KZread "Milton Friedman- The Negative Income Tax" where he explains his position in more detail, it is meant to replace welfare and at least give the poor some form of incentive of getting out of poverty. He said that if there was no welfare state he would oppose it, but its better compared to what we have now, also politically feasible, its actually quite a good idea

@jessep9671

6 жыл бұрын

Exactly, Milton says he would transition to negative income tax to replace welfare, since the gov. Is responsible for putting people in the welfare state it is also responsible for getting them out of it. He would then progressively phase out the negative income tax.

That does not make Friedman inconsistent or a semi socialist. That makes him an intelligent and nuanced libertarian. Actually when he takes into account the state's follies he is being a purer libertarian than many superficial types who will not.

The lady asked a wrong question really. As soon Milton started with one income for everything... she had already got her answer.

he proposed this as a replacement to multiple welfare programs. in a country that demands a safety net, his idea would likely work out better than having the federal government administer a hundred different programs. as always, you have to ask "compared to what?" compared to our current welfare state, the NIT would be better. compared to my libertarian fantasy, the NIT would be worse. milton friedman was well aware that libertarian fantasies would never be implemented in the US.

Friedman was a pragmatist. He advocated negative income tax as a practical mechanism and would have rejected it in his ideal world. But another important thing to note in the short term, even in his ideal world he favored negative income tax. Because once the state makes people and families dependent on dole or distorts society such that a large section of population get trapped in poverty for state's actions. It is responsible in the short term to provide some relief to these people.

But would the negative income tax be sufficient to cover the cost of the cheapest medical care insurance?

The key to his Negative Income Tax idea, which he published in the 40's, was to gear it to give the poor incentive to work. Today's system disincents going to work; a single mother can't take a minimum wage job, lose benefits, pay for child care while they work, etc. His system gave them an incentive to get in the workforce. I can't do it justice in the space here, but google it. I read it 40+ years ago working on my senior thesis and I don't understand why we didn't do it 70 years ago.

This is 2019 would go something like this Lady: Dr. Friedman... Dr. Friedman: Yes ma'am. Lady: HOW DARE YOU ASSUME MY GENDER.

Isn't that what the so-called "earned income tax credit" basically is?

@LovingPrinceTamayuki

4 жыл бұрын

Somebody knows their tax law! Good job! Yes, Earned income tax credit is the only example of negative income tax that has been passed into law. I think Friedman would have upped the amount or something like that. His exact Negative income tax bill would likely be two pronged one to encourage earned income and the other just to encourage tax filing of all adults. But with all of this stuff I'm suggesting, the government would have to also axe all welfare programs or he wouldn't be in favor of it. He's a very one or the other type of person, it's either you you embrace capitalism or communism, that little help he is suggesting that the government gives the poor, (from an accountant stand point) is less of help and more of will stop attacking...

Keep in mind, Friedman is talking about 'the poor' - a class of people at a given time who ARE NOT the same as 'the poor' at a different time. The 'negative income tax' is a safety net that gets people back on their feet. It is not a lifelong stipend. At least, it is not meant to be. Of course there are those who can't or won't develop skills that are worth enough to others to maintain a minimum standard that 'WE' want them to have (for the sake of crime reduction, etc.). That's life...

What about those who cannot work?

What level of health coverage? Statists still stating in 2020

I have to agree with all of you, fellas. Can't believe Friedman said that. Usually he's real good at this stuff. Anybody know how old this video is?

Friedman ended up changing his mind on negative income tax towards the end of his life. I’m not sure exactly what he said, I’ve been trying to find something, but that is my understanding.

And when a percentage of them dont spend it on that and we get the same cries of unfairness and poverty? When giving people the money was tried in the UK suddenly loads of people were homeless because they were incompetent with money, some will certainly do better with the money but this doesnt address the problem.

Instead of spending fortunes to administer a million of programmes, one universal, easy to administer programme is a no-brainer. Milton Friedman is so missed.

Did I just hear Milton Friedman argue for universal basic income? Well... obviously not universal, just for the poor. But still, what happened to "if you pay people to be poor they'll stay poor?"

Wow, the only MF clip I don't agree with. Negative Income tax?!?!?! The problem with the poor is not money, it's that they produce less than what their needs are. The government is horrible at filtering real need from false need. Private charities do much better at this type of thing. Lets look at a place like Thailand where people manage without the welfare state.

The problem with poverty is not money. Its mentality

@tipofmytongue1024

7 жыл бұрын

Definitely. But the welfare state doesn't allow anyway of escaping poverty. Eliminating that incentive for programs for a certain amount for this and that, food shelter etc would just eliminate that dependency. When a comprehensive Negative Income Tax is set into motion, it allows people the freedom to do what they need to do to escape that. I don't believe this is similar to the Earned Income Tax Credit or Universal Basic Income, it's different because the incentive is to escape poverty and increase freedom to choose. Eliminate dependency is the key to escaping that poor mentality.

@tipofmytongue1024

7 жыл бұрын

You spending your own money on yourself, you make sure you get the most out of it. If you know it's from the government and it's always there when you need it, then where's the incentive to escape?

@BuyTheDip627

7 жыл бұрын

paulaegraham true

@jjay75

7 жыл бұрын

No, it literally is money

@crazieeez

6 жыл бұрын

How do you expect a 2 year old kid to live? Kids are the poorest group in our society. They need money to live. Friedman is right that the problem with poverty is money.

"The problem of poverty is money" - The guy is a genious! What's next, the problem of death is dying? The problem of sickness is disease? Such a mind.

@natkojurdana9673

10 жыл бұрын

***** Actually I agree with him in some sense. His sugestion reminds me of something that the new european left is trying to get of the ground - a minimum income for every citizen. But of course, with the basic social and health programs retained! What would the poor do with this extra allowance money? They would buy stuff, they would spend it and therefore encourage the economy to grow. Where would that money come from? From the rich that keep their money in banks and don't do shit with it! The rich are only humans, they can only eat so much, they can only buy so many yachts, cars and other luxuries. Why should anyone be allowed to have a BILLION dollars, while so many that work for a living can barley sustain themselves?!?!?!? It is not only morally wrong, it's bad for capitalism.

@Enedrapvp

9 жыл бұрын

It is an intelligent remark. If you asked an idiot the problem with poverty, he would say money. If you ask a person that spends less time with objective critical thinking, he would say: (lack of healthcare, drugs, bad schools, crime, bad family) If you ask an economist the problem with poverty, he would say MONEY. If you are baffled by questions like "What came first the chicken or the egg" then I suggest you review your thinking habits. Any scientist will tell you, the egg, because the first species of what we call a "chicken" hatched from an egg from another chicken-like species. Just like if you ask an economist why things exist like: crime, bad schools, drug use, bad families, lack of healthcare, etc, the answer is quite clearly money. Fixing these issues (crime, schools, etc) will help towards long term growth. But the more people have, the more that can be invested. Removing government from the equation helps people earn more money, and in economics you will learn that government inefficiency is quite overwhelmingly powerful. Help people get money (more jobs, market-controlled jobs, no regulation) would make people richer in a few months time, and consumption and quality of life might lower for a while. Producers make a powerful economy, not consumers.