# Libertarian Topic of the Week 2: Taxes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065 "2014-04-26T17:53:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/102 "2014-05-01T16:39:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The main reason why it’s a bad example is because it conflates the idea of a social safety net and minimum wage, as if the employer is the one responsible to provide this net. Just like tying health care to employers is a bad idea, tying the social safety net to employers is also a bad idea. All government action should be done in the least intrusive way possible. Minimum wage as a means to establish a social safety net is not only not effective, it’s poorly conceived when there are better ways to do so. I would agree that the employer is less reliable as a source of social safety net/health care than the government. In terms of who is responsible, I do not agree that other tax payers are more responsible than the employer. Much like the cost of manufacturing should account for pollution, the cost of labor should account for the worker’s basic human needs. An employer who pays so little that the employee gets food stamps is equivalent to a manufacturer who dumps toxic waste in the river, leaving everyone else to bear the cost. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/103 "2014-05-01T16:49:47Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Question: Don’t we have to tie wage-based safety nets to employers? This is why I have a hard time thinking over a negative income tax. Let’s assume that the NIC is $25,000 and there is no minimum wage. (NIC threshold chosen for no particular reason and immaterial to my question. 🙂 ) > > Wouldn’t WalMart, a known abuser of the social safety nets already in place, simply pay it’s staff $1/day and let them get the other $24,635 from the government? Wouldn’t you have to enforce a minimum rate of pay for full time employees and some sort of fractional basis for part-time employees (e.g. worked 1000 hours of a standard 2000 hour year = 50% of NIC)? Because of this, wouldn’t any NIC drive the low-level employees directly to the handout via businesses paying them so little and thus not giving employees an incentive or even easy way to crawl out from destitution? Hmmm…I was under the impression that it works more like “everyone gets $X regardless of whether they work”. ($25k per person would be unworkable, but $25k per household might work) What they earn (minus tax) is on top of $X. So if the pay for a job is too low, no one will bother. Basically everyone works for “extras”, such as a nicer car instead of a beater or a house instead of a small apartment or being able to afford travel. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/104 "2014-05-01T16:52:47Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > They’d be forced to take say $5/hour because that might be their best offer and management would know there are other takers who would work for that wage. If the choice is work for peanuts or starve, you take the peanuts. This doesn’t even remotely answer the question. Who is initiating the force? How does this force manifest itself? Here’s an example: _Management forces the low wage employee to work for $5/hour by threatening to kill them if they do not._ In this example, Management is initiating the force, and it is manifested by the threat to kill them. Of course this isn’t happening so I’m curious how anyone is being forced to do anything if minimum wage is eliminated. It’s a pretty straight forward question. I’ll even accept any assumptions you are making for the purpose of addressing the question. I believe at some point for your statement to make sense you have to assume that employees are owed a job. Correct me if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/105 "2014-05-01T17:04:39Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Not all, of course. But for us to have a discussion, we need to identify the positions of a (small or large) majority of libertarians. I am unable to find a poll that specifically asks libertarian about the government providing for a basic level of subsistence, but all indications are that the majority would not support such a provision. For example: > > [This poll](http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013.AVS_WEB.pdf) finds that 83% of libertarians agree that “individuals should take responsibility to pay for their own health insurance,” while only 10% agree that “the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes on individuals and businesses.” I don’t know if you consider health care part of that basis subsistence you were referring to, but I think most people would consider it a necessity rather than luxury. A large majority of libertarians are not willing to use tax dollars to guarantee that everyone has it. Health insurance is not a good proxy for welfare in general, though. Opposition to government guarantee of health insurance doesn’t necessarily indicate opposition to all welfare spending. > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > [The Pew political typography report](http://www.people-press.org/files/2011/05/Political-Typology-Detailed-Tables.pdf) indicates that among libertarians, 85% favor smaller governments, 73% oppose tax increase, and 80% favor domestic spending cuts (presumably non defense related since that’s a different question). 