U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-27-2013, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,178 posts, read 4,183,525 times
Reputation: 2568

Advertisements

Surprised me when I heard this on Kudlow's radio program last weekend. So I looked it up. Sure enough!


Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube

In this particular dialogue with Wm F Buckley JR, Friedman seems to recognize the necessity of a safety net, but he is also concerned with disincentives to work plus the bureaucratic spying that results from the way the safety net is structured.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2013, 09:24 AM
 
19,346 posts, read 16,991,167 times
Reputation: 7519
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Surprised me when I heard this on Kudlow's radio program last weekend. So I looked it up. Sure enough!


Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube

In this particular dialogue with Wm F Buckley JR, Friedman seems to recognize the necessity of a safety net, but he is also concerned with disincentives to work plus the bureaucratic spying that results from the way the safety net is structured.
it should be a well establish fact. Unfortunately it isn't.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2013, 02:33 PM
 
5,328 posts, read 5,074,291 times
Reputation: 4663
To be fair, Uncle Milty envisioned the Negative Income Tax replacing all forms of government assistance: Welfare, Medicaid, Housing Assistance, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, etc.

The EITC doesn't actually replace any form of government assistance...and Friedman was on record as being against the EITC for that reason.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2013, 02:55 PM
 
19,346 posts, read 16,991,167 times
Reputation: 7519
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
To be fair, Uncle Milty envisioned the Negative Income Tax replacing all forms of government assistance: Welfare, Medicaid, Housing Assistance, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, etc.

The EITC doesn't actually replace any form of government assistance...and Friedman was on record as being against the EITC for that reason.

To be even more fair this is more B. F. Skinner's idea on operant conditioning which is what EITC conforms to while all the others do not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2013, 05:25 AM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,178 posts, read 4,183,525 times
Reputation: 2568
Discussion

Johnston concludes his column on the following note:

Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize-winning Chicago School economist, proposed what became the EITC, a form of negative income tax, to encourage people to work. He noted that many people on welfare faced marginal tax rates of more than 100 percent if they left the dole for low-wage jobs. President Ronald Reagan championed the EITC because it required people to work to get benefits.

The credit provides its greatest benefits to people making from about $10,000 to $14,000. Earn more and the credit falls off. Work 1,300 hours at $10 an hour and you are in the sweet spot to get the biggest tax credit. Work an extra week and benefits slip.

If the earned income tax credit, combined with the end of welfare as we knew it, hold down wages for low-skill workers then it is time to find smarter ways than Chicago School theories to reduce poverty for those who work. [Emphasis added]

To my great surprise, Johnston doesn’t reference the work of Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, who is much-admired, particularly in left-of-center circles, for his careful empirical work. Rothstein argues [subscriber-link; NBER has a subscriber-link to an earlier version] that the EITC is actually quite different from the traditional negative income tax, and that this is precisely the problem with the EITC.

The confusion is understandable. Milton Friedman championed a negative income tax (NIT) and many people believe that the EITC and the NIT are essentially the same. For example, consider Robert H. Frank’s take in 2006. After briefly describing Friedman’s NIT proposal, he writes:

Mr. Friedman’s policy prescriptions were shaped by his desire to minimize adverse economic incentives, a feature that architects of earlier welfare programs had largely ignored. Those programs, each administered by a separate bureaucracy, typically reduced a family’s benefits by some fraction of each increment in earned income. Rates of 50 percent were common, so a family participating in four separate programs might see its total benefits fall by $2 for each extra dollar it earned. Under the circumstances, no formal training in economics was necessary to see that working didn’t pay. In contrast, someone who worked additional hours under Mr. Friedman’s plan would always take home additional after-tax income.

The negative income tax was never adopted in the end, because of concern that a payment large enough to support an urban family of four might induce many to go on the dole. With a payment of $6,000 per person, for example, rural communes of 30 would have a pooled annual payment of $180,000, which they could supplement by growing vegetables and raising animals. Because these groups could live quite comfortably at taxpayer expense, there would be an eager audience for accounts of their doings on the nightly news. Political support for such a program would be difficult to sustain.

Instead, Congress adopted the earned-income tax credit, essentially the same program except that only people who were employed received benefits. One of the few American welfare programs widely adopted in other countries, the earned-income tax credit has proved far more efficient than conventional programs, just as Mr. Friedman predicted. Yet because it covers only those who work, it cannot be the sole weapon in society’s antipoverty arsenal. [Emphasis added]
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2013, 01:46 PM
 
5,328 posts, read 5,074,291 times
Reputation: 4663
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
To be even more fair this is more B. F. Skinner's idea on operant conditioning which is what EITC conforms to while all the others do not.
To be most fair, I never claimed that Milton Friedman invented the Negative Income Tax, just that he was an enthusiastic proponent of the concept.

As for the rest, it looks like Chuckmann nailed it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2013, 10:14 AM
 
19,346 posts, read 16,991,167 times
Reputation: 7519
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
To be most fair, I never claimed that Milton Friedman invented the Negative Income Tax, just that he was an enthusiastic proponent of the concept.

As for the rest, it looks like Chuckmann nailed it.
Not saying I have a problem with what you or Chuckman said. It was in the context of adding information. The key to it from Milton's standpoint was incentives which many other programs have perverse ones. That is BF Skinner stuff.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 11:34 AM
 
12,801 posts, read 16,505,840 times
Reputation: 8828
Interesting because so many conservatives want to nominate Reagan for sainthood (Friedman ineligible because he was Jewish-LOL) want to kill off a program he championed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 10:03 PM
 
19,346 posts, read 16,991,167 times
Reputation: 7519
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Interesting because so many conservatives want to nominate Reagan for sainthood (Friedman ineligible because he was Jewish-LOL) want to kill off a program he championed.

That is because the current crop of republicans are complete idiots. Sherman Anti-trust laws , natural monopoly, public infrastructure where all part of their planks. They were capitalists.

But then so are the modern democrats who no longer stand for labor and decided on welfare and identity politics.

What is:
welfare state vs fiance and landed gentry

What was:
capital vs labor.

Guess which one makes an actual product.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top