The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Welfare

```Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!sri-spam!nike!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: r...@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Welfare
Message-ID: <456@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Oct-86 14:56:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.456
Posted: Fri Oct  3 14:56:58 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 12:37:46 EDT
Reply-To: r...@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 76
Keywords: welfare, poor people, economics
Summary: Total package benifits.

In article <1...@dadla.UUCP> r...@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) writes:
>In article <1...@cad.cs.cmu.edu> s...@cad.cs.cmu.edu (Sean Engelson) writes:
>>An extremely good method of revamping the welfare system is the system of
>>inverse taxation.  ...  For example, if
>>we make our income tax formula the following:
>>
>>	(INCOME - \$10,000)
>>	------------------ ,
>>	       3
>>
>>someone making \$9,000 would receive \$500, for a total of \$9,500, someone
>>making \$5,000 would get a total of \$7,500.
>
>	So I'm confused, It looks like \$9000 ==> \$9333 and \$5000 ==> \$6666
>	by this formula.  Perhaps you meant to divide by 2 ?

Actually there are two plans, one is:

(Income - (total of all possible benefits))
-------------------------------------------	= effect on each plan.
number of benifit plans

And
(Income - (subsistance level income))
-------------------------------------  = total of all benifits.
2

>>					     This example assumes that the
>>minimum subsistence level is \$5,000.  This is good because the people
>>receiving money have incentive to work, as if they work they WILL make more
>>money than not.  Also, it simplifies things a whole lot by integrating the 2
>>big governmental money-moving institutions, taxes and welfare.  All in all a
>>rather elegant solution to a messy problem.

The method was proposed initially about 50 years ago by a "brain trust"
under the F.D.R. adminestration.  I know one of the few living authors
of this proposal.  He's over 90, but still remembers, and still supports
the original propsal.

It has actually been adopted (sort of), by several different programs,
which is the problem.  For each dollar earned in cash money, you can
loose 50 cents from ADC, 50 cents from Food Stamps, 50 cents in
medicaid, 50 cents in Earned income credit, and 50 cents in social
security if you are eligible.  That can mean for some people, a loss of
\$2.50 for every dollar earned.  This does not include the expenses
related to earning such as child care, transportation, hygene, and
work/training related expenses.  In addition, educational assistance
has a 1:1 loss.  Under certain circumstances, the actual loss can be as
high as \$5.00/\$1 earned.

>	A method like this has alot of merit, but think of all the people
>	in the IRS and the various social service organizations that would be
>	put out of work. :-)

Actually, the cost of a "unified negative income tax" would require about
the same number of people.  More benificiaries would be eligible, and
it would be necessary to insure that they would recieve the correct
types and proportions of aid.  This aid would also have to be monitored
more carefully.

In addition, there would be need for child care, transportation, and
training personel, to support the increase in productive workers who
currently provide their own child's care, need little transportation,
and are not currently eligible for most training programs.

>	Now all you need is a plan to integrate the BIGGEST money-moving
>	institution - the military.
>Rob Vetter

Military is the biggest, however the combined budget of welfare and the
IRS is substantially higher than the Military.

Why do those who have worked on defence projects call it "white collar
welfare"?

Rex Ballard.
```