• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Food Stamps: Repub bill to require more people to work

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Skimming this thread, what seems to be conspicuously missing is mention of Purpose. I think that unemployment, dead-end jobs, and yes, being on benefits can suck the purpose out of people's lives. It might be that there is a bit of intuitive understanding of this, but it doesn't get overtly stated enough. Mainly this is why I am sympathetic to work and/or training requirements, and think that this proposal gets it partly right even if the reasons are partly wrong. Even in a world where there is much less need for human labor, I think we need to imagine a way to ensure that people, who might otherwise be rudderless under a UBI program, have something to get out of bed for, a meaning. Not everyone can dig deep and come up with a philosophical rationalization for being. For most, accomplishing something on a daily basis, with a certain amount of external motivation, will suffice.

This concept really doesn't end with people on benefits, actually as many of you probably know, it's just an extension of already existing thinking, as summarized in articles like this, albeit from a completely different angle:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-pontefract/purpose-provides-the-possibility_b_8918308.html

This looks like an even bigger challenge than keeping people fed, moving forward, finding stuff for people to do to keep them from rotting away or simply killing themselves.
 
I think we should treat all government programs the same. If we're going to drug test Welfare and food stamp recipients, I think we should drug test people on Social Security. A couple of 2am no-knocks with cavity searches will keep grandma in line. Yeah, sure Ethel, you've got "glaucoma" *wink wink*.
 
Incorruptible said:
They take money from one group to redistribute to others. Its theft and no excuse for it.
Click to expand...

It's a necessary thing when the financial elite gets too good at hoarding it for themselves. There are different ways to accomplish the same thing, some more destructive than others. The New Deal didn't impoverish the wealthy or put them up against the wall but that's what's happened all too many times when the Wealthy reached the limits of greed.
 
Incorruptible said:
They take money from one group to redistribute to others. Its theft and no excuse for it.
Click to expand...

No its called a society and its the price we pay to be apart of it. Feel free to leave it anytime and enjoy your utopia of lawlessness, no taxes, and small governments. I heard Congo is nice.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah I kinda remember that line Jesus said about not healing the sick or feeding the poor because that was the government’s job and besides the rich should pay for it.
Click to expand...
The government is "OF THE PEOPLE"
The rich should pay their fair share, but, as long as there is still some middle class left, we too should be paying for it.
 
crashtech said:
I think we need to imagine a way to ensure that people, who might otherwise be rudderless under a UBI program, have something to get out of bed for, a meaning.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you here, I don't think that the sort of 'dig a hole, now fill in the hole' type of jobs that would have to be created to fulfill social work programs actually give any purpose. No one in government is going to allow a large scale social program that generates useful work that a company could be paid to do. I think instead these jobs will be the sort of soul crushing endeavors that is a hoop that must be jumped through.
 
SMOGZINN said:
While I agree with you here, I don't think that the sort of 'dig a hole, now fill in the hole' type of jobs that would have to be created to fulfill social work programs actually give any purpose. No one in government is going to allow a large scale social program that generates useful work that a company could be paid to do. I think instead these jobs will be the sort of soul crushing endeavors that is a hoop that must be jumped through.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of room for constructive work that simply doesn't generate enough profit for the Jerb Creators to be interested. The notion that we have to cut them in on everything just makes the situation worse.
 
SMOGZINN said:
While I agree with you here, I don't think that the sort of 'dig a hole, now fill in the hole' type of jobs that would have to be created to fulfill social work programs actually give any purpose. No one in government is going to allow a large scale social program that generates useful work that a company could be paid to do. I think instead these jobs will be the sort of soul crushing endeavors that is a hoop that must be jumped through.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree that even a make-work job can't provide a person with a least some sense that their life has a meaning, especially if it's coupled with ongoing education and/or training. I guess many would disagree, but even attention one does not really want beats being left alone to rot. It will also be important to identify people with the capacity to do more, and make sure they get into the right training programs. We're terrible at this right now. There are probably millions of people that could be doing much more productive things, given a little shove in the right direction.

Those in government no doubt feel the way you describe today, but the paradigm is shifting. I can see the possibility of needing to redistribute more to those displaced by automation, etc., but there's large swaths of people that won't be easily convinced. Coupling innovative ways to encourage people to be productive to the receipt of benefits is an idea that could actually be co-opted by the Left, it just needs to be framed differently. It doesn't necessarily need to be seen as punitive, on the contrary, done right, it would be helping people help themselves, furthering the notion that government ought to be doing what it can to ensure equality of opportunity, a concept that hopefully still receives wide support.
 
Jhhnn said:
False.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf

America's wealthiest are so astoundingly rich that no conceivable level of taxation will affect their lifestyles in the slightest.
Click to expand...

This is dumb, but ill respond to you anyway.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available). (Tweet this)

The bottom 80 percent of Americans are expected to pay 15 percent of all federal income taxes in 2014, according to the study. The bottom 60 percent are expected to pay less than 2 percent of federal income taxes.
Click to expand...

What you have tried to do is equate taxes paid relative to money made. I said the rich are paying the vast majority of taxes. You came back that the effective tax rate is not much higher on the top end. That is not in conflict with what I said, but, because you did not understand what you read you thought it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top