We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.

When incentives punish the wrong things

Most of us feel this tension without quite naming it. We work, get taxed on what we earn, and then watch our paychecks shrink while struggling to cover basics. Meanwhile, we see programs that seem to reward people for not working—or at least, that's how it appears from the outside. Friedman's observation cuts right at something real: the structure of our incentives can work backwards.

But here's where it gets tricky. We actually want to subsidize certain kinds of "nonwork"—raising kids, caring for aging parents, going to school, recovering from illness. The problem isn't subsidies themselves; it's that the system can become incoherent. Tax someone heavily for earning, then make them jump through hoops to prove they "deserve" help, and you've created a mess that punishes both work and genuine need. It's like designing a garden to encourage flowers while also poisoning the soil.

The real insight isn't that we should abolish all support for people in need. It's that when your system makes work feel pointless or punishes it unfairly while making dependency attractive by accident, something's broken. The question worth asking isn't whether to tax or subsidize, but whether your structure actually encourages the kinds of lives and choices you actually want people to make.