> cannot think of a (sane) negative income tax system that can be described as wealth going from the poor to the rich. Neither can I, but that's because I thin

> cannot think of a (sane) negative income tax system that can be described as wealth going from the poor to the rich. Neither can I, but that's because I think all plans are either (a) mathematically impossible or (b) intended to distribute wealth upwards by dismantling the social welfare state as we know it. > Sure there is, because a 125[2] of the 240 have a job, those who earn little, might still get some money from tax, those who make medium pay a some tax, those who make a lot, pay a lot of tax. But it will imply more tax on the rich, both income and wealth. (Though nothing ridiculous.) 50% of full time workers in the US earn less than 30,000 a year, so their income would get supplemented to 30k, and they would not make any net tax contribution anymore. There are 94 million US adults not in the labor force at all (40%), so they too are not contributing to the tax pool. So out of the 60% remaining US workers 50% earn more than 30,000 a year, so that means 30% of US adults will have to carry the full tax burden, which will be many trillions of dollars larger than today. NIT would be 7.2 trillion, non-welfare gov't spending is 5 trillion, so government spending would total 12.2 out of 17 trillion GDP = 71% of GDP. So for this to work taxes would have to go up massively (which I support, incidentally, but most people will balk at this).