(no subject)
Nov. 13th, 2010 03:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
foolsguineahttp://www.economist.com/node/17420321
Cutting out the middle men
The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them
Well, OK, it's a libertarian answer from a libertarian rag, but I think it's worth considering. I think a general negative income tax/refundable tax credit/basic income guarantee is a good idea macroeconomically. But when I say this, people tell me, "Some people just wouldn't work."
Some people aren't working now. In multiple senses. But they can do more, contribute more, than they do now if they have a little money. They can support someone else's real productivity. Isn't that better than makework or sticking them in supervised homes?
Maybe the market answer is the generous answer in this case, and a workable answer.
Or maybe I'm full of it.
Cutting out the middle men
The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them
Well, OK, it's a libertarian answer from a libertarian rag, but I think it's worth considering. I think a general negative income tax/refundable tax credit/basic income guarantee is a good idea macroeconomically. But when I say this, people tell me, "Some people just wouldn't work."
Some people aren't working now. In multiple senses. But they can do more, contribute more, than they do now if they have a little money. They can support someone else's real productivity. Isn't that better than makework or sticking them in supervised homes?
Maybe the market answer is the generous answer in this case, and a workable answer.
Or maybe I'm full of it.
