A Tool for Punishing Government Corruption

I don’t know who first came up with the idea of the basic income, but seem to remember that Friedrich Hayek supported the idea. Also, Milton Friedman supported a basic income in the form of a negative income tax. Personally I like the idea of a “citizens dividend” in which every individual citizen would receive a check (maybe $8000 annually) from the government. However it is implemented, the basic income would replace all the current social programs and the huge bureaucracy involved in administering them, i.e., the abolishment of S.S., minimum wage, welfare, unemployment ins., earned income tax credits, etc, etc.

One of the advantages of a basic income is that it doesn’t discourage or prohibit those receiving it from engaging in production the way current social welfare programs do. Everyone would receive the same amount and everyone would be free to work to earn more. The idea of a basic income (as a replacement for current welfare systems) has a great deal of support from those who have a high level of understanding in economic theory.

Anyway, I have been doing some thinking on the subject, and I believe that a basic income would help reduce government corruption. One of the effects of a basic income is that work would not be mandatory, as a very meager living would be possible without engaging in productive work. As such, it would force government to make productive work rewarding enough that people engage in that work. Now it is beyond the power of government to make work worth more than the actual value of labor engaged in production can yield. But it is not beyond the power of government to make work more rewarding by eliminating corruption and privilege.

So the basic income would empower the working class to punish the government should the government tip the playing field in favor of the privileged. As privilege and corruption increased, more and more people would stop working and government revenue would fall. On the other hand, when government removes privilege and corruption from the system, real wages would rise and draw more and more individuals back to productive work. Thus, the government would have the incentive of higher revenues if it implements sound economic policy, and lower revenues if it engages in the issuance of privilege and corruption.

 

First thing I would do is get my woman pregnant, and maybe even find couple extra ladies

 

The two best aspects of the NIT were simplicity and transparency. By simply eliminating the ability for government to use the tax code to benefit cronies you've immediately eliminated the primary avenue through which most corruption occurs. Secondarily because it would also make it possible to provide fringe benefits to special interest groups via bringing all benefits programs under one roof would be another aspect to reduce corruption. The main drawback is the need for a great deal of oversight, but if the punishments were significantly harsh we may be able to reduce that burden. It's sufficiently progressive such as to regain some of the profits gained through rent seeking and the non-discretionary benefits programs encourages equality of opportunity.

I've been an NIT advocate for a while but realize the it is completely politically impossible given the current climate. Friedman lobbied hard for it for quite some time, but when congress when to act on it they planned to add it to the current tax and benefits system, rather than replace them both and as a result was forced to oppose it.

 

Why don't you do it now?

I know I didn't specifiy, but the basic income wouldn't apply to children as to adults. Children may receive a reduced amount, but they would no longer be counted a tax exemption.

 

Financial burden, and I do not see a very bright future for ordinary people here.

 

Thanks for pointing out the economic benefits of the negative income tax.

I guess what got me thinking down this line is that a few days ago, on the forum, someone stated that the political system is so corrupted that the only thing left to do is become “dead weight”. Well, for most people the system has them in a stranglehold, it is hard to become “dead weight” if you’ve got hungry mouths to feed. Plus, a lot of people are too proud to jump on the welfare train. This leaves people pretty much powerless to fight government corruption in any meaningful way.

A negative income tax would change that for a great many people. It would empower them to fight when they feel that the system is being pitted against them. For example, say that on Monday the government passes ObamaCare, and then on Tuesday ten million people quit their jobs in protest. The basic income would make this type of rebellion much more feasible for the working class; and consequently force government to be very cautious about implementing policy which would harm the working class.

This isn’t to say that everyone would or could quit their job when unfavorable government policy is passed. Even under a system which provided a basic income many people would have too many financial obligations to commit such an act of rebellion. But it is not necessary that everyone quit work, just that enough can to keep the politicians in line. I would envision that a class of “freedom fighters” might naturally come to existence, people who purposely kept their financial obligations low enough that they could engage in such political rebellion (become dead-weight) whenever such a need would arise.

 

we are doing this right now..its called welfare..is it working ? heck no..

 

The current system is nothing like a basic income system. If you knew anything at all about economics you would already know that. Under a basic income every adult citizen would receive the same basic income, everyone would be included, and there would be no penalty for working and producing wealth. You could be 102 years old, you could be working or not working, and regardless of whether or not you worked your basic income would not change. Sorry, but the current system doesn’t work like that. You must be living under a rock.

 

I don't think the NIT is a good way to solve that issue, but rather reduces the potential for corruption and cronyism by limiting the ability to be arbitrary and use the tax and benefits systems to work against the tax payer.

More worthless one-liners? You need to find a knew schtick.

 

buddy i know more about economics than you..its called welfare no matter how much lipstick you put on it its still welfare..

 

Based on what I’ve seen so far, I would say that is so unlikely as to be practically impossible. What you need to do is ask yourself why so many of the worlds brightest economic minds, economic masters who champion free market ideals, agree with me and disagree with you. You need to take a few months off of work and ponder over that fact.

It doesn’t have to be welfare as it could be funded out of unearned land rents, in which case it would be called economic justice. However, even if it is funded out of current forms of taxation, it is still a far more economically efficient way to administer welfare.

 

Yeah, the Dems see their guy possibly losing in 2012, so it is time to try to clinch the Cloward-Piven Strategy Deal now, before it might be too late...

 

I already gave you two Nobel prize winning economists (Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman) who support a basic income as a replacement for the current social welfare systems.

But if that is not enough, here is more proof:

So that is over two dozen additional supporters of a basic income, funded by land rents. Those are western (free market) economists from the most prestigious schools in the world, four (4) of whom are winners of the Nobel prize.

I am right and you are wrong, sorry.