4 ms·
I think you raise a very valid point. I'd also suggest that unless you're looking at county adjusted poverty levels (as in adjusted to cost of living by county
by Aloha 9y ago
I think you raise a very valid point.
I'd also suggest that unless you're looking at county adjusted poverty levels (as in adjusted to cost of living by county) - you're gonna end up with a skewed picture.
That said, the right is correct about something - once you get on the social safety net, its very hard to get off of it, because benefits don't gradually fade out as your income goes up, there is instead a cliff, and all of your social safety net benefits turn off at once - this is why I feel that means tested welfare is social ill, it helps too few, and doesnt provide a soft landing when you dont need help anymore. I'd much rather us do straight up income redistribution (in the form of a minimum income scheme) and medicaid for all.
- gnarbarian 9y agoYa, could do a negative income tax bracket and eliminate all other forms of safety nets besides healthcare.
- Aloha 9y agoI'd do it as a monthly check or electronic payment to every american over the age of 18.
- gnarbarian 9y agoif you do it that way, the sum ends up being so small as to be of no consequence.
- Aloha 9y agoabout 1k a month, per adult - thats the idea - its meant to replace most of minimum wage.
- gnarbarian 9y agoThen you wouldn't be able to replace welfare. because their kids aren't 18. I'd say limit the payout to the bottom 10-20% in continuous graduations to eliminate any fiscal cliff.
- Aloha 9y agono fiscal cliff at all - you'd get the same 1k a month if you made $0 a year, or $150k a year. I'd consider leaving intact WIC, because I look a a GMI mostly as a replacement for minimum wage. I'd pay for it with a financial transactions tax (something minuscule like .001 cents on the dollar for any money transfer, and a VAT.
- gnarbarian 9y agono dice, I don't want my taxes to increase by 3k so the government can give me back 1k.
- Aloha 9y agoSo say the government gives you 12k a year, and your taxes go up by 10k a year, wouldn't that still be beneficial to you? Something like 30-40% of this program could be paid for by feeding in dollars existing programs, the lions share of the rest of it from the financial transactions tax (sucks if your business is high frequency trading), and a smaller portion from a VAT.
- mFixman 9y agoThis sounds like boon for landlords and other rent seekers.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoFund it with a land value tax, which is a good idea to cut down on rent seeking even without the negative income tax.
- simplemath__ 9y agoand what do we do when people abuse those systems? let them die?
- gnarbarian 9y agoThey abuse them already.
- simplemath__ 9y agoSO the penalty should be death, then? edit: you dropped that "Sure, they abuse them now". I saw it.
- gnarbarian 9y agoif you provide someone every means of helping themselves and they still die I wouldn't feel guilty about it. Take their kids away though.
- simplemath__ 9y agoIs poverty a moral failing?
- gnarbarian 9y ago>Is poverty a moral failing? At what cost? Minimization of poverty is important but I don't believe it can ever be totally eliminated. You and I just have different fundamental beliefs about human nature and motivation. If the OP is right (and I think he is), the more safety nets and welfare programs there are the more poverty. This is because they have a learned helplessness and are subject to fiscal cliffs preventing them from escaping poverty. in other words: Poverty ought to be minimized. Therefore, if giving people free shit increases poverty, we shouldn't do it.
- Aloha 9y agoyou make a system that is impossible to abuse short of creating fictitious people - means testing is what allows the existing system to be abused.