What *SHOULD* the rich subsidize the poor for?

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Joining the military worked just fine for me.

I'm in the air force (enlisted after my degree(they offered the job I wanted before you say anything about officer)), but the majority of people don't qualify for the military. Also, it's not a social program even if everyone qualified we couldn't take a significant fraction of everyone and still give out free college educations with it.

 

[JEDI]

I'm in the air force (enlisted after my degree(they offered the job I wanted before you say anything about officer)), but the majority of people don't qualify for the military. Also, it's not a social program even if everyone qualified we couldn't take a significant fraction of everyone and still give out free college educations with it.

not qualified for the military?!
thought u just need a hs diploma or GED?

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong. Liberals worshiping the choices that pregnant teenagers make is the exact opposite of dealing with the root of the problem. You don't even necessarily need laws. Strong social pressure on pregnant teenagers to get abortions would be a good start, but liberals lack the balls to do even that.

If they were destitute enough it would. Combine that with strong social pressure and the problem could be fixed.

Obviously those social and economic pressures are already large, given that ~40% of unintended pregnancies in the US end in abortion-

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

You've never been much for facts, anyway.

 

[nehalem256]

Obviously those social and economic pressures are already large, given that ~40% of unintended pregnancies in the US end in abortion-

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

You've never been much for facts, anyway.

So we still have a lot to go. And you are assuming that is because of social pressure. Not the fact that they didnt want to have a baby. Social pressure doesnt make me take out the garbage every week.

Not to mention the fact that 20% of births are to women who cannot feed their child and yet INTENDED to get pregnant.

 

[Jhhnn]

So we still have a lot to go. And you are assuming that is because of social pressure. Not the fact that they didnt want to have a baby. Social pressure doesnt make me take out the garbage every week.

Selective reading comprehension as usual.

 

[blankslate]

not qualified for the military?!
thought u just need a hs diploma or GED?

People are physically disqualified for reasons that don't involve weight however weight has become a more common reason.

 

[blankslate]

Furthermore - for those non-dependents trying to live on minimum wage there are typically supplements available for food and shelter.

This is what a livable wage would seek to eliminate again provide your link please.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Basic safety nets like social security and medicare are ok, but need massive reform. Welfare is fine as long as loopholes are closed.

I don't buy into Obamacare, and I find that the government should regulate healthcare to make sure that people can get access to affordable care, but to mandate healthcare is going too far.

Certain social services like police, fire, education, etc are clearly more funded by the rich than the poor. I'm ok with that.

A progressive tax system is fine too, but I don't like the 47% idea, etc.

 

[NoStateofMind]

From this thread about homeowners subsidizing schools for the poor that have tons of kids:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2276858

ok, that thread changed my mind about homeowners (ie: me) paying for schools.
re: pay for schools or pay for more prisons

And in that case, i say the rich should substidize mandatory birth control for those who dont own homes!


What else SHOULD the 2% subsidize for?

/obligatory cable TV and iPhone 5

Aren't we already subsidizing food, phones, healthcare, retirement and shelter. WTF else is there?

 

[NoStateofMind]

mmmm

 

[Nebor]

not qualified for the military?!
thought u just need a hs diploma or GED?

There are a bevy of other requirements (no criminal history, drug use, medical problems, age, weight, etc.) I believe the military likes to say that less than 5% of the total population of the US is eligible to serve, and less than 1% actually does.

 

[nehalem256]

Selective reading comprehension as usual.

What selective reading comprehension?

60% of women who don't want a baby don't get an abortion. How is this in anyway an argument toward there being a strong social pressure to get an abortion. If anything its the opposite, since the obvious default position for someone who is pregnant and does not want a baby is to get an abortion.

And my argument is not about unplanned pregnancy. It is about pregnancies the woman cannot afford. Unless you are arguing that every unplanned pregnancy is to a woman who cannot afford(obvious BS); it you were not even addressing my point.

 

[Texashiker]

Joining the military worked just fine for me.

You gave to the nation, and got something in return.

Is it better to provide welfare to a family where the parents have no life skills, or do we provide a path out of poverty through education?

Even if a path is provided, there is no guarantee the parents will go to school or get take the training.

My wife and I know a certain family, they have 3 young children, oldest is around 7 years old, the dad works, the mom sits at home. There is nothing wrong with staying home with small children. My wife stayed at home with our children.

