If you feed a cat, he will sit around and not hunt but wait for you to open up the next can of food. It should be limited and people should be encouraged to find work.
We have spent over 25,,,, dollars 25 trillion on social welfare programs and we have created a society of people looking for their check. Lest I remind you we are 21 trillion in debt?
Unfortunately poverty will never go away. I think that new standards of subsistence need to be determined. As as communal living for poor where they share a home and share in expenses and labor. The new reality is escaping poverty which can be done by altering concepts of how people should live. These people could live in communal housing with food, etc provided but they would have to communally take care of their surroundings or they would be out.
They could have food, shelter, etc but they would be encouraged to want more and thus work to achieve it. Socialism never works long term. It always has failed. Yet people keep trying it over and over again expecting a different result. I believe that is the definition of insanity. Cutting down to the real question, which would be: what would YOU do if your income was taken care of? Sit around in your sofa, like a cat, or do something meaningful with your life, while helping to sustain the community you live in?
Thank you. UBI or BI whatever they want to call it, is a globalist scam. If it were made high enough for people to live on an not work, it would be too expensive to implement.
Welcome to Sweatshop, USA! When a bunch of neoliberal globalists start trying to shape domestic policy—look out! A red flag should go off in your head! Welfare benefits are the enabling force behind laziness. The first immigrants did not rely on give away programs. There would be no need for an immigration policy if all freebies were eliminated.
Only the ones interested in working and contributing would stay. Why would UBI not be the same, if not even worse? UBI provides a set income, which can also motivate people to be lazy and sit in their couches while free money just comes in.
This can lead to people not working as well. Plus, welfare benefits help people by providing them with necessities to their lives, including food, jobs, etc. Even though welfare programs do consist of a multitude of downsides, UBI cannot solve these problems as well. If me and you need a fish each to survive a day but you are my employer making me catch fish for you and I catch 5 fish a day then we must tax you 2 fish as UBI one for me and one for you then you have to pay me 1 fish as wage for working for you while you get to keep 2 fish as your wage for managing me….
LOL … does it sound fair to you? LOL … how many fish each of us gets? It is why UBI must come from taxing ownership of Wealth fish regardless who owns it i. It is nonsense because she fails to understand that UBI is about redistribution of Wealth as it is now, it is not about investment or borrowing from the future or whatever else.
UBI is about taking Wealth from the rich entities in the society and giving evenly to all citizens perpetually and sustainably. There is no increase in deficits or other no-sensical things if UBI is implemented correctly…. UBI just shifts the Wealth down the wealth ladder. UBI is about the ratios of Wealth distribution among the population and the entities that own or control the wealth.. Too many people spend too much time in government or in corporations so their thinking changes to protect the institutions they work for instead of the humans.
UBI is a scam. UBI will replace all other benefits. The elderly, retired, and the disabled would perish. Plus the fact, creating dependency in adults kills pride. UBI will only up the crime rate. Welfare does not pay no where near enough to enable laziness. The entire welfare system and the American citizenry have become just as diseased, selfish, and corrupt as their own goddamned government.
Want to talk about the national debt then start looking at corporate welfare and out of control government spending sucking off big business. Americans, have long been robbed of their very own tax dollars, by their very own government but the citizenry is too blinded by its own goddamned demagoguery addictions to see, or care just as long as none of it goes to help the poor.
Great points! You see the entire reality. I brought the book. Clearly, welfare benefits must phase out as incomes rise, but they do not have to phase out this rapidly. An effective marginal tax rate that high can and by numerous accounts from the real world does cause families in and near poverty to turn down opportunities for promotions, raises, or more hours of work because the higher earned income is hardly worth it given the losses they face from taxes and lost benefits.
Thus, the way that welfare benefits phase out can serve to trap people in poverty. To obtain a job that provides a middle class living you typically work your way up through several entry-level and intermediate jobs with increasing incomes.
Yet, if a person never accepts one of those intermediate jobs, because it pays more than the poverty line but less than the combination of a lower income plus welfare benefits, they will likely never get a job high-paying enough to be self-supporting.
This is not laziness or gaming the system, but optimal behavior in face of a poorly designed welfare system. Unless a person is willing suffer in the short-run in order to be better off at some uncertain time several years in the future, they can be trapped in poverty.
Interestingly, the movement to a universal basic income would solve two of these three shortcomings. Families keep the basic income regardless of how much other income they earn, so everyone receives it, rich or poor. Therefore, a basic income policy solves the second and third problem, by removing any need for asset tests and by eliminating the high marginal effective tax rates that trap some in poverty and on welfare.
It would not solve the shortcomings in job training and it has other problems, but in some ways it would be a major improvement to our current welfare system and would allow the free market to operate without people strategizing how government policy changes the optimal decision they should make in different situations. Most Americans believe that it is fair and just for the government to provide a social safety net for those of us who find ourselves in economic struggles. However, most people do not support a safety net that, by design, traps people in the system, makes them more financially fragile, and keeps people from becoming self-sufficient.
Follow me on Twitter DorfmanJeffrey. This is a BETA experience. Republicans have a complicated relationship with the American Dream. Conservative politicians such as Paul Ryan extol the virtues of hard work and opportunity.
But when they use these virtues to inveigh against welfare programs, they ignore the overwhelming evidence that government aid relieves low-income children of the psychological and physiological stresses that get in the way of embracing those very ideals.
Welfare is so much more than a substitute for a paycheck. It is a remedy for the myriad burdens of childhood poverty, which give children the opportunity to become exactly the sort of healthy and striving adults celebrated by both political parties. Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic. Popular Latest. The Atlantic Crossword.
Sign In Subscribe.
0コメント