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: Oblomov who wrote (87448)	10/9/2007 2:36:28 AM
From: John Metcalf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

<NO, it was not. Friedman advocated a negative income tax> Yeah, you're right. So was I. Here is what I said: "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". What is the difference between your exact words, and my matching exact words? Perhaps you think that "guaranteed income" has a different meaning? How so? Would it matter if guaranteed income were administered by IRS or by some other public agency? FWIW: I am opposed to any way of guaranteeing income, through IRS, or otherwise.