• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Citizens' Wage: How to Abolish Welfare

BrewerBob said:
I'm not sure this program would be better than what we have now but I would be interested in looking at the math of it. We currently spend about $1T a year in welfare and this would cost about $3.6T. So $2.6T more.

Of course, there would be some other areas we would save.

1. EVERY dollar of income earned by EVERYONE (excluding the stipend) would be taxed.
2. We would save on the operating costs of maintaining a welfare system.
3. With no minimum wage companies would probably earn a bigger profit, thus paying more in taxes.
4. Lots of businesses would move their operations to the US, meaning more tax revenue.
5. The homeless problem would be all but eliminated, increasing tourist revenue.
6. Crime would go down.
7. People would spend more money, which is good for the economy.

On the flip side, though, I am sure inflation would increase.

So I don't know. It might make up for that $2.6T difference and it might not. I don't think it will result in most people not working. $18,000 is enough to survive on but not to enjoy the nicer things in life. And people want the nicer things.
Click to expand...

It would make it easier for people currently dependent on government largess to go to work. As it is currently, they'd lose more than they would gain. Were there to be a small basic living allowance, as suggested in the OP, then any income, even a part time minimum wage job, would improve the standard of living of the worker over the idler. Once the person entered the work force, then there is a chance of getting off of government subsidies altogether.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
How many people do you know who would be content with $18,000 a year, sitting on their ass and doing nothing, when they can go out and get a job and work for more?

Gods know, if I could hold a straight job, I'd rather be working than collecting a pension. I'm constantly trying to find ways I can make money and support myself.
Click to expand...

Ever been to North Philly?
 
I have a better idea for the abolishment of welfare.

Abolish welfare. Replace with nothing.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
First proposed by Thomas Paine in 1795, the citizens' wage is a system whereby every adult citizen collects an unconditional subsidy from the government in an amount sufficient for a single adult to support themselves comfortably, albeit with a minimum of luxury. I would propose a starting wage of $18,000 a year, the rough equivalent of working for $8.65 an hour for 40 hours a week, plus a modest additional subsidy per minor child; this would replace all welfare and social security programs, including Social Security itself, SNAP, WIC, public housing, TANF, POWER, Indian benefits (that are not provided by the tribe themselves), publicly-funded unemploment benefits, and so on and so forth. You would not be taxed on this income.

The advantages to this system are manifold. First and foremost, nobody would ever fall between the cracks again; nobody would become homeless from a temporary inability to work, nobody will suffer for years while waiting for a Social Security decision, nobody will live on the streets because they're incapable of managing their welfare paperwork. (People who can't manage their own money would still need case managers.) Second, it would obliterate generational welfare because there would no longer be a disincentive against work; your citizens' wage is yours to keep regardless of other income, so working a paying job is always better than not working. Third, students would be capable of focusing on their studies without having to worry about supporting themselves, allowing more people to graduate from post-secondary education and take on better paying jobs. Fourth, people who engage in socially valuable work, such as charity work and stay-at-home parenting, will not have to divide their attention between their vocation and their "day job" unless they want to; people work many jobs that contribute to the well-being of society, and not all of those jobs are rewarded by the economy.

A citizens' wage will cost money, but it will lead to greater social security, greater tax revenues, greater productivity, and greater happiness. It is a program that would lead to direct benefits for the lifestyle and livelihood of every American citizen, replacing a myriad of complicated and inefficient programs that drain our productivity and encourage people to drop out of the labor force.
Click to expand...

Yeah except that would be unjust. Why should Donald Trump get a free 18k a year? Why should that guy that makes 180k a year get 18k free? Why should that guy that makes 50k get a free 18k? That's unjust.

Seriously though, the other reason is the I word, you'd increase the amount of money chasing goods and services, and the value of the dollar would drop, thus increasing the amount needed to pay over time. Politicians would run on the promise of paying people MORE if their socio-economic voting group votes for them.... 18k in Rural Texas is worth a hell'va lot more then 18k in NYC so the city folks would complain...


I think there is some merit to the idea, I just don't see the practicality of it. Not in these dark days.
 
Helix said:
i'd argue for debt free college / post secondary training upon completion of the degree and expanding public sector projects to hire those who can't find employment. it's not like we don't have an absolute **** ton of things that need to be repaired / replaced that might not be profitable enough for the private sector to take on.
Click to expand...
I think Trump has proposals to bring manufacturing jobs - good paying jobs - back to the US. It won't be mandatory to go to college to get a good paying job if Trump is president.
No to free college and post secondary training. Way too expensive. Once the government starts paying for everyone's college, tuition will go HIGHER, AND HIGHER, AND HIGHER. And for what quality of education?

