I do.
Posted on 08/06/2014 7:20:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week, my colleague David Frum argued that conservative welfare reformers need to focus on simplification. As a young crop of conservative policymakers announce a range of proposals, there’s some movement in that direction. Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s plan would move most of America’s existing welfare funding into a single “flex-fund” to be disbursed to the states. Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, partly inspired by the “universal credit” reforms of Britain’s Conservative government, proposes allowing states to combine different forms of federal anti-poverty funding—food stamps, housing assistance, and more—into a single funding stream. In a recent speech about fighting poverty, Utah Senator Mike Lee told the Heritage Foundation, “There’s no reason the federal government should maintain 79 different means-tested programs.”
Meanwhile, the intellectual wing of reform conservatism likes these plans because they reduce government and offer citizens more control, at least in theory. Yuval Levin, one of the authors of the reform-conservatism manifesto Room to Grow, has praised Ryan’s plan, saying it would “give people more resources and authority and greater freedom to find new and more effective ways up from poverty.” Liberal wonks, on the other hand, have claimed it’s actually a paternalistic program at odds with the traditional Republican desire for less-intrusive government, since it relies on providers who make decisions for beneficiaries.
In any case, these ideas are circumscribed by traditional boundaries. Neither is a truly radical small-government idea alternative. But one idea that Frum highlighted is more radical: a guaranteed basic income, otherwise known as just giving people money.
The idea isn’t new. As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
And a Marxist.
Milton Friedman suggested something similar. It became the earned income credit, a negative income tax that offset payroll taxes (and then some in some cases).
What!? Only $10,000!!? That’s not a “living wage,” come on... up it to $20,000! Heck, why not $50,000? Nobody can live on $50,000!!!
[Brought to you by your neighborhood liberal-progressive-marxist-nutjob]
Thing is, most of them would blow their monthly check the first week, and then still come whining about needing medicine and food because they spent it all on weed and games.
AND... we need the government to bribe the police to make them quit shooting dogs.
; )
$50,000 ?
That means that un-employed Union workers will get $100,000.
Sounds like a win for everybody.
; )
Lint, eh? They’ve THAT much skill? Who would have thought it?
“... a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.”
Does this idea ignore that we, Americans, don’t have a caste society? The question answers itself.
Further, would all immigrants qualify? Certainly “THEY” were born disadvantagd but, how is that any American citizens fault?
All men are created equal but, no one should be guaranteed a particular outcome. It disincentives rather than promotes ingenuity and reward of at least the basic reward of a days work.
Does it not stand to reason that it would promote not only slothfulness and the use of coke but, wouldn’t there be a constant demand for COLA?
You know who would win? Ingenious men of a certain avarice who would find a way to profit from lazy azz, no good, slugs.
BTW, I got no problem with welfare as social necessity to fill a temporary gap or the aged, who at least contribute 16% of their wage to social security.
“Last week, my colleague David Frum “
One need read no further.
I’m all for a universal handout as long as it is funded by voluntary contributors. If Charles Murray and crew can kick in enough to provide a check for everybody, that would be fine by me. But they won’t and they can’t.
I really like Friedman, and Murray, and Hayek, but I’m not a fan of the negative income tax, the basic income guarantee, or the other such schemes because they are funded by taxes that are exacted by coercion and threat of violence.
Still, these programs would be a vast improvement on the status quo. Most people don’t realize it, but the marginal income tax on lower income people can be thousands of percent. That is, when a poor person earns an additional dollar, he can lose hundreds of dollars worth of entitlement benefits. In my own case, under ObamaCare, the marginal income tax rate on going from 399.99% of poverty line to 400.01% of poverty line is 720,000%. That is, when I make one additional dollar, I lose a $7200 ObamaCare subsidy. At lower levels of income, people face a number of such hurdles that create severe disincentives to rise out of poverty. The existing system sucks even worse than a NIT or BIG system would.
Uh, how about NO welfare?
Agree. I hate it, but it would be an improvement over the status quo that creates so many disincentives to get out of poverty and take action to improve one’s lot in life.
I do.
Yeah, right - give them a guaranteed income from the public treasury - the same people who can’t handle their own money now won’t be able to handle that either - they’ll end up in great financial difficulty, children starving, old people dying, houses falling down, and on and on, until we have to have some special programs for them, funded by the public treasury
These people call for a king and call it conservatism.
One guy has 10 bucks. The other guy has 100. I convince the guy with 10 that he deserves more, and I convince the guy with 100 to hand over another 10 bucks to the other guy for the sake of peace and justice.
So now the one guy has 20, the other guy has 90. And I, the arbiter who decides who gets how much, own both of them. The poor guy looks to me for more, and the rich guy is schmoozing me to keep me from taking even more. With one deft sleight of hand I have become their king.
That's why you need to give it to them piecemeal and in-kind: food stamps for a defined list of foods, housing-in-kind, etc. When you are dealing with adult children who cannot manage their own affairs, you must act like a nanny state, controlling many aspects of their lives until they manage to take control themselves through personal responsibility. In other words, the current patchwork system is the right approach, just too generous.
One small passage , out of context.
Please note the crucial phrase ‘when he is unable to provide for himself’. It sounds to me a lot more like an endorsement of a safety net for the truly needy and incapable rather than some sort of blanket endorsement of ‘guaranteed income for all’.
I remember my high school econ-social studies teacher bringing this up back in ‘83 as part of a larger discussion on welfare. He was bringing up different approaches and pros/cons.
It would basically turn welfare programs into a block grant for the entire population.
Instead of bureaucrats warning people not to work too hard or they’ll lose their welfare benefits, people would be given a specific sum of money to support themselves and if they earn more than that, no problem - the grant is still theirs to keep.
Its simple to administer and empowers people how to save, invest and spend. An income guarantee is pro freedom and pro work. But a few conservatives as well many liberals want to tell people what to do so getting rid of top bottom welfare programs in practice won’t be easy.
Giving up control over others is the hardest people can do and human nature as much as politics have prevented an income guarantee from being adopted.
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.