Replace all welfare and benefits programs with single stipend?

[alcoholbob]

Sounds like Milton Friedman's proposed Negative Income Tax.

 

[code65536]

IIRC, Milton Friedman floated an idea like this back during the Nixon days.

I love this concept, frankly.

* It also eliminates the need for a minimum wage. This eliminates what is effectively an hiring tax for employers on the low end.

* It gives employees better leverage. In the past, they couldn't just walk away from a bad job or unfavorable employment terms if they absolutely needed that income. With a guaranteed minimum income, it makes it easier for an employer to quit and thus adds a bit more balance and leverage to the employer-employee balance of power. (In the past, if you wanted to give employees leverage, you either legislated it, or let them form unions)


The libertarian part of me likes that this eliminates bureaucracy and restores better balance to the employment market. The liberal part of me likes that this does so while preserving the ideals that nobody should be left to hang out and dry.

As for the objections against, "well, people will just take this and lazily mooch off of it", there are fairly easy fixes, I'd imagine. First, you'd want to calibrate the level of the guarantee to make sure that people don't starve or become homeless, but also make sure that it's low enough that they'd want more than just the basic necessities. And there can be direct safeguards, too, such as cutting off the benefits if the person makes no taxable income in X number of years (assuming they're not past a certain age).

 

[DucatiMonster696]

IIRC, Milton Friedman floated an idea like this back during the Nixon days.

I love this concept, frankly.

* It also eliminates the need for a minimum wage. This eliminates what is effectively an hiring tax for employers on the low end.

* It gives employees better leverage. In the past, they couldn't just walk away from a bad job or unfavorable employment terms if they absolutely needed that income. With a guaranteed minimum income, it makes it easier for an employer to quit and thus adds a bit more balance and leverage to the employer-employee balance of power. (In the past, if you wanted to give employees leverage, you either legislated it, or let them form unions)


The libertarian part of me likes that this eliminates bureaucracy and restores better balance to the employment market. The liberal part of me likes that this does so while preserving the ideals that nobody should be left to hang out and dry.

As for the objections against, "well, people will just take this and lazily mooch off of it", there are fairly easy fixes, I'd imagine. First, you'd want to calibrate the level of the guarantee to make sure that people don't starve or become homeless, but also make sure that it's low enough that they'd want more than just the basic necessities. And there can be direct safeguards, too, such as cutting off the benefits if the person makes no taxable income in X number of years (assuming they're not past a certain age).

The only major issue I have to this idea is that for it to work you would have to eliminate all traditional forms of welfare and government assistance and ensure that nothing, and I mean nothing else is added in the form of new and permanent or long lasting government aid programs or taxes related to supplementing this stipend.

Because this idea only works based on the core premise of passing on the savings on the efficiency gained by eliminating the government welfare administrative bloat and associated expenditures back to those in need and back the taxpayer in the form of a lower tax burden.

Thus any attempt to tack on higher taxes, or piggyback government aid programs would undermine this policy and eventually cause it to fail.

In other words voters would have to ensure that they themselves do not allow politicians or the electorate to vote themselves raises just because some people made bad decisions in life.

As one of the key pillars of this idea is that people who receive this stipend are required to run their own lives and make their own financial decisions for good or for worse. Anything less means this idea would flounder and fail due to good intentions running amuck.

 

[CanOWorms]

Probably can't have true welfare reform without tackling white privilege. That's likely the biggest form of welfare humanity has ever experienced. We might have to restructure all of society and government to get rid of it.

 

[IOException]

Milton's idea is great in theory but doomed to fail in execution. Its great because is a progressive tax, unlike social security, which is a regressive tax. However, giving people the freedom to spend money as they please means some will blow all their dough on day 1. And it doesn't take into account those in special circumstances. Just like communism, it will fail because it is too broad and because of human nature.

As much as I fucking hate social security, no reasonable person can deny the following:
1) Americans suck at saving and love spending. Social security forces people to save a portion of their income. We can't go back to the days where old people are just dying in the streets.
2) Disabled is a group no one joins by choice. I understand that there are a number of people who abuse the system. However, as a society we have an obligation to provide for those who truly cannot provide for themselves.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Milton's idea is great in theory but doomed to fail in execution. Its great because is a progressive tax, unlike social security, which is a regressive tax. However, giving people the freedom to spend money as they please means some will blow all their dough on day 1. And it doesn't take into account those in special circumstances. Just like communism, it will fail because it is too broad and because of human nature.

As much as I fucking hate social security, no reasonable person can deny the following:
1) Americans suck at saving and love spending. Social security forces people to save a portion of their income. We can't go back to the days where old people are just dying in the streets.
2) Disabled is a group no one joins by choice. I understand that there are a number of people who abuse the system. However, as a society we have an obligation to provide for those who truly cannot provide for themselves.

You just admitted that welfare isn't about dealing with poverty or caring about people but simply put it is about being able to control people because freedom (the good and the bad which come from being free to make your own decisions in life) is a bad thing. Especially for those in government and those who like to be in charge of everyone else for their "own good". So yeah lets keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, lol that is a sure sign of greatest for a nation.

Additionally even under the alternative system disabled, mentally challenged and/or mentally ill people would still be taken care of in some manner be it by their family members or by institutions paid for by their own stipends.

Lastly Americans suck as saving because they have been indoctrinating into believing that spending is good and their ability to save and plan for themselves via low risk means has been completely gutted.

 

[hans030390]

Facts can be stubborn things.

LOL, is this for real?

Claim: Safety nets have not solved deep poverty

Evidence and supporting argument: The percentage of people below 50% of the poverty line has remained roughly stagnant since the late 70s/early 80s.