80% also agree with “most can get ahead if work hard”. All of these indicate that libertarians are by and large not agreeable to government spending to help the poor. I favor small government, oppose tax increases, favor domestic spending cuts, and agree that most can get ahead if they work hard. And yet I advocate for a negative income tax. I can only speculate as to what portion of libertarians oppose all welfare, but it’s not 80+%. > [@Farin](#): > > Question: Don’t we have to tie wage-based safety nets to employers? This is why I have a hard time thinking over a negative income tax. Let’s assume that the NIC is $25,000 and there is no minimum wage. (NIC threshold chosen for no particular reason and immaterial to my question. 🙂 ) > > Wouldn’t WalMart, a known abuser of the social safety nets already in place, simply pay it’s staff $1/day and let them get the other $24,635 from the government? Wouldn’t you have to enforce a minimum rate of pay for full time employees and some sort of fractional basis for part-time employees (e.g. worked 1000 hours of a standard 2000 hour year = 50% of NIC)? Because of this, wouldn’t any NIC drive the low-level employees directly to the handout via businesses paying them so little and thus not giving employees an incentive or even easy way to crawl out from destitution? Solution: a 50% subsidy rate. Say, for example, the NIT was set at $40,000, a nice round number I choose purely for this example. Anyone making over $40,000 pays income tax. Anyone making exactly $40,000 neither pays taxes nor receives an NIT payment. Anyone making less than $40,000 gets 50% of the difference between their income and $40,000. So, someone who makes $0 gets a $20,000 NIT payment, someone who makes $20,000 gets a $10,000 NIT payment. $1/day works out to about $260 a year. Such a person would recieve an NIT payment of $19,870, for total earnings of $20,130. If Target across the street offers $4/day, or $1,040/year, a worker there gets an NIT payment of $19,480 and total earnings of $20,520. If McDonald’s offers the princely sum of $4/hour, or $8,320 a year, a worker there gets an NIT payment of $15,840, for total earnings of $24,160. As you see, the higher wage results in a higher total earnings, so there’s still an incentive to bargain for the highest wage one can get. > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > An employer who pays so little that the employee gets food stamps is equivalent to a manufacturer who dumps toxic waste in the river, leaving everyone else to bear the cost. Except for the fact that the dumper of toxic waste is breaking the law, and the company offering minimum wage isn’t. If the minimum wage is too low for your tastes, the fault lies with the government that sets the wage, not the business that’s following the law. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/106 "2014-05-01T17:10:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This doesn’t even remotely answer the question. Who is initiating the force? How does this force manifest itself? > Here’s an example: _Management forces the low wage employee to work for $5/hour by threatening to kill them if they do not._ In this example, Management is initiating the force, and it is manifested by the threat to kill them. Of course this isn’t happening so I’m curious how anyone is being forced to do anything if minimum wage is eliminated. It’s a pretty straight forward question. I’ll even accept any assumptions you are making for the purpose of addressing the question. > > I believe at some point for your statement to make sense you have to assume that employees are owed a job. Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t believe the employees are owed a job. What I do believe is that in the absence of a minimum wage, employers would take advantage of the surplus labor market and lower wages to push more people into poverty. The issue of force is a red herring, the real issue is that companies would gladly exploit the current labor market to pay wages that would make their employees’ lives miserable. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/107 "2014-05-01T17:21:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Except for the fact that the dumper of toxic waste is breaking the law, and the company offering minimum wage isn’t. If the minimum wage is too low for your tastes, the fault lies with the government that sets the wage, not the business that’s following the law. I thought we were debating policies, i.e. whether and how high the law should set minimum wage. There is indeed a push to increase minimum wage which would reduce such free-riding by large corporations who don’t pay for the whole cost of labor. And there are also discussions about whether the fine for toxic waste dumping is currently too lenient (cf: recent cases in WV/NC). It’s difficult to discuss what the laws should be if all we can go by is whether the current laws are being obeyed. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/108 "2014-05-01T17:33:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Health insurance is not a good proxy for welfare in general, though. Opposition to government guarantee of health insurance doesn’t necessarily indicate opposition to all welfare spending. Why? Is healthcare considered something of a luxury instead of necessity? And health insurance is already a private market way of dealing with healthcare provision, so we’re not simply measuring opposition to government run services. