The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

1972 SHOULD WE DIVIDE THE WEALTH ? 105been granted the initial minimumincomeguarantee of, say, $4,320a year, it would still be gettingthat full sum in addition to whateverit earned for itself. But "everybodymust be· treated alike."Therefore therewould be no break-.off point, or even any taperingoff. Every family -'- including theRockefellers, the Fords, theGettys, and all the other millionaires- would get the full guaranteedincome.This end-result cannot be dismissedas mere fantasy. The principleof a government subsidy toany family, no matter how rich,is already accepted in our own SocialSecurity scheme and in GreatBritain under the name of "familyallowances." It is merely that theamounts are smaller. So the NegativeIncome Tax, as a social measure,turns out to be only a halfwayhouse. Carried to its logicalconclusion, it becomes a uniformguaranteed handout to industriousand idle, thrifty and improvident,poor and rich alike.• 6. It is an anticlimax to pointout, but it needs to be done, thatthere is no political possibilitythat a flat guaranteed income or a"negative income tax" would beenacted as a complete subsbitutefor the existing mosaic of welfareand relief measures. Can·we seriouslyimagine that the specificpressure groups now getting veterans'allowances, farm subsidies,rent subsidies, relief payments,Social Security benefits, .foodstamps, ~edicare, ~edicaid, oldageassistance, unemployment insurance,and so on and so on,would quietly give them up, withoutprotests, demonstrations, orriots? The. overwhelming probabilityis that a guaranteed incomeor NIT.program would simplybe thrown on top of the wholepresent rag-bag of welfare meassurespiled up over the last thirtyto forty years.We may put it down as a politicallaw that all State handoutschemes tend to grow and growuntil they bring on a hyper-inflationand finally bankrupt theState.Land ReformPerhaps I should devote at leastone or two paragraphs here to socalled"land reform." This appearsto be the most ancient of schemesfor forcibly dividing the wealth.In 133 B. C., for example, TiberiusGracchus succeeded in getting alaw passed in Rome severely limitingthe number of acres that anyone person could possess. The typical"land reform" since his day,repeatedly adopted in backwardagricultural countries, has consistedin confiscating the big estatesand •either "collectivizing"them or breaking them up into