While that's an interesting (and overly simple) tidbit of information, that does NOT in any way directly support that claim. You would need many more variables, data points, and a much deeper analysis and explanation to actually support that claim. That graph in and of itself does no such thing despite it having a big, bold title that tries to make you think otherwise.

You could make a (stronger?) claim that the graph shows the shift towards conservatism at the beginning of the Reagan era reversed or halted the downward trend of poverty, but that too is a stretch just like the original, attempted claim.

 

[soulcougher73]

Okay, so you want to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. That sounds like a great idea.

While i dont really like that idea of that. Maybe if we did, we may curtain future welfare recepients just milking the system? I mean if the kids grew up a hard poor life maybe they may make better choices of their own when the time comes of not having kids without a job and being able to support them?

Sometimes you have to make tough choices that will later have a great societal impact, but the current gen would suffer.

Just trying to think outside the box.

I dont know the answer to things like this. Im kinda of a hard ass when it comes to hand outs though. Id be for manditory BC shots for women on welfare, minimal food to survive. Basically making it suck just enough youll want to get off it as soon as possible.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Probably can't have true welfare reform without tackling white privilege. That's likely the biggest form of welfare humanity has ever experienced. We might have to restructure all of society and government to get rid of it.

lmfao

Yeah, I blame Obamacare too!

more info for anyone not in outer space: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/m...ople-for-being-alive.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[BoberFett]

Probably can't have true welfare reform without tackling white privilege. That's likely the biggest form of welfare humanity has ever experienced. We might have to restructure all of society and government to get rid of it.

If there was a way to choke a person over the intarweb, that's what I'd be doing right now.

 

[BoberFett]

lmfao

Yeah, I blame Obamacare too!

more info for anyone not in outer space: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/m...ople-for-being-alive.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Taking your stupid pills again, I see. Glad to see they're working.

 

[Exophase]

Does a middle of the road solution make any sense?

Setup a lump-sum account, but make it pay out every few days instead of monthly. If you blow through your money and have to wait for the next period you won't starve, but you'll probably actually spend it on food next pay interval. I think this will more effectively force people to learn how to spend it at least minimally competently. I can see why these sorts of intervals weren't used when there were real overheads in doing so but these days it should be minimal since the payout is electronic and automatic.

Don't allow withdrawing the money to cash. Automatically monitor the types of spending the people make (my credit card now even does this) and raise red flags under some bad patterns. Disallow certain vendors from having access to the accounts - or possibly require vendors to sign up for it from the start. Even if this is initially limited to more core necessity items it can still be a lot broader than any given program today.

 

[BoberFett]

Does a middle of the road solution make any sense?

Setup a lump-sum account, but make it pay out every few days instead of monthly. If you blow through your money and have to wait for the next period you won't starve, but you'll probably actually spend it on food next pay interval. I think this will more effectively force people to learn how to spend it at least minimally competently. I can see why these sorts of intervals weren't used when there were real overheads in doing so but these days it should be minimal since the payout is electronic and automatic.

Don't allow withdrawing the money to cash. Automatically monitor the types of spending the people make (my credit card now even does this) and raise red flags under some bad patterns. Disallow certain vendors from having access to the accounts - or possibly require vendors to sign up for it from the start. Even if this is initially limited to more core necessity items it can still be a lot broader than any given program today.

What you're proposing is the current system of specific targeted welfare, but drawn from the same system/account. That's entirely different than mincome.

And the idea is that this isn't welfare for the downtrodden, everyone gets this. What's to stop someone from spending their income at the casino instead of paying the mortgage?

This idea cannot work without allowing people to fail, but bleeding hearts will never allow that.

 

[Exophase]

What you're proposing is the current system of specific targeted welfare, but drawn from the same system/account. That's entirely different than mincome.

And the idea is that this isn't welfare for the downtrodden, everyone gets this. What's to stop someone from spending their income at the casino instead of paying the mortgage?

This idea cannot work without allowing people to fail, but bleeding hearts will never allow that.

What I was proposing wasn't necessarily supposed to be welfare for the downtrodden either, this could be given to everyone. Having a system that allows the account to be restricted in some way as necessary doesn't stand in the way of that. The actual appropriate set of restrictions and policies would have to be figured out and probably modified over time.

I do think just following the one implementation detail of giving out the money in small regular payouts would curb a lot of the egregiously bad spending.

 

[BoberFett]

What I was proposing wasn't necessarily supposed to be welfare for the downtrodden either, this could be given to everyone. Having a system that allows the account to be restricted in some way as necessary doesn't stand in the way of that. The actual appropriate set of restrictions and policies would have to be figured out and probably modified over time.

Really? So everybody who accepts payment for just about anything has to register and be accepted as a valid?

Want to rent a room? The legal owner must now register as an approved rental property, and regularly audited by whatever agency ensures people aren't wasting their money.

That's ridiculous, and easy to get around. I say I'm giving you rent money but you give me drugs instead. Whoops, so much for that.

I do think just following the one implementation detail of giving out the money in small regular payouts would curb a lot of the egregiously bad spending.

That's great, except people still have to save up to pay large bills like rent or car payments, which can easily be diverted to other things.

$1200 in rent due? Nah, tickets to Hawaii sound better.

 

[yllus]

I've watched someone go through the welfare application process and seen how haphazard and frankly horrible/degrading the process is. Cleaning all of that up and turning it into a single cash payment at the start of every month is by far preferable.

The cash payment would also allow much more entrepreneurship at levels that have never been able to take part in that process before - scrimp for a few months and maybe you can fork out $2000 for a food cart or similar type of small business. I think you'd be surprised at the ingenuity of the much maligned poor of America.