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/109 "2014-05-01T17:58:18Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > I thought we were debating policies, i.e. whether and how high the law should set minimum wage. There is indeed a push to increase minimum wage which would reduce such free-riding by large corporations who don’t pay for the whole cost of labor. And there are also discussions about whether the fine for toxic waste dumping is currently too lenient (cf: recent cases in WV/NC). > > It’s difficult to discuss what the laws should be if all we can go by is whether the current laws are being obeyed. Ah, I see. I misinterpreted you. Sorry. > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Why? Is healthcare considered something of a luxury instead of necessity? And health insurance is already a private market way of dealing with healthcare provision, so we’re not simply measuring opposition to government run services. Because people don’t think of them the same way. [Here’s a summary of several polls about welfare](http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-opinion.html), opinion is divided on the requirements and duration, but I don’t see support for just ending it altogether. Conversely, [56% of Americans](http://www.gallup.com/poll/165917/majority-say-healthcare-not-gov-responsibility.aspx) believe that “it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage”. I’m not addressing the logic of their opinion, just pointing out that it exists. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/110 "2014-05-01T18:11:15Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Hmmm…I was under the impression that it works more like “everyone gets $X regardless of whether they work”. ($25k per person would be unworkable, but $25k per household might work) What they earn (minus tax) is on top of $X. So if the pay for a job is too low, no one will bother. Basically everyone works for “extras”, such as a nicer car instead of a beater or a house instead of a small apartment or being able to afford travel. That makes more sense. So a base $X plus earnings. Problem with that is, though, is that basically any amount would overrun the budget. Even a $10,000 default outlay across all citizens would be $3.3T. If you reduce that to just adults, it’s still $2.7T. (The budget for 2013 was $2.9T) > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Solution: a 50% subsidy rate. Say, for example, the NIT was set at $40,000, a nice round number I choose purely for this example. Anyone making over $40,000 pays income tax. Anyone making exactly $40,000 neither pays taxes nor receives an NIT payment. Anyone making less than $40,000 gets 50% of the difference between their income and $40,000. So, someone who makes $0 gets a $20,000 NIT payment, someone who makes $20,000 gets a $10,000 NIT payment. > > $1/day works out to about $260 a year. Such a person would recieve an NIT payment of $19,870, for total earnings of $20,130. > > If Target across the street offers $4/day, or $1,040/year, a worker there gets an NIT payment of $19,480 and total earnings of $20,520. > > If McDonald’s offers the princely sum of $4/hour, or $8,320 a year, a worker there gets an NIT payment of $15,840, for total earnings of $24,160. > > As you see, the higher wage results in a higher total earnings, so there’s still an incentive to bargain for the highest wage one can get. How would that solve the issue? It would also complexify the NIT calculations (50% of 40,000 instead of 100%of 20,000?) for what benefit? WalMart, being the behemoth anti-negotiator it is, could still pay it’s workers beans and rely on the government to provide the safety net for them. The labor situation in this country is dominated by the employers (even when accounting for unions). Does this help that at all? I don’t see how it would. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/111 "2014-05-01T18:23:33Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > How would that solve the issue? By removing any leverage for Wal-Mart to be able to attract workers at $1 per day. > [@Farin](#): > > It would also complexify the NIT calculations (50% of 40,000 instead of 100%of 20,000?) for what benefit? It preserves an incentive to work and to try and increase one’s market value, it prevents $1-per-day shenanigans, and it doesn’t utterly consume the nation’s budget, like a flat universal payment does. Having to perform a single, simple calculation once a month is a pretty low price to pay for all that. It’d certainly be the least complex aspect of the U.S. tax code. > [@Farin](#): > > WalMart, being the behemoth anti-negotiator it is, could still pay it’s workers beans and rely on the government to provide the safety net for them. The labor situation in this country is dominated by the employers (even when accounting for unions). Does this help that at all? I don’t see how it would. It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, Wal-Mart’s task to provide the safety net in any aspect beyond paying taxes. It’s Wal-Mart’s task to efficiently meet the needs of its customers and shareholders, as a by-product producing wealth that can be taxed and used for public goods. A minimum wage a) does nothing for the unemployed, and b) distorts the market. An NIT provides the benefit of a higher minimum wage, without those drawbacks. