Alternative solutions for Welfare, Social Security, Food stamps

a reply to: onequestion

Perhaps one solution is to reign in corporate welfare and tax share trades which will a) force the rich to pay their fair share of tax because they wont be able to avoid the tax and b) raise plenty of money for welfare for individuals.

I'm more inclined to believe that our Governments don't really care about the unemployed, those on welfare etc
even though they all pay tax (sales tax, GST etc) the Govt doesn't get to hit them with tax on their income or other assets, so all they are really getting is a small refund of what they already paid out.
(all Tax really is is a transfer of money from one part of society to another)
I doubt that unemployment is overly affected by Education, I've met unemployed scholars that held Master's Degrees.
I believe that upbringing and social placement affects employment options, in a Not what you know, but Who you know way.
I'm more inclined to think that placement of infrastructure, of supply and demand has an important role, like being in a farming area during fruit picking season, there's a need for workers whenever the season comes around.
But what happens when they have too many workers ? people have to move on to another area with a demand for them.
When it comes to living in a large city, it's no different, there are only so many jobs to go around, but the problem is, too many people are not willing to leave their "home base" and the longer they refuse to do that, the harder things get.
"Oh, but they live in the city because of the resources that are there, but lacking elsewhere....."
The thing is, if they moved to other places, more resources would usually come into being for them due to the population growth, more income being put into the region, more infrastructure allowing expansion etc.......
once again, supply and demand.

hope this post isn't too fuzzy, it's after 1am here and I'm not fully functional.

meh, I need to learn to go to bed earlier, lol

The work house

In England, Wales and Ireland (but not in Scotland[1]) a poorhouse was more commonly known as a workhouse. In early Victorian times (see Poor Law), poverty was seen as a dishonorable state. As depicted by Charles Dickens, a workhouse could resemble a reformatory, often housing whole families, or a penal labour regime giving manual work to the indigent and subjecting them to physical punishment. At a workhouse, men and women were split up with no communication between them.

originally posted by: onequestion
So I get caught between the idea of responsibility and a persons role within the community. I understand that in order to change your life that you need to understand what your doing wrong and correct that action. I also believe that there are times that no matter what you do you need to seek help from the community.

I don't think our current social programs really help people get on their feet. They are more like support systems. What we need is to enable individuals to create their own business's. Maybe we could create programs that eliminate taxes on small business's and fund small smaller business's for individuals with no resources rather then pay wealth-fare.

This will eliminate the lazyness from the system. We can then help people get what they need to survive themselves and make their own choices.

Why aren't we doing this as a nation for ourselves?

Stronger communities create stronger people. We need to work together and we need to do it in a way that works.

You make a good point. I agree with your feelings on this. What makes this so difficult is that many on benefits would not be able to run their own businesses, they can barely run their own lives. For someone that cannot hold down a job at McDonalds to be able to run their own business is a non starter.

As someone who works for my county human services, I see this first hand. People have many barriers to holding down any job. Many cannot manage their finances or their family. There are agencies that work with this population, and it's a long road. You have multi generations on food stamps. These people will not have the motivation to run their own business.

I don't know what the answer is. I just know that this will continue to be a problem for a long time.

Maybe welfare should go to create an alternative to what is today the only game in town, free market capitalism. I think a lot of people on this site understand that the race for more and more of everything is just not suitable for some people. Instead of demonizing people who can’t or don’t want to conform to these ideals, maybe we should encourage an alternative system for them.

I’m sure there would be many ideas on what this system would look like, but it would seem to me that a basic component would be a slowed down version of life. A life without the whizz bang technological advances of the last few decades. An experimental model of a more sustainable existence.

We could find that quite a few people might rather try a hands on life of working the soil, growing and managing a more thoughtful consumption.

Now we understand from past experiments that most people don’t take to well to being handed a shovel and told to grow some potatoes. This usually results in failure. But it just may be possible that a subsidized effort that would allow people to experiment with a way of life that encourages creativity and self sufficiency along with some very hard but rewarding work would be a reasonable alternative to a welfare system that strips the participants of dignity and any sense of accomplishment.

I’m not talking about a prison farm where all benefits and accumulations would go to feed the system that is dominate today. No, this would be a way of living outside the system. A new enterprise with a goal different from the accumulation of money. A nursery of sorts for the development of crafts and skills that would afford it’s participants a secure way of living. Life on the farm or in the commons just may bring some solid foundation for mankind to experience and enjoy this wondrous planet instead of treating it like a one use product which seems to be the pursuit of our current system.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TzarChasm

This isn't about fixing the budget. It's about how to change the social programs so that they actually work to their stated purpose rather than simply being a bit bottomless put from which there is no escape.

