3 ms·
> I believe he has hit the nail on the head with his analysis of the problem, yet I completely disagree with his solution, which is negative income tax i.e dire
by DLWormwood 16y ago
> I believe he has hit the nail on the head with his analysis of the problem, yet I completely disagree with his solution, which is negative income tax i.e direct government cash to the poor.
You misread the article. That "negative tax" was a test project that predated Karelis' paper. His advocacy is more in line with systems like the "Earned Income Credit" which serves as a multiplier of the "reliever" effect, thereby making the smaller problems that remain seem easier to surmount. This is actually similar to your bootstrapping proposal, in a way...
- eds 16y agoThe "earned income" credit is a negative tax ("refundable credit").
- DLWormwood 16y agoNot exactly what is meant by "negative tax" in the article. You have to earn money before you're eligible to get the credit, with the amount based on size of family. Whereas the negative tax of the article gives you more and more money the less you have. (The EIC's capped, and if you make too little money, say via only a part time job, you don't get the full credit. What the article calls a negative tax would pay you the maximum amount if you earned nothing for the year.)