When the youngest child starts school, the mom has no plans to get to college. Even though her schooling would be paid for by the government, I doubt she has the drive to further her education.

 

[QuantumPion]

Unlike you who just wishes for a world of no single mothers with no real solutions except your fantasy. No, creating an underclass of true destitute isn't going to fix the problem.

What do you think you are doing when you pay people to stay uneducated, unemployed, and raise children out of wedlock?

I guess you should grab a dictionary before talking to me?

Wow. Nice deflection by non-sequiter there buddy. I'll have to remember that one for next time.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You gave to the nation, and got something in return.

Is it better to provide welfare to a family where the parents have no life skills, or do we provide a path out of poverty through education?

Even if a path is provided, there is no guarantee the parents will go to school or get take the training.

My wife and I know a certain family, they have 3 young children, oldest is around 7 years old, the dad works, the mom sits at home. There is nothing wrong with staying home with small children. My wife stayed at home with our children.

When the youngest child starts school, the mom has no plans to get to college. Even though her schooling would be paid for by the government, I doubt she has the drive to further her education.

If the person has no drive to improve themselves or get a job then no government subsidy should be provided.

 

[Exterous]

This is what a livable wage would seek to eliminate again provide your link please.

There is a huge problem with this viewpoint. While the government can mandate a 'livable' wage be paid per hour they cannot mandate the minimum number of hours worked. Therefore they have no way to guarantee that someone trying to live on minimum wage would actually be able to do so. So - basically raising the minimum wage could, in no way, be able to eliminate those programs.

And provide a link for what? I provided two in my last post. Or are you asking me to prove there are supplements for food and shelter? If its the latter then I think its pretty obvious to everyone that programs like WIC, Food stamps, Section 8 housing etc exist and it does not need to be proven that they do.

 

[nehalem256]

There is a huge problem with this viewpoint. While the government can mandate a 'livable' wage be paid per hour they cannot mandate the minimum number of hours worked. Therefore they have no way to guarantee that someone trying to live on minimum wage would actually be able to do so. So - basically raising the minimum wage could, in no way, be able to eliminate those programs.

More importantly a "livable" wage differs based on family size. How many people should a minimum wage job be expected to support?

 

[bfdd]

Society is give and take, what are the "poor" bringing to the table besides the fact there's a ton of them and things would get ugly if they got together to oppress the "rich". Everyone is always asking how you can help the down trodden, but what if it's simply not worth the investment? Do we ever stop to ask that? Does anyone who feels they need others to take care of them ever think about the effort put forth by those who pay for them to live? No absolutely not. They are never thankful to the tax payers, but thankful to the powerful government that steals with the threat of extreme force.

Stop feeling entitled to anything, you're not owed shit. You aren't even entitled to breath so if you aren't going to go through every means to better yourself and get off the teat you're effectively worthless and a dog is more valuable because at least you can train them to work.

 

[blankslate]

And provide a link for what?

Specifically where you state that only one 1% of workers are dependent on the minimum wage.

Additionally if wages kept up with the increases in productivity of the workers from the years 1973 to 2011 as they did from the mid 1940s into the 1970s; then talking about supplements for people making the minimum wage or not much higher than that would probably not be a discussion.

According to Hedrick Smith who has been a reporter for quite a while.

from the 1940s to the 1970s the productivity of the workers in the middle class nearly doubled, in the same time period their wages went up by the same amount.

From 1973 to 2011 their productivity went up by about 80% while their wages went up 10%


here is a link to the the *.mp3 sound file of the radio interview with the reporter/author.

http://wikisend.com/download/250072/Who.Stole.the.American.Dream.mp3

his statements about the productivity and wages start at about 7minutes and 30seconds into the file.


So getting back to the question of the original post. Workers has a whole should be paid in wage increases that is commensurate to increases in productivity.

As for a policy that might accomplish that.

I'd go with this suggestion

I would propose basing minimum wage off

125% federal poverty line for a single person ($11,170) / (35hr/week * 50 week)

= $7.98

Call it $8/hr and the index it for inflation. So the businesses can adjust properly for future small increase per year.

1968 wages (the highest proportional) adjusted for inflation would be ~$10.55 an hour. Taking that into account with Nehaem's suggestion I'd split the difference between $8 and ~$10.55 in some fashion.

