• 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!

Should we end welfare?

Should we get rid of welfare?

  • Yes. Nothing wrong with soup kitchens

    Votes: 19 44.2%
  • No. Freebies are great

    Votes: 24 55.8%

  • Total voters
    43
Lots of doctors sign off on all kinds of crap that people take to the SSI office.

So in another words....private doctors are lying, they've falsified tests, diagnosis, etc....but government hired doctors won't? Their test results will be more accurate, yadda, yadda, yadda?
 
If people can 'live' on that and continue to have kids and get that expanded to cover the kids...where is there any incentive to work?

All some people require is a couch, a TV, the Internet (pretty cheap), and food. Medical is already taken care of. :-\
Well, I'd propose to keep the income low, too low for a single person to live on their own - I see nothing wrong with 3,4,5, people sharing an apartment - I had two room-mates when I moved-out at 17, and we split everything, and ate & lived ... really cheap! Lot's of people with very low incomes live by sharing places or living with parents, friends, and relatives - when I bought my house & was single I rented-out my spare bedroom to help-out friends & pay my mortgage.

The idea is not to give someone enough to live a fully independent comfortable lifestyle, but just enough to keep them alive & off the streets. This might be something like $5-600/mo., as just a guess - I'm really not sure.

The idea is to NOT provide means-tested benefits for select groups (with all the fraud & disincentive that entails), BUT still have some rudimentary net so no one need be fully destitute on the streets (unless so chosen). That's why I took healthcare out of the equation (via single-payer).

I haven't given hard thought to kids, but I believe adding some additional percentage for minor children to be added to a resident supporting parent's base might be in order, as long as we don't incentify having kids on the base income alone (that's why it needs to be small)

Trust me, I'm open to ideas on this at the moment, because it strikes me as an interesting system. I though it was crazy when a buddy of mine first brought it up, but now I'm thinking it might have possibilities.

(I abhor means-tested social-systems)
 
No. that is the nice thing about negative tax. Everyone gets the same and there is no need to test.
Perhaps my understanding is flawed.

Doesn't one need to be under a certain income threshold to receive the 'benefit' portion?
 
Perhaps my understanding is flawed.

Doesn't one need to be under a certain income threshold to receive the 'benefit' portion?

No threshhold. But just google 'negative tax wiki'. The article is quite good.
 
Well, I'd propose to keep the income low, too low for a single person to live on their own - I see nothing wrong with 3,4,5, people sharing an apartment - I had two room-mates when I moved-out at 17, and we split everything, and ate & lived ... really cheap! Lot's of people with very low incomes live by sharing places or living with parents, friends, and relatives - when I bought my house & was single I rented-out my spare bedroom to help-out friends & pay my mortgage.

They can do that now. They dont...or some do. But no one 'forces' them to do so, they just keep applying for and receiving welfare.

And if it's too low to live on...then they still need 'welfare' and you still arent forcing them to get jobs any more so than before when you were handing them $$ for nothing.

I'm not knocking your motives but it sounds no different than welfare.
 
No threshhold. But just google 'negative tax wiki'. The article is quite good.
Actually, I did reference the wiki article last night (scanning & speed-reading).

Here's what I found:

+++

"In a negative income tax system, people earning a certain income level would owe no taxes; those earning more than that would pay a proportion of their income above that level; and those below that level would receive a payment of a proportion of their shortfall, which is the amount their income falls below that level."

+++

So a specific income level is picked, and unless that income level is exceeded the person has no incentive to work.

If we pick $7K/yr as the guaranteed level, there's absolutely no reason for my H.S. Senior (now turned 18) to work his usual $3,500/yr fast-food job (true example) - he can stay home & study harder or goof off and still receive the same $7K.

Individuals will forgo any traceable income or job, unless it pays reasonably well in excess of $7K. See the problem here? It *is* income tested in actuality. And has the same disincentives as other means-tested systems.

Unless, I'm misunderstanding something? (I may have).
 
They can do that now. They dont...or some do. But no one 'forces' them to do so, they just keep applying for and receiving welfare.

