Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Absolutely not. Every man/woman for themselves.
Negative income tax instead.
Yea but so many people would just drain the system.
The welfare state . . . what an unholy mess.
The currant form of welfare as practiced in the USA does nothing but promote laziness and create a growing population totally dependent on the state welfare dole for their meager existence. It is nothing less than Socialism in its worst form.
Instead of a state handout, we need to make it a helping hand. No work, no pay. That should be only for a limited time only, and I am sure that the so-called experts could figure out how long it should take to get one motivated to go out and get a real job.
That i just my not-so-humble opinion.
Do you even know what a negative income tax is?
Not entirely. What do they pay you based on the income you have.
You scrap welfare and forms of transfer payments. People below a certain level of income receive cash instead of paying tax, in a progressively increasing amount below that level of income. It's a flat tax above that rate.
This, unfortunately, results in a European style system where inefficient workers can be paid a modest poverty level income to live and (generally) not work, while everyone else's wages and productivity will tend to go up. But the highlight is that it removes perverse disincentives from people who would otherwise take better jobs and more income but cannot because they would lose substantial state benefits of say, SCHIP or food stamps, which is in effect the current problem with welfare. People recognize the value of state aid especially when they are right up against its limitations. The disincentives against work are the same as they are now but only apply under an NIT system for people who are actually indolent or incapable of working from some physical or mental defect. If the incentives are simple instead of forcing trade-offs of things you value at present, make more money vs pay for my kid's health complications, then most of the time, people will choose to make more money. They will also generally better spend it in a way they actually want instead of us telling them "this is how much you get for food, this is for medicines, this for housing" and so on.
I could care less about any problems they have meeting those basic obligations if they then go out and blow this money on strippers or booze. But your mileage may vary. Most people tend to like helping poverty so it benefits us generally to have some sort of state aid as someone like me who won't is essentially free riding on the people who would. I too am benefited by the alleviation of suffering and poverty, just less willing to actually do something for it (aside from figuring out why people are poor in the first place). I prefer giving money to making paternalistic choices and assumptions if we're forced to do something useful for others.
Do you think this will happen sometime in the near future?
lol that is not what this nation was founded on.
I don't mind offering a small and limited safety net, but our current welfare system is, as papadawg stated, an unholy mess. I agree with all that he said as far as that goes.
No. But it's still a better idea than getting rid of welfare entirely.
Count me in too!
Holy crap! There is no Santa Clause!
I think the system has improved over the years, but still needs more work. You can't have money easily given out like that.
No. It's actually not a good idea at all Sun Tzu.
The problem is that many voters are welfare recipients. The politician who takes away welfare will have a low approval rating and will not get re-elected.
Because… ?
"Many". How about "all".