- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 25,803
- Reaction score
- 20,579
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Lots of doctors sign off on all kinds of crap that people take to the SSI office.
Well, I'd propose to keep the income low, too low for a single person to live on their own - I see nothing wrong with 3,4,5, people sharing an apartment - I had two room-mates when I moved-out at 17, and we split everything, and ate & lived ... really cheap! Lot's of people with very low incomes live by sharing places or living with parents, friends, and relatives - when I bought my house & was single I rented-out my spare bedroom to help-out friends & pay my mortgage.If people can 'live' on that and continue to have kids and get that expanded to cover the kids...where is there any incentive to work?
All some people require is a couch, a TV, the Internet (pretty cheap), and food. Medical is already taken care of. :-\
Perhaps my understanding is flawed.No. that is the nice thing about negative tax. Everyone gets the same and there is no need to test.
Perhaps my understanding is flawed.
Doesn't one need to be under a certain income threshold to receive the 'benefit' portion?
Well, I'd propose to keep the income low, too low for a single person to live on their own - I see nothing wrong with 3,4,5, people sharing an apartment - I had two room-mates when I moved-out at 17, and we split everything, and ate & lived ... really cheap! Lot's of people with very low incomes live by sharing places or living with parents, friends, and relatives - when I bought my house & was single I rented-out my spare bedroom to help-out friends & pay my mortgage.
Actually, I did reference the wiki article last night (scanning & speed-reading).No threshhold. But just google 'negative tax wiki'. The article is quite good.
Thank you for reviewing & critiquing my proposal!They can do that now. They dont...or some do. But no one 'forces' them to do so, they just keep applying for and receiving welfare.
And if it's too low to live on...then they still need 'welfare' and you still arent forcing them to get jobs any more so than before when you were handing them $$ for nothing.
I'm not knocking your motives but it sounds no different than welfare.
Thank you for reviewing & critiquing my proposal!
But, this scheme has one huge difference than welfare - it is NOT means-tested.
There is no disincentive to add income, since the 'benefit' cannot be lost - we all receive it equally (obviously, for those with full livable incomes it would likely be used to offset income tax burdens).
Finding part-time work adds to the base income & improves one's lot in life w/o any compromises - there's no need to work under-the-table or restrict one's hours. There's every incentive to add income through legitimate means, with no downsides; it's a very positive enforcing scheme. More income simply means a better life, not trading a benefit for work.
The main difficulty I see, is deciding upon an income level satisfactorily to keep a person from true destitution, but low enough to provide very strong incentive to improve their lot. But in this case, at least every penny brought-in will produce it's full amount of relief & will be 100% incentifying.
Well, I'm throwing alternative ideas out here - I'm not an accountant or economist - but I'll try.Ah, thanks for that clarification.
Where would all that $$ come from that was given to people 'equally?'
As stated earlier, I see no reason to provide an amount of welfare for someone to live a fully independent comfortable life in their own place. When I was 19 I moved back to my folk's basement for two years to get my associate's degree; it wasn't the end of the world. I would like to just provide enough income so a person can figure out how to survive, if need be. If we can do it for around the same costs as we have now, why not?
Well, I'm throwing alternative ideas out here - I'm not an accountant or economist - but I'll try.
Firstly, I'd like to see what the aggregate current costs of our social programs entail, and see what the figure would be if it was amortized over all the majority aged adults, and start from there.
Who knows? The numbers may not add up. But they may.
It would be interesting to see what the numbers are.
Sorry, you lost me here ...If this was an actual solution...why are we paying out welfare? Because in America we only have so much ability to run people's lives and 'force' them to do anything without due process of the law. Poverty is not a crime.
Yes, that is the system we have now, and it's not working - this way we carry the same social obligation, but incentify moving off welfare, since there's no longer an incentive to not work due to income ceilings.They would come from the taxpayers. So you would take ONLY from the people that can pay and give it back to them AND the poor. Yet the 'flat fee' you give back would not be equal to their taxation...so some taxpayers would lose on the deal. Or be paying for themselves to get the income credit. And the poor would still be contributing nothing and getting $$$. (We call that welfare.)
Sorry, you lost me here ...
Yes, that is the system we have now, and it's not working - this way we carry the same social obligation, but incentify moving off welfare, since there's no longer an incentive to not work due to income ceilings.