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/112 "2014-05-01T19:03:58Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > By removing any leverage for Wal-Mart to be able to attract workers at $1 per day. > > It preserves an incentive to work and to try and increase one’s market value, it prevents $1-per-day shenanigans, and it doesn’t utterly consume the nation’s budget, like a flat universal payment does. Having to perform a single, simple calculation once a month is a pretty low price to pay for all that. It’d certainly be the least complex aspect of the U.S. tax code. But how would it accomplish this? Why wouldn’t WalMart pay it’s employees $0 with a 10% discount (or something) and simply have the government make up the salary (which is then spent inside WalMart because you get 10% off)? That would be a massive cost savings that would make it’s shareholders happy, after all. And I would opine that working for 50% of a dollar instead of a dollar seems like less incentive. 😉 > [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, Wal-Mart’s task to provide the safety net in any aspect beyond paying taxes. It’s Wal-Mart’s task to efficiently meet the needs of its customers and shareholders, as a by-product producing wealth that can be taxed and used for public goods. A minimum wage a) does nothing for the unemployed, and b) distorts the market. An NIT provides the benefit of a higher minimum wage, without those drawbacks. I phrased that poorly. I don’t mean “WalMart providing the safety net” I was referring to WalMart paying workers less than they are worth and encouraging it’s employees to partake in government benefits to help WalMart’s bottom line. Why would we continue allowing businesses to be funded by the government in this manner? My personal belief is that if you can’t be profitable without government subsidy as a business, you shouldn’t be in business. Thus all government funds outside of direct disaster relief (not ‘my building got eaten by a tornado’, but ‘this critical piece of infrastructure requires repair after a tornado’) or direct payment for services or products rendered shouldn’t go into any business in any way (no tax cuts, no incentives, no welfare subsidy to your employees, nothing). This is where I’m coming from on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/113 "2014-05-01T19:25:08Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > But how would it accomplish this? Why wouldn’t WalMart pay it’s employees $0 with a 10% discount (or something) and simply have the government make up the salary (which is then spent inside WalMart because you get 10% off)? That would be a massive cost savings that would make it’s shareholders happy, after all. Do you believe they could find enough workers to accept a $0 rate to conduct their business? Each of those individuals will be able to sell their services to another employer who will pay them a different amount, exactly as it works now, sans minimum wage and other transfer payments. > [@](#): > > And I would opine that working for 50% of a dollar instead of a dollar seems like less incentive. 😉 There will be some amount of people who are satisfied with the minimum amount. That’s a policy choice that is made when enacting the NIT. Of course, you’d be able to reduce a lot of overhead in many other areas so on balance I think we’d come out ahead. > [@](#): > > I phrased that poorly. I don’t mean “WalMart providing the safety net” I was referring to WalMart paying workers less than they are worth and encouraging it’s employees to partake in government benefits to help WalMart’s bottom line. Why would we continue allowing businesses to be funded by the government in this manner? You’re thinking of this wrong. WalMart has no ability to pay employees less than they are worth. What an employee is worth is dependent on what someone is willing to pay them. It’s definitional. If you mean to say, what prevents WalMart from paying a rate that is not sufficient to live on and thereby increasing the chance their employees will utilize subsidies - the employees themselves. They have an incentive to work and each dollar earned yields more money. They have an incentive to try to earn as much as they possibly can, as long as it’s above the minimum. > [@](#): > > That makes more sense. So a base $X plus earnings. Problem with that is, though, is that basically any amount would overrun the budget. Even a $10,000 default outlay across all citizens would be $3.3T. If you reduce that to just adults, it’s still $2.7T. (The budget for 2013 was $2.9T) Only people earning below an established amount would receive any benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/114 "2014-05-01T19:27:54Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > But how would it accomplish this? Why wouldn’t WalMart pay it’s employees $0 with a 10% discount (or something) and simply have the government make up the salary (which is then spent inside WalMart because you get 10% off)? That would be a massive cost savings that would make it’s shareholders happy, after all. Would you take that deal? Work at an unpleasant job for a 10% discount + $20,000 instead of staying at home and getting $20,000? Or working somewhere else and getting more than $20,000? > [@Fain](#): > > And I would opine that working for 50% of a dollar instead of a dollar seems like less incentive. 