Posted on 12/15/2014 12:08:35 PM PST by PROCON
In the United States—as in all of the world’s wealthier nations—ending poverty is not a matter of resources. Many economists, including Timothy Smeeding of the University of Wisconsin (and former director of the Institute for Research on Poverty) have argued that every developed nation has the financial wherewithal to eradicate poverty. In large part this is because post-industrial productivity has reached the point where to suggest a deficit in resources is laughably disingenuous. And despite the occasional political grandstanding against welfare, there is no policy, ideology or political party that is on the books as pro-starvation, pro-homelessness, pro-death or anti-dignity.
Yet, poverty continues to exist. In the U.S., for example, almost 15 percent of citizens (and almost 20 percent of children) live in poverty. Of those, slightly under 2 percent live on less than $2 per person per day.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
The other motivation is that any private/religious organization is going to have LIMITED RESOURCES,
of which they are going to do their best due diligence to make sure they do not waste those resources.
This will cause these organizations to help people NOT NEED the assistance in the future,
instead of assuring their dependence.
You’re aware that Brookings is Liberal?
Yes, he and Daniel P. Moynihan pushed the guaranteed annual income plan.
Instead of a patchwork of aid programs, it would be a basic income for everyone.
Of course, welfare essentially does that already. The idea of the GAI was to take the bureaucracy out of the equation.
But no one would starve. Allegedly.
But in modern America, with massive legal and illegal immigration, where would it stop?
The Indian government would simply ship a few hundred million of their hungriest Dalits to join the other 200 million Central and South Americans here, all feeding on borrowed money.
Betsy Isaacson...
Someday her headstone will read...
“Had her brain aborted in college.”
Nothing's really changed in the debate in 45 years.
Other then the abject failure of the entire Great Society welfare programs.
With an income ceiling to determine when you no longer require this payment?
Sounds logical.
Bad idea then; bad idea now.
It is a never-ending cycle. The rich give it to the poor, the poor give it right back to the rich.
You’re absolutely correct in your assessment of GAI. I’m not advocating it. I only mentioned it because many don’t know that Nixon proposed it.
I was speaking in the Shakespearean sense, ie. "all the world's a stage."
But that said, I agree with you.
Den why you be tuggin' on my cape? ;^) lol
If we were to write a check to everyone for a basic level of living, would that not lead to the inflation to the point where that standard of living would simply increase in cost.
I think of college tuition. Let’s hypothesize that everyone with a kid in college gets a $1,000 tax credit. That means a direct payment of $1,000 for parents to use for college.
What would be the college’s reaction? Would they keep their prices at $1,000? Or would they assume that students IN college would already be paying for it, so why not pick up all of the money on the table.
The liberals would argue that MORE kids would be able to afford college, so the colleges would not increase their rates.
The bean counters at the college would look at this as free money to scoop off the table—and they would know it would be temporary—so they would increase their fees by that same $1,000.
The poor kids would still be $1,000 short. The students have to kick up the extra $1,000—and still fund the tuition.
It might take a semester or two, but the excess money would be absorbed into the system. And nothing is gained.
Pumping money into an elastic system is just stupid. The system will expand to consume the extra money.
Then don't tax them. Period. Sure some people will eat lobster and others tunafish casserole. Big deal, unless classenvy is part of the problem.
Don't tax their house, either. (You'll collect on the furniture in the big houses, more than you can cram into a smaller one).
Do away with the prebate (and the army of workers to administer it), and taxes on food, primary housing, the energy to heat that housing, and medical care.
Period.
If someone wants a boob job, so what?
You just save them the trouble of going to a therapist who will say they 'need' it.
That is apparent with our current pResident.
Give everyone a fat check, and prices rise at once, causing the “poor” to need and demand more money, which causes prices to rise again.
Liberal “solutions” always fail, and then the liberals demand a strengthening of the failed solution, which also fails.
Good post.
The primary reason that college is “expensive” is that the fed gov provides massive amounts of below market rate borrowing for students to purchase “college”.
The primary reason that medical care is “expensive” is that tax policy connected health “insurance” (actually prepaid medical care) to employment and isolated the cost from the user.
Good examples
= = = = = = = = = =
Here I go again..(should listen to the Seinfeld explanation of good point - make it and leave - don’t try to ‘better’ it.< : <: <:
There used to be a time when you actually had to charge MORE to the Government for doing a job as they were the ‘picture in the dictionary version of slow pay’ - Only grace being that you WOULD get it - eventually.
Reason ‘we’ got so ticked was
They expected lower prices virtually because money was guaranteed. (Eventually the 10% quick pay rule was added).
BUT
By law, the Government can’t award a contract without money in hand. So, in effect, they are ‘earning’ interest (dependent whether the money sitting in a drawer(probably) or ‘put to work’ so interest could be drawn).
(going to use ‘round numbers here’)
The numbers got worked around to show that every step in the Government paying YOU was resulting in MORE money going back to the Govt.
From the first check, TAXES come out. Taxes come out of the checks of the employees you pay for doing the work, Taxes come out when said employees go to the store and spend the money. Taxes come out in the business where the money is spent...etc ... etc...
So if you got paid say one mill for a job whatever tracking was used showed that maybe at least 2 mill would go back into the system.
Saying this is ‘true’, one would think the SOB’s would want to get your money to you ASAP, not wait the 60 days the law allowed them to wait....
Now it will cause some inflation BUT, it is a much better alternative than welfare etc.
“You’re aware that Brookings is Liberal?”
Yea, so are many of the people who are pushing for Fair Tax.
Brookings did not produce the paper with the design of siding, one way or the other, with the Fair Tax or the Prebate. You would have to read it to comment on it. It discusses primarily the calculus in determining the tax rates over time as the economy corrects for a disincentive to consumption. Liberals love less consumption, BTW...
In the European nations with a similar system, a VAT with a very high government social net and payment system, we look at those nations as weaker to ours. There are still the very rich and those who might never have the freedom to prosper. They are progressive and socialist.
A consumption tax isn’t necessarily the answer. Massachusetts has one, then Dukakis overspent so they voted for a “temporary’ income tax. 25 years it is still temporary. Like so many progressive states, they have both city taxes, state income taxes, state sales taxes, excise taxes, and more and more taxes. It is my contention that if we do get a sales or consumption tax, the pols will have bought off the voters with a BIG and they will suck up to the progressives and keep the income tax, modified of course to screw the producers even more. Is this your idea of the Fair Tax being a conservative idea?
HORSESH*T !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.