And if it's too low to live on...then they still need 'welfare' and you still arent forcing them to get jobs any more so than before when you were handing them $$ for nothing.

I'm not knocking your motives but it sounds no different than welfare.
Thank you for reviewing & critiquing my proposal!

But, this scheme has one huge difference than welfare - it is NOT means-tested.

There is no disincentive to add income, since the 'benefit' cannot be lost - we all receive it equally (obviously, for those with full livable incomes it would likely be used to offset income tax burdens).

Finding part-time work adds to the base income & improves one's lot in life w/o any compromises - there's no need to work under-the-table or restrict one's hours. There's every incentive to add income through legitimate means, with no downsides; it's a very positive enforcing scheme. More income simply means a better life, not trading a benefit for work.

The main difficulty I see, is deciding upon an income level satisfactorily to keep a person from true destitution, but low enough to provide very strong incentive to improve their lot. But in this case, at least every penny brought-in will produce it's full amount of relief & will be 100% incentifying.
 
Thank you for reviewing & critiquing my proposal!

But, this scheme has one huge difference than welfare - it is NOT means-tested.

There is no disincentive to add income, since the 'benefit' cannot be lost - we all receive it equally (obviously, for those with full livable incomes it would likely be used to offset income tax burdens).

Finding part-time work adds to the base income & improves one's lot in life w/o any compromises - there's no need to work under-the-table or restrict one's hours. There's every incentive to add income through legitimate means, with no downsides; it's a very positive enforcing scheme. More income simply means a better life, not trading a benefit for work.

The main difficulty I see, is deciding upon an income level satisfactorily to keep a person from true destitution, but low enough to provide very strong incentive to improve their lot. But in this case, at least every penny brought-in will produce it's full amount of relief & will be 100% incentifying.

Ah, thanks for that clarification.

Where would all that $$ come from that was given to people 'equally?'
 
Ah, thanks for that clarification.

Where would all that $$ come from that was given to people 'equally?'
Well, I'm throwing alternative ideas out here - I'm not an accountant or economist - but I'll try.

Firstly, I'd like to see what the aggregate current costs of our social programs entail, and see what the figure would be if it was amortized over all the majority aged adults, and start from there.

Who knows? The numbers may not add up. But they may.

It would be interesting to see what the numbers are.

I'm sure I'd like to see lower income levels than that currently occurred as a total program cost, when broken-down as cost-per-recipient-individual (we're simply providing a single base income here, not comprehensive benefits, multi-faceted programs or complex program management).

As stated earlier, I see no reason to provide an amount of welfare for someone to live a fully independent comfortable life in their own place. When I was 19 I moved back to my folk's basement for two years to get my associate's degree; it wasn't the end of the world. I would like to just provide enough income so a person can figure out how to survive, if need be. If we can do it for around the same costs as we have now, why not?
 
As stated earlier, I see no reason to provide an amount of welfare for someone to live a fully independent comfortable life in their own place. When I was 19 I moved back to my folk's basement for two years to get my associate's degree; it wasn't the end of the world. I would like to just provide enough income so a person can figure out how to survive, if need be. If we can do it for around the same costs as we have now, why not?

If this was an actual solution...why are we paying out welfare? Because in America we only have so much ability to run people's lives and 'force' them to do anything without due process of the law. Poverty is not a crime.
 
Well, I'm throwing alternative ideas out here - I'm not an accountant or economist - but I'll try.

Firstly, I'd like to see what the aggregate current costs of our social programs entail, and see what the figure would be if it was amortized over all the majority aged adults, and start from there.

Who knows? The numbers may not add up. But they may.

It would be interesting to see what the numbers are.

They would come from the taxpayers. So you would take ONLY from the people that can pay and give it back to them AND the poor. Yet the 'flat fee' you give back would not be equal to their taxation...so some taxpayers would lose on the deal. Or be paying for themselves to get the income credit. And the poor would still be contributing nothing and getting $$$. (We call that welfare.)
 