😉 Then we can’t have any direct welfare payments at all\*, because they are all predicated on matching payments to wages. - Except a universal payment, which provides no incentive to work and, as has been noted, costs about $3 trillion at the very lowest level. [QUOTE=Farin] I phrased that poorly. I don’t mean “WalMart providing the safety net” I was referring to WalMart paying workers less than they are worth and encouraging it’s employees to partake in government benefits to help WalMart’s bottom line. [/quote] What makes you think they are paying them less than they are worth? > [@Farin](#): > > Why would we continue allowing businesses to be funded by the government in this manner? Well, I’m proposing an alternative to that in this very thread. What other choice is there, a higher minimum wage? That does nothing for the unemployed, and just encourages more and more automation and fewer and fewer jobs. I’m open to any suggestions you might have, of course. > [@Farin](#): > > My personal belief is that if you can’t be profitable without government subsidy as a business, you shouldn’t be in business. Thus all government funds outside of direct disaster relief (not ‘my building got eaten by a tornado’, but ‘this critical piece of infrastructure requires repair after a tornado’) or direct payment for services or products rendered shouldn’t go into any business in any way (no tax cuts, no incentives, no welfare subsidy to your employees, nothing). This is where I’m coming from on this issue. Think of the implications, though. This means excluding the employed from welfare, which means welfare alone needs to be enough to live on. That means either there’s no reason to work a low-wage job instead of living on welfare. Meanwhile, a high minimum wage means an incentive to eliminate jobs, and having to do _something_ with the people who simply don’t offer enough value to justify the high wage. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/115 "2014-05-01T19:31:34Z")
To be clear: an NIT gives the employee _more_ bargaining power, not less, because they can always stay home and take the full NIT payment. No firm is going to be able to convince someone to work 40 hours a week when the net benefit to the worker is $1 a day, or a 10% discount. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/116 "2014-05-01T19:49:34Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you believe they could find enough workers to accept a $0 rate to conduct their business? Each of those individuals will be able to sell their services to another employer who will pay them a different amount, exactly as it works now, sans minimum wage and other transfer payments. We find enough workers, now, to work for a place like WalMart at exactly minimum age and then hit the transfer payments line to supplement it. Why would this behavior change? > [@Bone](#): > > There will be some amount of people who are satisfied with the minimum amount. That’s a policy choice that is made when enacting the NIT. Of course, you’d be able to reduce a lot of overhead in many other areas so on balance I think we’d come out ahead. Granted. But I’m focusing more on the people who want to work and don’t want to play XBox all day. I really couldn’t care less about them. I’d actually prefer to leave them at home than to try and force them into workin’. > [@Bone](#): > > You’re thinking of this wrong. WalMart has no ability to pay employees less than they are worth. What an employee is worth is dependent on what someone is willing to pay them. It’s definitional. All people are worth the cost to feed, clothe, house, and provide basic amenities for. If not, our prison system should be abolished. > [@Bone](#): > > If you mean to say, what prevents WalMart from paying a rate that is not sufficient to live on and thereby increasing the chance their employees will utilize subsidies - the employees themselves. They have an incentive to work and each dollar earned yields more money. They have an incentive to try to earn as much as they possibly can, as long as it’s above the minimum. But my problem with this argument is that people, right now, don’t prevent it and I don’t see a slightly different kind of transfer payment changing that power dynamic in any significant way. > [@Bone](#): > > Only people earning below an established amount would receive any benefit. But that’s not what s/he said in what I responded to: > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > I was under the impression that it works more like “everyone gets $X regardless of whether they work”. ($25k per person would be unworkable, but $25k per household might work) What they earn (minus tax) is on top of $X. So if the pay for a job is too low, no one will bother. Basically everyone works for “extras”, such as a nicer car instead of a beater or a house instead of a small apartment or being able to afford travel. That sounds like a flat wage to all comers and those that get employed get more than the flat wage. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Would you take that deal? Work at an unpleasant job for a 10% discount + $20,000 instead of staying at home and getting $20,000? Or working somewhere else and getting more than $20,000? While I personally wouldn’t, there are many people that take minimum wage and rely on welfare to get through the month. I don’t see how this would change that. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Then we can’t have any direct welfare payments at all\*, because they are all predicated on matching payments to wages. > > - Except a universal payment, which provides no incentive to work and, as has been noted, costs about $3 trillion at the very lowest level. Well, no. If you pick an NIT of what it costs to live, you would have to provide incentive beyond that to work. Reducing costs at a business (e.g. 10% off at walmart) would stretch that amount of money and be incredibly cheaper than paying NIC + 10% a year for the company. They are directly mooching off of the welfare system. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > What makes you think they are paying them less than they are worth? As I said, above, to Bone: “All people are worth the cost to feed, clothe, house, and provide basic amenities for. If not, our prison system should be abolished.” I fairly strongly disagree with the idea that people are worth the same as goods and services, aka “what someone will pay for them.” > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, I’m proposing an alternative to that in this very thread. What other choice is there, a higher minimum wage? That does nothing for the unemployed, and just encourages more and more automation and fewer and fewer jobs. I’m open to any suggestions you might have, of course. To be honest, a NIC makes sense to me with one rider: Minimum wage. ( 😃 ) Basically, whatever you set the NIC to, that’s the minimum you can hire a person at, with a direct ratio of some sort (e.g., again, 1000 hours of 2000 hours in a year = 50% of NIC as wage) for part time employment. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Think of the implications, though. This means excluding the employed from welfare, which means welfare alone needs to be enough to live on. That means either there’s no reason to work a low-wage job instead of living on welfare. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > To be clear: an NIT gives the employee _more_ bargaining power, not less, because they can always stay home and take the full NIT payment. No firm is going to be able to convince someone to work 40 hours a week when the net benefit to the worker is $1 a day, or a 10% discount. Okay, I can see that potentially changing the power dynamic fairly well. But it could also come out to do the exact opposite: More automation and less need for workers at all. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/117 "2014-05-01T20:12:23Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > While I personally wouldn’t, there are many people that take minimum wage and rely on welfare to get through the month. I don’t see how this would change that. The proportions. The part of their total income that comes from working (call it $7.50 an hour, 30 hours a week = $11,700 a year), is much higher in the current system than it would be with Wal-Mart kicking in some trivial amount or a discount, and the government paying in 98.7% ($19,870 of $20,130). Therefore, ceasing to work has a much smaller impact under the hypothetical $40k / 50% NIT than it does under our current system. > [@Farin](#): > > Well, no. If you pick an NIT of what it costs to live, you would have to provide incentive beyond that to work. Reducing costs at a business (e.g. 10% off at walmart) would stretch that amount of money and be incredibly cheaper than paying NIC + 10% a year for the company. They are directly mooching off of the welfare system. The incentive is more money. You’re proposing that people who were in no danger of going hungry would work full time for a maximum net annual benefit of $2,000, (if the entire NIT was spent at Wal-Mart, and anyway a discount is a form of compensation that could be accounted for). Why would they possibly do that, in lieu of taking a job that actually pays them money? > [@Farin](#): > > As I said, above, to Bone: “All people are worth the cost to feed, clothe, house, and provide basic amenities for. If not, our prison system should be abolished.” I fairly strongly disagree with the idea that people are worth the same as goods and services, aka “what someone will pay for them.” That’s fine for a moral position, but it’s not “worth” of the kind Wal-Mart is interested in. Like all employers, they want someone who causes them to make more money than they spend. And that’s fine: the business of business is business. Leave the moral calculations to the government and the electorate. > [@Farin](#): > > To be honest, a NIC makes sense to me with one rider: Minimum wage. ( 😃 ) Basically, whatever you set the NIC to, that’s the minimum you can hire a person at, with a direct ratio of some sort (e.g., again, 1000 hours of 2000 hours in a year = 50% of NIC as wage) for part time employment. That’s giving away one of the advantages of the NIT for no reason. Again, if you want Wal-Mart to kick in, tax them. Labor’s a small piece of their balance sheet anyway. > [@Farin](#): > > Okay, I can see that potentially changing the power dynamic fairly well. But it could also come out to do the exact opposite: More automation and less need for workers at all. A higher minimum wage would absolutely do that, so at worst it’s a wash. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/118 "2014-05-01T20:16:09Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > All people are worth the cost to feed, clothe, house, and provide basic amenities for. If not, our prison system should be abolished. Not what a person is worth, what the value of their labor is. If you believe that all and any labor should have a minimum floor of value, that’s fine but that’s not what this topic or this thread is about. That’s more of a living wage argument and would be inconsistent with the libertarian ideal. > [@](#): > > But that’s not what s/he said in what I responded to: > > That sounds like a flat wage to all comers and those that get employed get more than the flat wage. Okay - that’s not a [negative income tax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/119 "2014-05-01T21:00:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The proportions. The part of their total income that comes from working (call it $7.50 an hour, 30 hours a week = $11,700 a year), is much higher in the current system than it would be with Wal-Mart kicking in some trivial amount or a discount, and the government paying in 98.7% ($19,870 of $20,130). Therefore, ceasing to work has a much smaller impact under the hypothetical $40k / 50% NIT than it does under our current system. > > The incentive is more money. That’s the only incentive under this system, though, right? I mean, no benefits or similar provided by the employers, it’s all pay as you go for dental, health, etc, isn’t it? And while I think our oligarchy would continue unabated, I do now concur that there would be a pretty significant rebalancing of power between employer and employees. I’m still not quite convinced this wouldn’t turn right back around and leave us in the same situation we are at now in terms of power balance, though, over the long run. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > You’re proposing that people who were in no danger of going hungry would work full time for a maximum net annual benefit of $2,000, (if the entire NIT was spent at Wal-Mart, and anyway a discount is a form of compensation that could be accounted for). Why would they possibly do that, in lieu of taking a job that actually pays them money? Because our current culture is based around money. And if that’s the only way to get ahead, then yes. As an aside, I’m trying to look at this as a system that is started tomorrow plus ten or fifteen years to understand it. Long enough for the regulations to be exploited but not long enough for our culture as a whole to change much. One generation from now, ourselves will be clamoring for the iPhone 20, and we might have to work 1000 hours at Walmart to get it. 😉 > [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s fine for a moral position, but it’s not “worth” of the kind Wal-Mart is interested in. Like all employers, they want someone who causes them to make more money than they spend. And that’s fine: the business of business is business. Leave the moral calculations to the government and the electorate. There is no separation between “person” and “labor person provides” in my opinion. You can’t expect your car to get 30mpg forever if you don’t take care of it, such as oil changes, air filters, brakes, and so forth. And that’s what pretending to separate the two pieces of a person does. It lets you pretend you are only buying labor and that their maintenance isn’t your responsibility. That’s, simply, poor asset management. Especially if you aren’t paying enough for the labor to perform that maintenance themselves. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s giving away one of the advantages of the NIT for no reason. Again, if you want Wal-Mart to kick in, tax them. Labor’s a small piece of their balance sheet anyway. Except that’s the same thing, the only difference is that you call it a tax instead of a minimum wage. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > A higher minimum wage would absolutely do that, so at worst it’s a wash. Then, outside of the removal of minimum wage, what’s the breakaway benefit of this plan? The reduction of costs associated with welfare payments? > [@Bone](#): > > Okay - that’s not a [negative income tax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). I…never said it was? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/120 "2014-05-02T00:26:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Not what a person is worth, what the value of their labor is. If you believe that all and any labor should have a minimum floor of value, that’s fine but that’s not what this topic or this thread is about. That’s more of a living wage argument and would be inconsistent with the libertarian ideal. The company can determine the value of their labor. Society can determine the minimum cost of the labor, since society invests in the labor force by educating them when they’re young and taking care of them when they’re disabled, old, or poor. If the minimum cost determined exceeds the value of the labor to the company, the company doesn’t have to buy. This really is no different from toxic wastes. If a company uses a resource to produce goods or services it better pays for all the costs involved in that resource and not leave the rest of us to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/121 "2014-05-02T10:05:22Z")
h > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Because people don’t think of them the same way. [Here’s a summary of several polls about welfare](http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-opinion.html), opinion is divided on the requirements and duration, but I don’t see support for just ending it altogether. Conversely, [56% of Americans](http://www.gallup.com/poll/165917/majority-say-healthcare-not-gov-responsibility.aspx) believe that “it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage”. I’m not addressing the logic of their opinion, just pointing out that it exists. Your first link states that, _among the general American public_, 83% favor work requirements for welfare, 80% agree that “work is the best solution for poverty” and 61% favor government providing jobs instead of welfare payment. A payment (NIT or otherwise) without a work requirement is not supported by a majority of the American public, let alone libertarians who are less supportive of social welfare than the general public. Furthermore, 64% think too many are dependent on government aid, and 52% say it’s too easy to get food stamps. It seems that anti-welfare sentiments and anti-government-guaranteed-health-insurance sentiments are at similar levels. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065.md?page=7)