At least, the government will decree the curriculum of colleges, no? Or will there be a...gulp...voucher system?
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
Yeah except that would be unjust. Why should Donald Trump get a free 18k a year? Why should that guy that makes 180k a year get 18k free? Why should that guy that makes 50k get a free 18k? That's unjust.
Click to expand...

It is more just that everyone receive a free $18K a year than people who don't work getting $18K a year for free while people who do work are struggling to make $18K a year working full time.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
First proposed by Thomas Paine in 1795, the citizens' wage is a system whereby every adult citizen collects an unconditional subsidy from the government in an amount sufficient for a single adult to support themselves comfortably, albeit with a minimum of luxury. I would propose a starting wage of $18,000 a year, the rough equivalent of working for $8.65 an hour for 40 hours a week, plus a modest additional subsidy per minor child; this would replace all welfare and social security programs, including Social Security itself, SNAP, WIC, public housing, TANF, POWER, Indian benefits (that are not provided by the tribe themselves), publicly-funded unemploment benefits, and so on and so forth. You would not be taxed on this income.

The advantages to this system are manifold. First and foremost, nobody would ever fall between the cracks again; nobody would become homeless from a temporary inability to work, nobody will suffer for years while waiting for a Social Security decision, nobody will live on the streets because they're incapable of managing their welfare paperwork. (People who can't manage their own money would still need case managers.) Second, it would obliterate generational welfare because there would no longer be a disincentive against work; your citizens' wage is yours to keep regardless of other income, so working a paying job is always better than not working. Third, students would be capable of focusing on their studies without having to worry about supporting themselves, allowing more people to graduate from post-secondary education and take on better paying jobs. Fourth, people who engage in socially valuable work, such as charity work and stay-at-home parenting, will not have to divide their attention between their vocation and their "day job" unless they want to; people work many jobs that contribute to the well-being of society, and not all of those jobs are rewarded by the economy.

A citizens' wage will cost money, but it will lead to greater social security, greater tax revenues, greater productivity, and greater happiness. It is a program that would lead to direct benefits for the lifestyle and livelihood of every American citizen, replacing a myriad of complicated and inefficient programs that drain our productivity and encourage people to drop out of the labor force.
Click to expand...

I think I see the logic here. You are proposing that we eliminate welfare by giving everybody welfare, but it won't be welfare because we will call it something else. A subsidy, or a citizen wage or something. And everybody will get the same welfare. Even those who need more for whatever reason and those who have no real need for 18K. Then you will tax everyone on the 18K, thus giving back part of the 18K.

It's smoke and mirrors. How long before someone decides that those that work and earn don't need the handout and it's taxed at 100% for some? How long before the 22K burger flipper decides that the additional 4K is not worth it, especially if the flipper must pay taxes on the new income? How long before the NYC Congresscritter lobbies for more than the base because it costs more to live in NYC? Or that person with an ingrown toenail need special shoes?

Nothing has ever been gotten rid of by giving away more of it. This an example.

And this will only cost a couple trillion? Where is that going to come from?
 
ludin said:
not at all and I am not a libertarian.
it is the matter of cause and effect.

something that liberals as yourself ignore.
if the job demands the skill and pay of 20 an hour then that is what happens.

if it doesn't then businesses don't pay it.
if you inflate a job such as a person taking orders to an obscene amount such as 15 an hour.
then the company has to weigh the cost of hiring a person or putting in an automated system.

when it comes to fast food the jolt is much more hurtful as they operate on such slim margins anyway.
why pay 30k a year to a person to stand there and take an order when I can buy a system to do the same thing
for 20k.

automation usually only affects low skilled workers in any industry.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. Automation is replacing the lowest paid people in the country, table waiters. They make BELOW minimum wage, and that's still not low enough to prevent restaurant owners from replacing them with "order it yourself" systems.
 
ludin said:
that is why we have trade schools, community colleges. there are ways for them to improve their skills.
it is a matter of wanting to and doing.

the way that it is going they will be put out faster than they thought.

I agree it is not fun. I have been there. however I realized that I needed more education.
I had the skill but companies want a 4 year degree and now they are pushing into master's and PHD's.

job competition for my kids is going to be insane not to mention the educational requirements.
Click to expand...

And you like that? That your kids are going to have to make a 300 thousand dollar gamble, just for the privilege of MAYBE getting to participate in the market?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It is more just that everyone receive a free $18K a year than people who don't work getting $18K a year for free while people who do work are struggling to make $18K a year working full time.
Click to expand...

I get that KtR, but that would be the first argument against this plan, and the first to be raised on changing it after it passed.
 
KevinKohler said:
You're wrong. Automation is replacing the lowest paid people in the country, table waiters. They make BELOW minimum wage, and that's still not low enough to prevent restaurant owners from replacing them with "order it yourself" systems.
Click to expand...

