>I started by calling a negative income tax the carbon tax of social policy – attractive on paper but never enacted. In fact, though, an NIT and a carbon tax differ in an important way that makes the NIT even harder to implement. The difference is this: A carbon tax would improve environmental performance whether it were the sole emissions reduction policy or an add-on to existing regulations and subsidies. In contrast, a conventional NIT added to the already crushing work disincentives of our current welfare system would be a disaster.
>It is utopian to think of wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch with a stand-alone NIT. Instead, NIT advocates (and advocates of the NIT’s close cousin, a UBI) need to figure out a step-by-step approach. But there is a catch: Not any random series of steps will work. What we need is a sequence of reforms, each of which meet three criteria:
>1. Each step should be small enough to enact with a single piece of legislation, regulatory action, or executive order. A[ refundable Child Tax Credit](https://www.niskanencenter.org/bipartisan-reform-options-for-the-child-tax-credit/) is an example of one such step, and one that is not totally beyond the realm of legislative feasibility.
>2. Each step should improve both the lives of the poor and the performance of the economy even while other programs remain in place. For example, given the evidence that people value cash more than equally costly in-kind benefits, a cash-out option for SNAP could improve the lives of the poor while cutting the burden on federal taxpayers.
>3. Each step should be a win-win as viewed from values of both progressives and conservatives. The progressive values of inclusivity, accessibility, opportunity, and empowerment are, after all, complementary to the conservative values of work, family, freedom, and cost-effectiveness. With a little imagination, each step toward reform can be sold as a plus to both sides.
>This essay has been too short to offer a complete road map to repackaging the NIT for today’s America. I have tried, though, to give examples that make such a project look at least a little more feasible.
I’d say the end of the essay is the most essential part of it, although I do recommend everyone to read through it.
Hypertext is also a great substack I encourage you to subscribe to, it’s maintained by the fellas from the Niskanen Center.
2 Comments
>Getting there from here
>I started by calling a negative income tax the carbon tax of social policy – attractive on paper but never enacted. In fact, though, an NIT and a carbon tax differ in an important way that makes the NIT even harder to implement. The difference is this: A carbon tax would improve environmental performance whether it were the sole emissions reduction policy or an add-on to existing regulations and subsidies. In contrast, a conventional NIT added to the already crushing work disincentives of our current welfare system would be a disaster.
>It is utopian to think of wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch with a stand-alone NIT. Instead, NIT advocates (and advocates of the NIT’s close cousin, a UBI) need to figure out a step-by-step approach. But there is a catch: Not any random series of steps will work. What we need is a sequence of reforms, each of which meet three criteria:
>1. Each step should be small enough to enact with a single piece of legislation, regulatory action, or executive order. A[ refundable Child Tax Credit](https://www.niskanencenter.org/bipartisan-reform-options-for-the-child-tax-credit/) is an example of one such step, and one that is not totally beyond the realm of legislative feasibility.
>2. Each step should improve both the lives of the poor and the performance of the economy even while other programs remain in place. For example, given the evidence that people value cash more than equally costly in-kind benefits, a cash-out option for SNAP could improve the lives of the poor while cutting the burden on federal taxpayers.
>3. Each step should be a win-win as viewed from values of both progressives and conservatives. The progressive values of inclusivity, accessibility, opportunity, and empowerment are, after all, complementary to the conservative values of work, family, freedom, and cost-effectiveness. With a little imagination, each step toward reform can be sold as a plus to both sides.
>This essay has been too short to offer a complete road map to repackaging the NIT for today’s America. I have tried, though, to give examples that make such a project look at least a little more feasible.
I’d say the end of the essay is the most essential part of it, although I do recommend everyone to read through it.
Hypertext is also a great substack I encourage you to subscribe to, it’s maintained by the fellas from the Niskanen Center.
tax = communism
it’s that simple…