If this was an actual solution...why are we paying out welfare? Because in America we only have so much ability to run people's lives and 'force' them to do anything without due process of the law. Poverty is not a crime.
Sorry, you lost me here ...
 
sure let them die in the streets and rob you blind....lol but believe it or not welfare is safer way to handle "certain types of people including all races" in the long run...but how about corporate welfare...also there are doctors out there with 100,000 dollar student debt owed but live in 2 million dollar homes and drive expensive cars ..and not even thinking of paying it back to the tax payers..at least they can!!!
 
They would come from the taxpayers. So you would take ONLY from the people that can pay and give it back to them AND the poor. Yet the 'flat fee' you give back would not be equal to their taxation...so some taxpayers would lose on the deal. Or be paying for themselves to get the income credit. And the poor would still be contributing nothing and getting $$$. (We call that welfare.)
Yes, that is the system we have now, and it's not working - this way we carry the same social obligation, but incentify moving off welfare, since there's no longer an incentive to not work due to income ceilings.

This isn't just welfare involved in this, I'm speaking of all social systems, including Social Security - workers can do far better investing their SS taxes in a 401K versus paying 8 or 16% to the feds & then waiting around for retiree SS benefits. And if they can't, won't, or screw-up? They learn to survive on the low base-income they (& we) all get.

The current system of welfare just isn't working, and is causing huge rifts in our society & country - basic income is an equitable solution for everyone that keeps income testing and social segregation out of the equation.
 
Sorry, you lost me here ...

Living with roomates is a nice personal solution but the govt doesnt legally have the ability to implement such solutions against the will of others.
 
Yes, that is the system we have now, and it's not working - this way we carry the same social obligation, but incentify moving off welfare, since there's no longer an incentive to not work due to income ceilings.

This isn't just welfare involved in this, I'm speaking of all social systems, including Social Security - workers can do far better investing their SS taxes in a 401K versus paying 8 or 16% to the feds & then waiting around for retiree SS benefits. And if they can't, won't, or screw-up? They learn to survive on the low base-income they (& we) all get.

The current system of welfare just isn't working, and is causing huge rifts in our society & country - basic income is an equitable solution for everyone that keeps income testing and social segregation out of the equation.

I know, I used "welfare" in a more general sense, my error...it was confusing. All govt entitlements is more what I meant. And SS isnt IMO, since people pay into that specifically (not that they get what they paid for out of it).

However what you described sounds much more expensive for the reasons I wrote.
 
I dont disagree with this. As a matter of fact, it is similar to what I would recommend, but no one on either side ever likes it:

--Require higher education/degrees for social workers...those that assess eligibility (or whoever it is). Pay them what their job is worth...a lot.
--Require very frequent and random home visits (now by motivated and qualified professionals).
--Create individual budgets for families and during home visits, review these and nail down where all the $$ goes. This is mostly to be helpful in teaching people to manage $ but also to keep track of abuses.
--This will also make sure that 'the children!!!!' are being properly fed and housed instead of having them used as emotional leverage. It's not perfect but will help.
--Restrict food stamps to ONLY necessities...but as much as they need. No candy, snacks, smokes, etc. THey can pay for those things with their own cash. No one is preventing them from 'buying' them. (Some ridiculous stuff is still allowed, I see it at the market)
--Require job training and job searches as criteria for checks and make sure this is covered under the more frequent oversite.
--Require they must take a job they are qualified for and if they want to do something different, then they have to sign off on the welfare.
--Provide free daycare. This can be provided by others that have applied for welfare.

And yes it would cost a fortune but the intent would be to stop the institutionalized abuse and then be able to regulated in the future more cheaply and practically, since there would be fewer dependents and less need. Break the cycle.

How about requiring recipients to get either a GED or HS diploma after x-amount of time? If they don't already have one, of course.
 
How about requiring recipients to get either a GED or HS diploma after x-amount of time? If they don't already have one, of course.

All such incentives and assistance to do so help, great to add to the list...but no one will take 'welfare' away from them...we've seen that. So it has to be something 'enforceable' with consequences.
 
I'd like to also add: Guaranteed Income removes the incentive for fathers to be out of the house as with the current welfare system. In fact, since all adults receive a base income, even if he's out of work there's every incentive to have him there. And even more incentive if he has a job!

