Conditional Cash Transfer = Welfare that works

Skyfloating

~Lucidity


In the long run, I bet you both these solutions would work better than what we have now. And whatever solutions we do try, we know some will fail.

Yeah, its about dignity and respect. And also self-respect among the poor. I wish we were rich enough to give everyone some "breathing room" such as free housing, but we`re not one of those oil-rich countries like the Arab ones or Norway where the Governments are really rich.

Like someone in that other thread said, the U.S. wealthy would feel better about being taxed highly if the welfare system were actually working.

edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

BS.

Its a matter of priorities.

a Few mill on a missle to bomb a tent in BFE, no problem.

A few hundred thousand to feed a school district? NO FING WAY THATS SOCLIASIM!!! RA RA LETS GO BOMB OTHER COUNTRIES, SEND OUR CHILDREN TO DIE ON FOREIGN SOIL AND ENFORCE OUR WILL ELSE WHERE WHILE WE NEGLECT THOSE SAME CHILDREN AT HOME.

Sorry, think I just had a Rage stroke...

reply to post by Skyfloating

But isn't it all about proportion? They also pay more in taxes. But they're happier. And being happier might be worth a lot.

And we're much smaller than say China or India, so is this going to continue to be even worse for them? Right now they barely even address the issues, right?

ketsuko
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

The problem is that if you are trying to have a country that prizes liberty, using this kind of system where you reward behavior by giving out condition welfare will almost always become a social engineering exercise. Look at the squawking when people try to link drug testing to welfare, and I am generally in favor of that.

If people want to burn up their lives on drugs, that's their business, but my tax dollars should not subsidize their bad behavior.

However, there are plenty, including libertarians (liberaltarians really), who cry foul at that and tell me to stop pushing my morals on them. Oh, and think of the children.

"Doing with out" is a lesson any human - not just the poor - can benefit from. Personally, when i was younger and didn't have much money, i was entirely happy just with a bed and some food. I`m not sure all these TV Sets, Drugs, Sugars, etc. are really that urgently necessary. Yes, link welfare to drug testing. People don't act unless they have an incentive to.

VoidHawk

No, its the most LIKELY scenario!

If you're going to Bash the idea, whats your alternative?

~Lucidity

But isn't it all about proportion? They also pay more in taxes. But they're happier. And being happier might be worth a lot.

And we're much smaller than say China or India, so is this going to continue to be even worse for them? Right now they barely even address the issues, right?

@You and the Poster Above You: Over-taxing those with more money doesn't work long term because they just take their Businesses elsewhere. ..to the great detriment of those overtaxing countries.

But if you're going to overtax the rich anyway, then at least show them that the money is being put to good use. The rich are reluctant to give money to causes that don't produce any change. Just like the poor need incentives, so do the rich.

So the REAL problem here, is that people in welfare tend to STAY in welfare. But the goal of welfare should be to help them get OUT of welfare. Just saying "lets make higher taxes" hasn't changed the problem. The problem remains the same no matter if the taxes are a bit lower or a bit higher. So give the poor incentives to move up.

Skyfloating

~Lucidity
Scandinavian countries run a bit like this. Time to get educated or raise your kids worry free. And they're happy there.

edit on 3/23/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

Scandinavian countries are smaller. Norway has Billions in oil-money and only a couple of Million inhabitants. Denmark is smaller than Maine. The Swedes are incredibly hard workers.

It works in those countries because they are small with mostly homogenous populations who have the cultural attitude that they are all in it together. Everyone works to put in so that they can take out.

Now, think about your average American ... Do you think all of us can work our butts off so that we can put in so that there will be enough for the others to take out? Yeah, thought so. There are too many grievance groups. Too many people who think that someone else has too much or is just waiting to put on over on us, so we better get all we can and grab it now and hang onto it.

And honestly, if you look at the newer generations in those socialist Utopias, they're starting to have the same attitudes that many Americans do, Why work to put in? It's there for me to take from. Someone else is working to put in.

reply to post by Skyfloating


The simply way to put this is that throwing more money at a problem is NOT a solution. It never has been. If it were, America would have the best educational system in the world and poverty would be a thing of the past.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Thats a pretty dark scenario there...worst case. Cant imagine either sides of the spectrum allowing that.