I will say this. You find way to dig the people who could be productive out of the hole and break the cycle of poverty for them and their posterity, and you a HUGE potential pool of taxpayers, present and future. That would have an impact on the budget.

or tell the military to stop wasting our tax dollars on bankers' wars in the name of democracy and anti-terrorism.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I got a solution get a job u lazy bums I been working since I was 10 and now I'm 42! Don't be afraid to grab a hammer,screwdriver,rake ,broom,or shovel these are all tools that will make u money!

originally posted by: tiberius10721
a reply to: TzarChasm

I got a solution get a job u lazy bums I been working since I was 10 and now I'm 42! Don't be afraid to grab a hammer,screwdriver,rake ,broom,or shovel these are all tools that will make u money!

speaking of tools...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TonyS

Hello Eugenics ...

May not be necessary; saw news reports today that the Elites are working to push the world into a war with Russia over Ukraine.

I hear death is a good alternative. I also hear a totalitarian state is a good alternative. I meant to be dark about what I wrote. Maybe someone who's on the fence will see it. Maybe a few will. Then it won't get that bad.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: onequestion

Workfare.

20 hours a week at the recycle center, daycare, whatever.

At least have some return on the crutch.

Here's the problem with this: What do you pay the people? The typical $700/month people get now would come out to $8.07/hour. It's the creation of very low wage jobs. What of the people with children? That wage doesn't pay enough for them to even justify working rather than being home.

On top of that, if we add more workers that are being paid this low wage what of the people who are already employed in those jobs? They'll either face their own wages declining sometimes significantly, or they'll simply be out of a job in favor of the alternative "free" labor.

a reply to: tiberius10721

kinda hard to fit 1.2 Million+ people into 150k jobs (that's about the ratio here in Australia at the moment) they quote that it's only 700k unemployed, but they class someone working for 1hr per month as Employed in their statistics.
Even trying to fit 700k people into 150k jobs is impossible, yet people seem to think it's possible, I guess more people fail at basic numeracy that I thought, many of them have never been out of work or out of money, it's hard for them to understand that in the ??yrs since they first looked for work, the world has changed dramatically.

Something they have here in France that I found cool is- you can choose to get your unemployment that you've earned all in one or two payments, (a lump sum) in order to start a business. Then, for the first two years, your business is exempt from most of the taxes, to help you get it on it's feet.

But also, I suspect it is a mistake to take away the aid once someone gets a job. Because that encourages them to not get a job, considering entry level wages are so hard to live on. It should decline in amount as you make more income, but not be cut off completely as soon as you are employed.

Just my two cents.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Something they have here in France that I found cool is- you can choose to get your unemployment that you've earned all in one or two payments, (a lump sum) in order to start a business. Then, for the first two years, your business is exempt from most of the taxes, to help you get it on it's feet.

But also, I suspect it is a mistake to take away the aid once someone gets a job. Because that encourages them to not get a job, considering entry level wages are so hard to live on. It should decline in amount as you make more income, but not be cut off completely as soon as you are employed.

Just my two cents.

That's a neat idea, but it would never go over in the US. Taxing a job creator so his employee can be given that money and build a competing business?

The media and the right would absolutely destroy this idea.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Bluesma
Something they have here in France that I found cool is- you can choose to get your unemployment that you've earned all in one or two payments, (a lump sum) in order to start a business. Then, for the first two years, your business is exempt from most of the taxes, to help you get it on it's feet.

But also, I suspect it is a mistake to take away the aid once someone gets a job. Because that encourages them to not get a job, considering entry level wages are so hard to live on. It should decline in amount as you make more income, but not be cut off completely as soon as you are employed.

Just my two cents.

That's a neat idea, but it would never go over in the US. Taxing a job creator so his employee can be given that money and build a competing business?

The media and the right would absolutely destroy this idea.

No, no... you pay into unemployment, that adds up with time, if you lose your job, you only get as much as you paid in.

But if you have been working for many years, that can sometimes be a substantial amount. I worked for three years and collected enough to start my own business.

Though I don't remember how it works in the US- do employers pay into unemployment savings for their employees?

originally posted by: Bluesma
Something they have here in France that I found cool is- you can choose to get your unemployment that you've earned all in one or two payments, (a lump sum) in order to start a business. Then, for the first two years, your business is exempt from most of the taxes, to help you get it on it's feet.

But also, I suspect it is a mistake to take away the aid once someone gets a job. Because that encourages them to not get a job, considering entry level wages are so hard to live on. It should decline in amount as you make more income, but not be cut off completely as soon as you are employed.

Just my two cents.

This is what I was saying. The current system is all or nothing. It should be truly means tested so as to wean people off. Your aid declines as your means to support yourself increases until one day ... you aren't receiving any because you are carrying all your own weight.

Currently, the system cuts you off 100% if you just make a few dollars too much and the impact of losing that much can be catastrophic.

originally posted by: Bluesma
No, no... you pay into unemployment, that adds up with time, if you lose your job, you only get as much as you paid in.

But if you have been working for many years, that can sometimes be a substantial amount. I worked for three years and collected enough to start my own business.

