Posted on 12/15/2014 12:08:35 PM PST by PROCON
In the United Statesas in all of the worlds wealthier nationsending 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 ...
There will always be the rich and the poor. There is no fix. Cutting the outlay and length of freebies will eliminate a huge percent of the current lazy, um, poor.
Liberal: Write them bigger checks...Duh...
Tax it. Tas the bleep outta those living in poverty.
Its well known that if you want MORE of something, then subsidize it. And that's what we do with poverty. We reward and grow it with subsidies.
If you want LESS of something - then tax it.
If we could blow up every single welfare and means-tested program, such an idea would seem reasonable.
However, the moment you issue a single check, that recipient will blow it all. ALL. In mere moments. On drugs, gambling, booze, women, etc.
Then, they will still be begging at government’s doorstep asking for food, housing, healthcare, etc.
The problem of welfare is not its construct.
The problem of welfare is its existence.
there already is a basic-income check. it’s the standard write-off on taxes. about $12k/yr is not taxed. this yields about $2400 annually (20%) of overlooked tax money
And they all manage to have smart phones.
OWS morons hate the 1 percenters.
They really are that stupid in their thinking that the State should take away that income leaving no more 1 percenters.
They will receive their guaranteed income, our taxes will rise to cover it, they will make the same bad choices in how to spend that money and they will remain poor.
And we will continue to fund yet another program THAT DOES NOT WORK.
Newsweek’s on-line “Comments” section is populated by idiots.
The only result of a basic income check is that the price of Colt 45 Malt Liquor will go up.
Thomas Paine suggested a similar scheme two hundred years ago.
A basic income check would be a heckuva lot cheaper than all the redundant programs the Feds, states, counties, and cities run. Think of the bureaucracy we could get rid of. It’ll never happen.
No reasonable amount of income will support a lifestyle that is centered around booze, drugs and sex.
But that check would be ADDITIVE, because once the recipient has blown through the check on their favorite vice, we’d still be stuck feeding, clothing, doctoring, and housing them.
So, while I hear the efficiency argument, that efficiency is turned directly into cash, which will just make the drug cartels extra happy.
We won’t turn our backs on the heroin addict who just shot up his monthly check. We’ll still go house him. So the only thing that will happen is the cash distributed will go directly to vices.
Basic Income Checkwould cover would rise in price, ever spiraling upwards.
Hello Hyperinflation.
Nope, that doesn't ring a bell.
“Poverty” is defined as a percentage of income below the average. Therefore, it is impossible to eliminate “poverty,” because there will always be 20% that are at the bottom of income distribution.
That is the point. There would be no EBT card. 10,000 to all without means testing. Better than the status quo, IMO.
Or Thunderbird.
What’s the price? Ten-dollars twice!
If and that’s a big if, the payments replaced all the other programs it would be a bargain. Think of all government positions it would eliminate.
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.