I´m looking into ways to alleviate poverty, not ways to tyrannize.

Yeah it's dark but the current powers give me no reason to think differently.

As far as alleviating poverty the CCT has validity to a point and the part about giving people breathing room once they pick themselves up is a good idea IMO.

Personally I can't believe the richest country on earth (supposedly) even has people in poverty at this point but we do. I'll make a blunt suggestion that will never happen. Dismantle most of the MIC, force/entice national companies to return jobs back home and setup national food/essential item banks across the nation (using MIC money) to provide for those who need it.

Sure there will always people who take advantage but nothing will change that. Not having to decide between food and new shoes for the kids frees up a lot of breathing room for parents and others strapped in poverty.

ketsuko

Skyfloating

~Lucidity
Scandinavian countries run a bit like this. Time to get educated or raise your kids worry free. And they're happy there.

edit on 3/23/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

Scandinavian countries are smaller. Norway has Billions in oil-money and only a couple of Million inhabitants. Denmark is smaller than Maine. The Swedes are incredibly hard workers.

It works in those countries because they are small with mostly homogenous populations who have the cultural attitude that they are all in it together. Everyone works to put in so that they can take out.

Now, think about your average American ... Do you think all of us can work our butts off so that we can put in so that there will be enough for the others to take out? Yeah, thought so. There are too many grievance groups. Too many people who think that someone else has too much or is just waiting to put on over on us, so we better get all we can and grab it now and hang onto it.

And honestly, if you look at the newer generations in those socialist Utopias, they're starting to have the same attitudes that many Americans do, Why work to put in? It's there for me to take from. Someone else is working to put in.

edit on 23-3-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

Simple flat tax, no exemptions.

Tax expenditure not income or production.

Knocks all that BS off, YOU spend money, you pay a tax, fair, equal, across the board.

Poor pay, rich pay, all pay equally.

Its really not hard to come up with sensible tax policy, we just come up with every excuse in the book not to as the current system benefits a select few.

What would be wrong with having people that receive assistance, if physically/mentally able, to work at something for what they get. Teach them a trade through a work program for what they receive. They would then have some skills to assist in pulling themselves out of poverty. If they are going to get assistance I wouldn't mind seeing extra $$ spent to teach them a skill and for daycare for the parents that need it.

At least it might encourage some to try harder and the work programs could take care of the some the issues that are being left undone due to budget cuts.

ketsuko

Skyfloating

~Lucidity
Scandinavian countries run a bit like this. Time to get educated or raise your kids worry free. And they're happy there.

edit on 3/23/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

Scandinavian countries are smaller. Norway has Billions in oil-money and only a couple of Million inhabitants. Denmark is smaller than Maine. The Swedes are incredibly hard workers.

It works in those countries because they are small with mostly homogenous populations who have the cultural attitude that they are all in it together. Everyone works to put in so that they can take out.

Now, think about your average American ... Do you think all of us can work our butts off so that we can put in so that there will be enough for the others to take out? Yeah, thought so. There are too many grievance groups. Too many people who think that someone else has too much or is just waiting to put on over on us, so we better get all we can and grab it now and hang onto it.

And honestly, if you look at the newer generations in those socialist Utopias, they're starting to have the same attitudes that many Americans do, Why work to put in? It's there for me to take from. Someone else is working to put in.

edit on 23-3-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I do not imply as if the cultures are not very different they are. Generally the society expects the stronger to help out the weak ones. They remain "strong" anyways. There is a huge difference in getting a private jet or getting another meal so not to starve. In that way, generally the society is more collective.

Although I do not say that everything is done for "others". Mostly paying the taxes is considered doing it for yourself, rather than others. It is like paying insurance. People do not care, whether somebody else is using the money or not. What matters is when they get in trouble, that they can get what they paid for. When you have paid the taxes, you know when you have health issues, you lose a job suddenly, you have child they are guaranteed a good education/they do not need issues if they themselves work hard etc. That relieves a lot of stress from the life and definitely adds to the happiness factor. People can look that the taxes are high and it seems as if the Scandinavians earned less, although it has to be considered that the salary might be a bit lower, although education costs as well as health care are something that are provided for the taxes.

I do not say these countries work much more than in US. Generally the work weeks are shorts on average (33.7 denmark, 33.9 Norway, 36.5 Sweden, 37.2 Finland). Although I believe the difference comes in the productivity. The education systems are stronger and free of charge for everybody, who can qualify the intelligence barrier. Private schools/universities are very rare. At work there is more productivity also due to being more healthy. The employee rights are strong and the universal healthcare covers existing problems. Also there is significantly less stress due to less worry about future.

In a way, at least certain benefit systems are very similar US ones, although the attitude towards the system is something where the cultural difference really comes in. When an American pays the taxes, they seem to believe they are doing it for others, for somebody else to come and take their money. When a Finn or Swede pays their taxes, they are doing it for themselves, they do not care who uses the taxes right now, but the fact that they have something to rely on, when SHTF. Of course I am not talking about everybody, but that is what the general attitudes towards the systems seem to me based on experience with these nations.

The system in here is also very left-leaned in that way. The benefits system works well, there is universal healthcare, free school lunches for kids, free higher education for the one´s who are smart enough to attend university etc. Right now I am not using the benefits system, but who knows what might happen in the future. Currently I´m healthy/fine, who knows what disease might I catch in the future. I personally got higher education, several degrees. Some people might not. Although for sure I know that when some day I have kids, I know whatever happens to me, they will get by the school day without starving and have the opportunity for getting a good higher education, if they work for it. (and there is 3 years of paid mother/father leave so in their early years me/my wife will have enough time to deal with them without huge financial issues the need to work double somewhere). That is what I am paying for. I am not doing it for others (of course it adds some incentive as well. I really do prefer a system which focuses an effort to help the poorer members of the society. At the end everybody is a human and people are born with different genes into different families), I am paying the taxes as an insurance just in case something happens in the future and I am happy that I have such guaranteed option rather than having to wait for the acceptance of some insurance company,who can also deny the coverage.


I like the conditional cash transfer idea. Something somewhat similar is also in effect round here, although in a way different. In order to receive the benefits one needs to show incentive that they want to get out of their situation, having to provide information that they are searching for jobs, have tried or just taken some extra trainings. The government provides many such trainings, especially for less-skilled people.

Well What a lot of compassionate Americans are posting (that's sarcasm by the way). MY tax dollars, MY tax dollars. They are not your tax dollars, you pay your tax and the money is then the gubmints to spend as they want. When you rein in your politicians to stop spending BILLIONS on arms and trying to police the world and spend a few millions on the poor people then you MIGHT have something to shout about. The first giant step you could take is every home that has been empty for more than 3 months(who-ever owns them) the local councils compulsory purchase them for a cent on the dollar (that's punishment for making a family homeless just for the dollar) and rent them to the homeless for part of their welfare. For the life of me I cannot comprehend why there are so many homeless yet properties stand empty. As for all those that say for them to get off their backsides to work (of course claiming that in their instance they worked hard and made a million) if the jobs are not there no-one can work. It's alright to preach from your ivory tower but it's said"there but for the grace of god go I ".

reply to post by Skyfloating


The key to people's well being should not be bottled and dangled in front of them in order to have them behave how we want.

More, the problem is not that people are unwilling to learn to fish, the problem is that the rivers edge is guarded by the greedy.

If you want to help someone who is impoverish, then teach them how to fish, and get out of the way -- you cannot block access to the river and cry for the hungry at the same time.

If you want to help, truly, then try to find a way to unlock the resources - do not try to find a way to hand people resources under certain conditions or only if they obey you or your ideal of perfection.