No I am correct. Table waiters make minimum wage or above. so you don't know what you are talking about.
it depends on the restaurant. I went into the outback and they did have automated things but they still had
waitresses. the next time I went they had pulled them all out.

if you go to a decent restaurant then people still want a person to wait on them. you will just face higher food prices etc ...
 
KevinKohler said:
And you like that? That your kids are going to have to make a 300 thousand dollar gamble, just for the privilege of MAYBE getting to participate in the market?
Click to expand...

now you are just making crap up. no my kids will have to work and work hard to get into the market.
just like everyone else. if they have the skills and knowledge then they will make it.

if they choose not to then they will not make it that is how it works.
I am starting to teach them money management and how things work in life as they are getting
to that age now.

so they will have a heads up on all the kids that don't have that already.
them getting paid to do nothing though? that only supports laziness.
 
ludin said:
No I am correct. Table waiters make minimum wage or above. so you don't know what you are talking about.
it depends on the restaurant. I went into the outback and they did have automated things but they still had
waitresses. the next time I went they had pulled them all out.

if you go to a decent restaurant then people still want a person to wait on them. you will just face higher food prices etc ...
Click to expand...

Waiters making 10 - 20% of the price of the food they serve should be doing quite well in restaurants where entrees are $15 - $30 and drinks start at five bucks. They serve a group of, say, 8, the tab comes to easily $150 - $200 depending on appetizers and drinks, it takes them an hour to serve the table, and they make thirty bucks. Sounds like more than minimum to me.

Not that I'm complaining. A good waiter earns that thirty bucks an hour.
 
ludin said:
now you are just making crap up. no my kids will have to work and work hard to get into the market.
just like everyone else. if they have the skills and knowledge then they will make it.

if they choose not to then they will not make it that is how it works.
I am starting to teach them money management and how things work in life as they are getting
to that age now.
Click to expand...

And screw the kids who will not be fortunate enough to have such a wonderful parent as you...right?

so they will have a heads up on all the kids that don't have that already.
them getting paid to do nothing though? that only supports laziness.
Click to expand...

Much better to reward the people with enough sense and decency to choose to be born to parents like you...right?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Waiters making 10 - 20% of the price of the food they serve should be doing quite well in restaurants where entrees are $15 - $30 and drinks start at five bucks. They serve a group of, say, 8, the tab comes to easily $150 - $200 depending on appetizers and drinks, it takes them an hour to serve the table, and they make thirty bucks. Sounds like more than minimum to me.

Not that I'm complaining. A good waiter earns that thirty bucks an hour.
Click to expand...

Yup...and so does a decent bartender.

Those kinds of jobs will almost certainly always be open to humans.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Waiters making 10 - 20% of the price of the food they serve should be doing quite well in restaurants where entrees are $15 - $30 and drinks start at five bucks. They serve a group of, say, 8, the tab comes to easily $150 - $200 depending on appetizers and drinks, it takes them an hour to serve the table, and they make thirty bucks. Sounds like more than minimum to me.

Not that I'm complaining. A good waiter earns that thirty bucks an hour.
Click to expand...

I was correcting the misconception that waiters make less than minimum wage.
they don't. their owners are required to pay them minimum wage if their tips to not equal that by the end of the pay period.
 
Frank Apisa said:
And screw the kids who will not be fortunate enough to have such a wonderful parent as you...right?
Click to expand...

strawmen arguments are just that.
do you actually have an argument or just hyperbole.

Much better to reward the people with enough sense and decency to choose to be born to parents like you...right?
Click to expand...

thanks for proving you have actually nothing to say.
 
Frank Apisa said:
And screw the kids who will not be fortunate enough to have such a wonderful parent as you...right?



Much better to reward the people with enough sense and decency to choose to be born to parents like you...right?
Click to expand...

No, its much better to reward people to have enough sense and decency to be good parents!
 
ludin said:
strawmen arguments are just that.
do you actually have an argument or just hyperbole.
Click to expand...

I notice you did not answer the question.


thanks for proving you have actually nothing to say.
Click to expand...

I have plenty to say...and I am saying it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I notice you did not answer the question.
Click to expand...

I didn't see one I just saw some hypobolic strawman. if you actually have a point or something to
say then just say it.

I have plenty to say...and I am saying it.
Click to expand...

no you are simply ranting about nothing I said. let me know when you actually say something
other than hyperbole appeal to emotion.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay.

So screw the kids who were too ignorant to choose the right parents.

I understand what you are saying. Really.
Click to expand...

You incentivize good behavior. The problem is that we have incentivized bad behavior for so long that when we try to change it, we have people saying we are trying to screw kids over.

Do you have a factual argument with what I'm saying? Because the appeal to emotion is based on 5 decades of bad societal decisions.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, unfortunately for you, its also liberal democrat policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom