Max:
Then, you are trying to find a way to do targeting within universalism, and we
agree. I thought for a long time that something like what you are doing is the
way out of the dilemma I described, so I'd be interested in seeing what you
come up with.
Joel Blau
Max Sawicky wrote:
> This is the classic problem of universalism vs. targeting efficiency, but
> I'm
> not sure I come down on the same side you do. On the universalistic side,
> money for the poor requires, as a kind of informal political blackmail,
> money
> for the rich (or at least the more affluent). Targeting focuses the
> benefits,
> but risks the stigma of welfare and has all the other problems that you and
> Nathan have been debating. Under ideal circumstances, I would prefer
> universalistic benefits that are taxed differentially, because I think they
> encourage the formation of more durable political coalitions. What's not
> clear to me is whether you are defending targeting as a political necessity
> in these politically constrained times, or as something you would choose
> even in the face of more robust options. The former I can understand; the
> latter, I have more trouble with.
> Joel Blau
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> The scheme I'm working up now is universalistic,
> but to be as redistributive as I want it still
> requires something extra for the bottom, which
> in turn requires some kind of phase-out, if only
> a partial one.
>
> For something extremely 'universalistic,' say
> a straight grant of X per child for all children,
> an adequate grant would require a more progressive
> tax system than we have now. Otherwise you're
> moving an enormous amount of money around to
> little effect.
>
> Elsewhere I've written that a big tax system that
> is roughly proportional (relative to income) will
> be more redistributive than a small progressive
> system. So I'm definitely in the universal camp.
> But we have the worst of both worlds -- a small
> and not terribly progressive tax system (taking
> everything together). So I conclude that some
> targeting for an incremental change in a benefit
> program is inescapable.
>
> mbs
