The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

102 . THE FREEMAN Februarybe got to work only by coercion;most labor would be forced labor,and very little of it would beskilled or efficient.The so-called "instinct of workmanship,"without economic rewards,would have nothing toguide it into one channel ratherthan another, and nothing to holdit beyond the point of fatigue.Dseful and profitable work wouldbe black-market work. Those whosurvived would do so at a nearsubsistencelevel.But the same kind of results,less extreme in degree, would followfrom less extreme redistributionmeasures. The most fashionableof these at the moment is theGuaranteed Annual Income. I havealready analyzed this at length,together with its most popularvariant, the Negative Income Tax,in my book, Man vs. the WelfareState,2 and will only briefly indicatethe objections to it here.A guaranteed minimum incomewould not have quite the universaldestructive effect on incentives aswould an attempt to impose a compulsorilyequal income, with theceiling made identical with thefloor. At least people earning incomesabove the minimum guarantee,though they would beoppressivelytaxed, would still havesome incentive to continue earn-2 (New Rochelle, N. Y.: ArlingtonHouse, 1969), pp. 62-100,ing whatever surplus they were allowedto retain. But all thoseguaranteed a minimum income,whether they worked or not, wouldhave no incentive to work at allif the guaranteed minimum wereabove what they had previouslybeen earning for their work; andthey would have very little incentiveto work even if they had previouslybeen earning, or were capableof earning, only a. moderateamount above the guarantee.It is clearly wrong in principleto allow the government forciblyto seize money from the peoplewho work and to give it unconditionallyto other able-bodied peoplewhether they accept work ornot. It is wrong in principle togive money to people solely becausethey say they haven't anyandespecially to support such peopleon a permanent and not merelyon a temporary emergency basis.It is wrong in principle to forcethe workers and earners indefinitelyto support the nonworkersand nonearners.This must undermine the incentivesof both the workers and thenonworkers. It puts a premium.onidleness. It is an elementary requirementof economic incentiveas well as justice that the manwho works for a living should alwaysbe better off because of that,other things equal, than the manwho refuses to work for a .living.