Article content continued

But if we’re alleviating poverty, $15,000 seems below the poverty line for the average household of 2.5 people who have no other income. For what poverty activists consider a “living wage” of $15 per hour — or roughly an annual payment of $30,000 per household — the flat income tax rate would need to rise to 52.1 per cent to balance the books. The flat-income-tax payments would come to $560 billion enough to cover $420 billion minimum-income payments (at about a fifth of GDP) and the rest of the public deficit.

As appealing as it seems, Friedman’s negative income tax is not so simple to implement. Obviously, minimum payments would need to recognize different households’ characteristics. Single individuals would get less than those families with multiple adults and children. Households with a disabled parent or child should be given more to cover additional costs. Those temporarily out of work, after earning a higher income, might need replacement income that would be significantly above the minimum payment. So once we start differentiating people by their needs, we get back to many current programs — and the bureaucracy — to determine eligibility for various benefit payments.

The idea of just giving out cash to relieve poverty also raises eyebrows for many voters who have to pay tax on their earnings from work. And there’s the unknown labour-supply effect: how many recipients might choose to stay at home, receiving $30,000 cheques, rather than work? (That’s why many economists concerned about the working poor prefer wage subsidies instead of just handing cash to otherwise able workers.) And cash alone isn’t a panacea for helping all low-income families: we would still need social workers to support those with mental or other health issues, social problems or who lack the basic skills to contend with daily life.