Though I don't remember how it works in the US- do employers pay into unemployment savings for their employees?

I see. It's different in the US. There's an unemployment fund but regular people don't pay into it. It's paid for by your employer, though the alternative viewpoint is that while your employer is signing the check it's really just wages that weren't put on your paycheck instead. In theory our unemployment benefits last for much less time but after 2008 everything went to hell and benefits were massively extended. I don't know their current status.

Either way, I like the idea but it wouldn't work in the US because the amount each person can/will collect is highly variable.

This is just a general reply I wanted to write down somewhere.

There was a time when business and government tended to balance each other, one on each side of a scale. Each would keep the other in line to some degree with the voters help, things would swing one way or the other according to the time and progress for all was gradual.

Now business and government are on the same side of the scale, either by design or not, with the citizen's of the US on the other. Not to balanced when the weight is all on one side of the scales. The voters are not important now in this era of fascism - because that is what fascism is - a collusion of business and government at the expense of everyone else (people, families, communities, small business, any one that doesn't fit the mold....).

A minimum guaranteed income would allow people to pursue those activities that inspire and excite them if they didn't mind a very minimal lifestyle which should be their choice. People would not have to live their lives and make decisions based on fear. People that want 'stuff' could still pursue what ever their hearts desire and those whos desires are less material could as well which would benefit society as a whole in numberous ways.

Take fear of poverty out of the equation and you deflate all manner of crime, hatred and agression along with other societal manifestations of fear and the attendent costs.

There's an old SciFi book from the seventies called "The Peter Pan Bag" or somesuch that introduced me to the idea and I believe that the Star Trek federated planets worked on such a basis.

Changing the tax system and introducing an universal entitlement could bring this about.
When I say an universal entitlement it is not means tested - everyone gets it. Give everyone a plastic card that has a weekly credit that can pay their basic groceries & rent nothing more. No cash and limit the use for just food and home basics. And change the tax mix to pay for it - wondering what problems or solutions people think this might offer?

Would unemployment get worse?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

There was a time when business and government tended to balance each other, one on each side of a scale. Each would keep the other in line to some degree with the voters help, things would swing one way or the other according to the time and progress for all was gradual.

Now business and government are on the same side of the scale, either by design or not, with the citizen's of the US on the other.

This is something I perceive too and find relevant. The government, once held to be ideally "of the people, for the people" seems to have been bought out by big business. My sense is that it is because the people were bought out by big business, so the government followed?

We became enamored with the whole idea of becoming rich CEO's, and gave them our power, and our government.
There is no balancing force, they are untouchable, in a sense.

I often, when describing what I learn and observe of France, have to make it clear, that although there is a strong "socialist" force in government, it is a capitalist economy- it seems many people do not make any distinction between the two- they cannot co-exist. (I guess that is just because we think in terms of pure theoretical systems, which don't really exist anywhere in reality).

Someone else wrote here-

Maybe welfare should go to create an alternative to what is today the only game in town, free market capitalism. I think a lot of people on this site understand that the race for more and more of everything is just not suitable for some people. Instead of demonizing people who can’t or don’t want to conform to these ideals, maybe we should encourage an alternative system for them.

There is the "private sector" and the "public sector" here, and people who work in the public sector (from what I have seen, having an experience in it for the last two years) are of this sort. They don't dream of being rich, they do not have that ambition. They just want to get up each day and do their job, and have a roof over their heads, food on their plate, and their loved ones at the table. That is enough for them.

I spent many years working in the private sector, as an employee and then as a business owner, and it didn't differ from what I saw in the US. People with ambition, and striving to do more, be more, all the time. More individualistic types.

I kinda like the idea that both ways of living and being can find a place in the same nation, and have a value?
These two sectors seem to have a balancing action upon each other too- the private sector does put a certain amount of pressure upon the private one- those ambitious individuals have to press back to get ahead. But ... that is their nature anyway! To face challenges and overcome!

It becomes "me against the collective" in essence, which increases their sense of individuality that they like. The government remains "the people" (plural) and though it does limit slightly the power of big business, it also gives the people who are not made for ambition a constructive role in the society.

Because the public sector is in competition with the private, it gets pressure to upkeep it's quality of service and production too, to stay in the game. For example, private and public hospitals (what I am most familiar with) the private ones cost more, and if the quality was much better, they would get the most patients. But often that is not the case. I chose a private one to have my babies (still instilled with the american propaganda at that time, I assumed it would be better). I was wrong. My daughter is going to have a baby now, and is trying to decide which to go to, and from all evidence we can gather, the quality of care is better from every angle in the public hospital.


I do not mean to say that this country is "better" than the US, I am just always looking for ways each country could possibly benefit from each other, or observe differences we could be inspired by. I find this separation, which looked somewhat schizo to me at first, to actually be an interesting force of checks and balancing...