And, as a father who was raised by a great father & an amazing grandfather - I can assure you this is a very good thing!

(it also does away with the SS "more money divorced than married" quandary for retirees)
 
I'd like to also add: Guaranteed Income removes the incentive for fathers to be out of the house as with the current welfare system. In fact, since all adults receive a base income, even if he's out of work there's every incentive to have him there. And even more incentive if he has a job!

And, as a father who was raised by a great father & an amazing grandfather - I can assure you this is a very good thing!

(it also does away with the SS "more money divorced than married" quandary for retirees)

That's a good incentive except that in practice, I dont think it matters. Without enough oversight, people just live together anyway. I dont think (male or female) parental involvement is quite that simple.
 
Living with roomates is a nice personal solution but the govt doesnt legally have the ability to implement such solutions against the will of others.
Yes, but quite honestly does our perceived social responsibility to provide food & shelter for our fellow Americans specify that one gets their own place? I don't believe it does (IMHO).

I know, I used "welfare" in a more general sense, my error...it was confusing. All govt entitlements is more what I meant. And SS isnt IMO, since people pay into that specifically (not that they get what they paid for out of it).

However what you described sounds much more expensive for the reasons I wrote.
Yeah, I really would like to get some numbers on all of this somehow.

But it strikes me as resolving a lot of the current system's issues.

We could remove the stigma of being "poor & on welfare" too, which is a good thing.

Edit: Sorry about getting the posts out-of-sync, somehow.
 
Last edited:
So in another words....private doctors are lying, they've falsified tests, diagnosis, etc....but government hired doctors won't? Their test results will be more accurate, yadda, yadda, yadda?

Lie, go to jail, loose licence. Hows that for a fix?
 
All such incentives and assistance to do so help, great to add to the list...but no one will take 'welfare' away from them...we've seen that. So it has to be something 'enforceable' with consequences.

We already take away "welfare" after a certain period of time, GED or not. :confused:
 
I dont disagree with this. As a matter of fact, it is similar to what I would recommend, but no one on either side ever likes it:

--Require higher education/degrees for social workers...those that assess eligibility (or whoever it is). Pay them what their job is worth...a lot.
--Require very frequent and random home visits (now by motivated and qualified professionals).
--Create individual budgets for families and during home visits, review these and nail down where all the $$ goes. This is mostly to be helpful in teaching people to manage $ but also to keep track of abuses.
--This will also make sure that 'the children!!!!' are being properly fed and housed instead of having them used as emotional leverage. It's not perfect but will help.
--Restrict food stamps to ONLY necessities...but as much as they need. No candy, snacks, smokes, etc. THey can pay for those things with their own cash. No one is preventing them from 'buying' them. (Some ridiculous stuff is still allowed, I see it at the market)
--Require job training and job searches as criteria for checks and make sure this is covered under the more frequent oversite.
--Require they must take a job they are qualified for and if they want to do something different, then they have to sign off on the welfare.
--Provide free daycare. This can be provided by others that have applied for welfare.

And yes it would cost a fortune but the intent would be to stop the institutionalized abuse and then be able to regulated in the future more cheaply and practically, since there would be fewer dependents and less need. Break the cycle.

I reject the "ONLY NECESSITIES" part of the proposal.

First, it's just cruel to dictate that THOSE PEOPLE don't deserve a nice thing now and again. They can buy those things "with their own cash?" If they had an awful lot of cash to spare, they wouldn't need help in the first place. It also doesn't appropriately account for the fact that sometimes those niceties are cheaper than you think. Manager's specials on steaks sometimes get you meat that's cheaper than frozen chicken strips or ground beef. SNAP already has a lot of restrictions on it. We don't need to devolve it to "you get two bowls of gruel a day and be happy!"
 
Interesting that you only single out the inner city welfare recipients.

But not accidental. There has been a campaign to target black welfare recipients.

"...Bob Herbert, a New York Times opinion columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater,[45] published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis, in which Atwater discussed the Southern strategy:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."...Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom