Jennifer Burns

Yes, yes.

Yes, yes.

I think the other thing he would probably be arguing for is, again, go back to the design of the minimum income or the negative income tax, that there is a way he ultimately decided to run it through the tax system, right? The government's already collecting this data. They already have your information and they can just send the money out through the system.

I think the other thing he would probably be arguing for is, again, go back to the design of the minimum income or the negative income tax, that there is a way he ultimately decided to run it through the tax system, right? The government's already collecting this data. They already have your information and they can just send the money out through the system.

I think the other thing he would probably be arguing for is, again, go back to the design of the minimum income or the negative income tax, that there is a way he ultimately decided to run it through the tax system, right? The government's already collecting this data. They already have your information and they can just send the money out through the system.

rather than having a social bureaucracy where you have to come in in person, you have to fill out forms, you have to document, do you own a car? What's your income? Who lives in the household? So I think he would say, and his analysis of that was who that really benefited was the bureaucracy that processed that paper.

rather than having a social bureaucracy where you have to come in in person, you have to fill out forms, you have to document, do you own a car? What's your income? Who lives in the household? So I think he would say, and his analysis of that was who that really benefited was the bureaucracy that processed that paper.

rather than having a social bureaucracy where you have to come in in person, you have to fill out forms, you have to document, do you own a car? What's your income? Who lives in the household? So I think he would say, and his analysis of that was who that really benefited was the bureaucracy that processed that paper.

You know, that implemented those norms and that if you could pull that away, you could get help out where it was needed much quicker without having this drag of people doing sort of unproductive work of administering these systems. So I think trying to cut administrative overhead and what he didn't have then, which we have now.

You know, that implemented those norms and that if you could pull that away, you could get help out where it was needed much quicker without having this drag of people doing sort of unproductive work of administering these systems. So I think trying to cut administrative overhead and what he didn't have then, which we have now.

You know, that implemented those norms and that if you could pull that away, you could get help out where it was needed much quicker without having this drag of people doing sort of unproductive work of administering these systems. So I think trying to cut administrative overhead and what he didn't have then, which we have now.

is the technology that we have and the ability, you know, to send benefits out via smartphone or just to move so much faster and to handle information on a mass scale so much faster.

is the technology that we have and the ability, you know, to send benefits out via smartphone or just to move so much faster and to handle information on a mass scale so much faster.

is the technology that we have and the ability, you know, to send benefits out via smartphone or just to move so much faster and to handle information on a mass scale so much faster.

That seems to be the low-hanging fruit government, you know, IT systems could be vastly improved them on.

That seems to be the low-hanging fruit government, you know, IT systems could be vastly improved them on.

That seems to be the low-hanging fruit government, you know, IT systems could be vastly improved them on.

There is going to be a lot of pain. I don't know what the solution is. I think that's also part of why Friedman favored a minimum income. He talked about it being sort of counter-cyclical. In other words, when things were really bad, the spending level on it would naturally go up. This is what economists today call an automatic stabilizer. And then when it's not needed, the cost of it goes down.

There is going to be a lot of pain. I don't know what the solution is. I think that's also part of why Friedman favored a minimum income. He talked about it being sort of counter-cyclical. In other words, when things were really bad, the spending level on it would naturally go up. This is what economists today call an automatic stabilizer. And then when it's not needed, the cost of it goes down.

There is going to be a lot of pain. I don't know what the solution is. I think that's also part of why Friedman favored a minimum income. He talked about it being sort of counter-cyclical. In other words, when things were really bad, the spending level on it would naturally go up. This is what economists today call an automatic stabilizer. And then when it's not needed, the cost of it goes down.