Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (87435)	10/8/2007 8:06:09 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

Freidman's point was that administration of social programs is expensive. All those gubmint jobs could be eliminated if we simply introduced a "negative income tax", in which money would be sent to those who didn't earn enough, cutting out the social-worker middle man. IMHO we should fire all the middlemen and do away with the giveaways. Just start assessing income tax at some threshold and let the "poor people" keep more of their own money. Saying we should just give everyone who doesn't work money for for nothing is insane.

To: John Metcalf who wrote (87435)	10/8/2007 9:18:21 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

>>guaranteed national income was a hot new idea in the 1960's. It was championed by Milton Friedman, certainly not a liberal. NO, it was not. Friedman advocated a negative income tax as an alternative to proposed guaranteed income schemes (all of which fortunately went down in flames).