For example I suggest using Nehalem's posted idea and takea starting number ranging from $8.50 to $9.25 and indexing it to inflation.

Nehalem's post has a very good suggestion and I'd argue to slightly increase the initial suggested amount but agree with the indexing it to inflation.

Another thing to remember is that workers who make more tend to buy more and their doing so increases certain tax revenues that apply to all people who purchase goods like the sales tax and fuel taxes, in addition to increasing the revenue of businesses they buy from.

 

[rudeguy]

Let's be honest. It's us working folks who aren't rich that are paying for the leaches of society, not the rich.

The government treats them like being poor is a disease. It's not. Get a job. We already send these people checks, buy them food, pay for their cell phones and healthcare and now we are going to buy them computers and subsidize their high speed internet.

Obama wants to talk about fair. How is it fair that I have to work to buy that stuff but others get it free? How is it fair that I have to work so others can get it for free?

 

[Texashiker]

If the person has no drive to improve themselves or get a job then no government subsidy should be provided.

Its a shame there is no work or education requirement in welfare.

Let's be honest. It's us working folks who aren't rich that are paying for the leaches of society, not the rich.

The government treats them like being poor is a disease. It's not. Get a job. We already send these people checks, buy them food, pay for their cell phones and healthcare and now we are going to buy them computers and subsidize their high speed internet.

Obama wants to talk about fair. How is it fair that I have to work to buy that stuff but others get it free? How is it fair that I have to work so others can get it for free?

Who are the ones that profit the most? The working poor that have 3, 4, 5,,, or more kids.

I have posted this before in various threads, my wife and I know a family that has received some kind of welfare for around 20 - 22 years, and has spanned 3 generations. The kids range in age from mid-20s to around 3 years old.

The grandmother received welfare when she was pregnant, the kids were on welfare their entire lives, and now the newborn grandchild is on welfare.

One of the kids got on social security disability as soon as she tuned 18 years old. And that is after being on welfare since she was born. For her entire life, the lady has received some kind of benefits from the state.

Shouldn't the state require people who have been on welfare for over 10 years to get some kind of education or job skills?

 

[Tom]

Let's be honest. It's us working folks who aren't rich that are paying for the leaches of society, not the rich.

The government treats them like being poor is a disease. It's not. Get a job. We already send these people checks, buy them food, pay for their cell phones and healthcare and now we are going to buy them computers and subsidize their high speed internet.

Obama wants to talk about fair. How is it fair that I have to work to buy that stuff but others get it free? How is it fair that I have to work so others can get it for free?

a good post to point out who is really being subsidized..

Food companies, ie ADM.
cell phone companies
healthcare providers.

That is where your money goes, not poor people. They don't eat money.

And everybody can own stock in those companies, but who owns more shares per capita, rich or middle class ?

The rich. Just one way the poor and middle class subsidize the rich.

Another example. Where we live we pay a fee for fire services. Everyone pays the same flat fee. The person with a $2 million house pays the same as a person with an $85k house.

Anither way. The rich don't make their own money. They get it from selling stuff for more than it costs to poor and middle class people.

Profit is a kind of subsidy for rich people. I'm not saying its bad, but that is what it is.

 

[nehalem256]

a good post to point out who is really being subsidized..

Food companies, ie ADM.
cell phone companies
healthcare providers.

That is where your money goes, not poor people. They don't eat money.

So if I buy them food I am not subsidizing them

 

[Tom]

So if I buy them food I am not subsidizing them

Perhaps, but you are also subsidizing whoever profits from the sale of the food.

The question is..why is subsidizing the rich, through profit, considered good, while subsidizing the poor so they aren't hungry considered bad ?

I think they're both good.

 

[mchammer187]

Perhaps, but you are also subsidizing whoever profits from the sale of the food.

The question is..why is subsidizing the rich, through profit, considered good, while subsidizing the poor so they aren't hungry considered bad ?

I think they're both good.

Exactly. It is like those candy sale fundraisers. The poor are the people selling the candy (getting shit prizes and essentially table scraps). The people that are paying are the suckers buying the candy. The candy company which sells $3 candy bars is the one that is making the killing.

Or even girl scouts $4 a box for cookies but only .40 goes to your local troop while girl scouts of america is pocketing the rest.