...not trying to be hard on you - just trying to help you see.

reply to post by Cabin


They still trust that just as they work hard to pay in so it's there for them, everyone else is doing the same. The system breaks down when people don't work hard to pay in but simply take because they figure the system is there for them. This is starting to happen in those countries. It is too late to instill that kind of ethic here. There are too many who figure the system is already here for them and they don't need to pay in.

crayzeed
Well What a lot of compassionate Americans are posting (that's sarcasm by the way). MY tax dollars, MY tax dollars. They are not your tax dollars, you pay your tax and the money is then the gubmints to spend as they want. When you rein in your politicians to stop spending BILLIONS on arms and trying to police the world and spend a few millions on the poor people then you MIGHT have something to shout about. The first giant step you could take is every home that has been empty for more than 3 months(who-ever owns them) the local councils compulsory purchase them for a cent on the dollar (that's punishment for making a family homeless just for the dollar) and rent them to the homeless for part of their welfare. For the life of me I cannot comprehend why there are so many homeless yet properties stand empty. As for all those that say for them to get off their backsides to work (of course claiming that in their instance they worked hard and made a million) if the jobs are not there no-one can work. It's alright to preach from your ivory tower but it's said"there but for the grace of god go I ".

They are my tax dollars. I pay taxes. The people who receive welfare do not.

I go grocery shopping plenty of times and get in line with people who wear designer clothes, are texting on smart phones with fancy nails, buy a cartload of expensive processed food, and push it into the parking lot to load it into a new Escalade or similar after they pay with an EBT.

I'm scraping by in a couple pairs of non-name brand jeans, a small flip phone, I take a calculator to keep our bill under $120 for the week, and we're loading up a 10-year-old Pontiac, but we're the bad guys because we make middle class money and pay taxes and want the EBT people to stop taking food off our table and understand the value of what they're receiving for no effort?

ketsuko
They are my tax dollars. I pay taxes. The people who receive welfare do not.

There are certain limits, aren´t there? At least based on Google, I found that certain time limits do exist. These people might not be paying now, although it is very likely they have worked/their parents have at least certain period before in their life, paid their taxes, and will work again/their kids will sooner or later. That is the whole point of the system. Paying in when you are not in trouble, so you would receive benefits, when you get into financial difficulties a´la lose your job and have to take a low-paying one. It is like insurance.

You do pay your taxes. And when you get into enough trouble financially some day, you can also receive the welfare... Who cares, who uses it right now, what matters is that you get it when you need it. That is how insurance systems work. I highly doubt your monthly insurance is put to some special account and held there. It is used for paying for the ones who are currently having health issues. If you get sick and it is covered by the insurance policy, you will receive what you paid for.

I go grocery shopping plenty of times and get in line with people who wear designer clothes, are texting on smart phones with fancy nails, buy a cartload of expensive processed food, and push it into the parking lot to load it into a new Escalade or similar after they pay with an EBT.

That is probably rather an exception than a rule. For every such person there are several others who could not even survive without the benefits. Every system which involves money will have frauds, there is nothing to stop it. Are the few frauds worth enough to punish the ones who actually do need it... One of the most absurd ideas I heard recently was the mandatory drug testing. On paper, of course it looks good, although considering the costs of drug tests, it could easily result with even lower benefits for the ones in true need, even despite the drug users being weeded out.

I'm scraping by in a couple pairs of non-name brand jeans, a small flip phone, I take a calculator to keep our bill under $120 for the week, and we're loading up a 10-year-old Pontiac, but we're the bad guys because we make middle class money and pay taxes and want the EBT people to stop taking food off our table and understand the value of what they're receiving for no effort?

I am sorry you are not doing that well financially, although at least look it at the point if thing went far worse, you would have at least something to rely on... You are not paying for the current receivers, but for yourself, in case you need it some day. That is how the collective pot works. Although the benefits are not that high at the end and below minimum wage.

I would suggest you though getting some brand jeans(save up for it). At least when it comes to tools or clothes, not real designer (one season brands), often higher cost equals longer lifetime. My Lloyds 300 dollars shoes have lasted for 7 years already and still as new, while 100 dollar ones usually barely last for a year. 150 dollars jeans usually last at least 4 times longer than the 50 dollar cheapest ones. At the end the proverb : "I am too poor to afford cheap things" has its back. Quality items, if you know how to evaluate the quality of them, can last times longer than non-quality items and eventually save the money.