This isn't just welfare involved in this, I'm speaking of all social systems, including Social Security - workers can do far better investing their SS taxes in a 401K versus paying 8 or 16% to the feds & then waiting around for retiree SS benefits. And if they can't, won't, or screw-up? They learn to survive on the low base-income they (& we) all get.
The current system of welfare just isn't working, and is causing huge rifts in our society & country - basic income is an equitable solution for everyone that keeps income testing and social segregation out of the equation.
I dont disagree with this. As a matter of fact, it is similar to what I would recommend, but no one on either side ever likes it:
--Require higher education/degrees for social workers...those that assess eligibility (or whoever it is). Pay them what their job is worth...a lot.
--Require very frequent and random home visits (now by motivated and qualified professionals).
--Create individual budgets for families and during home visits, review these and nail down where all the $$ goes. This is mostly to be helpful in teaching people to manage $ but also to keep track of abuses.
--This will also make sure that 'the children!!!!' are being properly fed and housed instead of having them used as emotional leverage. It's not perfect but will help.
--Restrict food stamps to ONLY necessities...but as much as they need. No candy, snacks, smokes, etc. THey can pay for those things with their own cash. No one is preventing them from 'buying' them. (Some ridiculous stuff is still allowed, I see it at the market)
--Require job training and job searches as criteria for checks and make sure this is covered under the more frequent oversite.
--Require they must take a job they are qualified for and if they want to do something different, then they have to sign off on the welfare.
--Provide free daycare. This can be provided by others that have applied for welfare.
And yes it would cost a fortune but the intent would be to stop the institutionalized abuse and then be able to regulated in the future more cheaply and practically, since there would be fewer dependents and less need. Break the cycle.
How about requiring recipients to get either a GED or HS diploma after x-amount of time? If they don't already have one, of course.
I'd like to also add: Guaranteed Income removes the incentive for fathers to be out of the house as with the current welfare system. In fact, since all adults receive a base income, even if he's out of work there's every incentive to have him there. And even more incentive if he has a job!
And, as a father who was raised by a great father & an amazing grandfather - I can assure you this is a very good thing!
(it also does away with the SS "more money divorced than married" quandary for retirees)
Yes, but quite honestly does our perceived social responsibility to provide food & shelter for our fellow Americans specify that one gets their own place? I don't believe it does (IMHO).Living with roomates is a nice personal solution but the govt doesnt legally have the ability to implement such solutions against the will of others.
Yeah, I really would like to get some numbers on all of this somehow.I know, I used "welfare" in a more general sense, my error...it was confusing. All govt entitlements is more what I meant. And SS isnt IMO, since people pay into that specifically (not that they get what they paid for out of it).
However what you described sounds much more expensive for the reasons I wrote.
So in another words....private doctors are lying, they've falsified tests, diagnosis, etc....but government hired doctors won't? Their test results will be more accurate, yadda, yadda, yadda?
All such incentives and assistance to do so help, great to add to the list...but no one will take 'welfare' away from them...we've seen that. So it has to be something 'enforceable' with consequences.
I dont disagree with this. As a matter of fact, it is similar to what I would recommend, but no one on either side ever likes it:
--Require higher education/degrees for social workers...those that assess eligibility (or whoever it is). Pay them what their job is worth...a lot.
--Require very frequent and random home visits (now by motivated and qualified professionals).
--Create individual budgets for families and during home visits, review these and nail down where all the $$ goes. This is mostly to be helpful in teaching people to manage $ but also to keep track of abuses.
--This will also make sure that 'the children!!!!' are being properly fed and housed instead of having them used as emotional leverage. It's not perfect but will help.
--Restrict food stamps to ONLY necessities...but as much as they need. No candy, snacks, smokes, etc. THey can pay for those things with their own cash. No one is preventing them from 'buying' them. (Some ridiculous stuff is still allowed, I see it at the market)
--Require job training and job searches as criteria for checks and make sure this is covered under the more frequent oversite.
--Require they must take a job they are qualified for and if they want to do something different, then they have to sign off on the welfare.
--Provide free daycare. This can be provided by others that have applied for welfare.
And yes it would cost a fortune but the intent would be to stop the institutionalized abuse and then be able to regulated in the future more cheaply and practically, since there would be fewer dependents and less need. Break the cycle.
Interesting that you only single out the inner city welfare recipients.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?