On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]>wrote:
" It means there is less disposable income in circulation. " > > Yes, which is why a negative income tax rate probably makes sense. > However, you still have to work for it. > Honestly, I have no strong opinion on this last point. I say, put in place an employment requirement and see what happens. I think there are disincentives to working baked into the welfare programs in some countries (like the US), for example, where they make assistance available only to people below some absurdly low level of income. My feeling is that such perverse incentives should be removed. I think you're trying to achieve something similar by requiring people to work. But ... do people who are 80 and need assistance need to work? Do people who are incompetent or mentally disabled need to work? It seems like the work requirement is just trying to avoid disincentives for people who could otherwise be gainfully employed. Eric
