesting, But over simplified(sorry to say it, I hate bureaucracy to), Setting the rate at $10,000 is kinda ify.
The Lib-Dem policy in the UK, If they get elected is to stop taxing everyone whom earns under £10,000 a year, That I Like.
DackIsBack 1 year ago
Well...there's a problem with vouchers to. Not sure you are aware of this...but most people sell them. Food stamps are almost hard currency on the street.
I will go you one better. Don't pay for people to do nothing. Period. No welfare. Yes, let them and their kids starve to death. They want food...they need to work.
And it is just ridiculous to as 10% of the people to pay 68% of the taxes, so the rich should only pay their share. No one elses. One person, one tax, one share.
idm13 2 years ago
What if you are disabled, and through no fault of your own, you are unable to work? No welfare for you? Die in the streets? Seems ummm... completely cruel and stupid. We are rich enough as a society to provide for the few who cannot provide for themselves.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
Theirs a problem with this. You see if hobo's get pure cash as opposed to food stomps, or food/education vouchers, they could just blow the cash, and we as a society would still have to pay for their food, shelter, healthcare..etc. So we would all effectively be paying twice. I say we should just give people vouchers and get rid of government RUN programs for the needy.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
Maybe we could supplement it with free financial education and addictions counseling.
No system is perfect and there will always be those who are determined to walk down the path of self destruction. There's only so much we can do to save them from themselves.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
I agree. But I believe their should be a basic safety net beneath which none of us can fall. No one wants to leave their job to go on welfare, in Liberal San Francisco, welfare is only $500 a month, the concept of a welfare queen is ridiculous. Plus, it's cheaper to provide welfare then to pay for more cops and prisons
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
Yes it's a good idea.
cpblackangel88 2 years ago
Brilliant explanation. A negative income tax is a good way to combine getting rid of poverty and reducing the role of government in society, ie. providing the best of both worlds.
Myndir 2 years ago 21