General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Reverse Income Tax: A Bold Replacement for Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, and others [View all]MFrohike
(1,980 posts)This is, in effect, a very big welfare check. Welfare has been, is, and likely will continue to be extremely vulnerable to the partisan swings of government. This "thought experiment" would ask us to trade the invulnerability (as far as it goes) of Social Security for the constant political sniping associated with the dole. No thanks. You wouldn't achieve any efficiency gains if the rules were changed every 2-4 years, which isn't out of the question given the recent political climate. Instead, your agencies would spend more time determining new tables of payouts and eligibility, which would raise the administrative costs which, in turn, would lead to greater criticism of "failing" government programs.
In short, no thanks. I do generally agree with the policy of subsidies over tax incentives because it's far easier to track a check than money you didn't receive but this idea is just wrongheaded in terms of American politics. You'd be better served arguing for greater unemployment or Social Security benefits. Hell, you'd be better off arguing for a merger of the two in order to create some kind of lifetime minimum income.
It would require some restraints on spending, though. First because any money the government spends, it has a right and duty to ensure it's spent for legitimate and necessary purposes. Second, to ensure that the money isn't spent on useless purposes, like gambling, addiction, and the like. It's not unreasonable to expect that those on some form of government assistance not use that assistance for counterproductive purposes. It's not unreasonable to require it, either.