Bush's New Plan- Get Rid of Welfare

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Aazadan

Mandatory birth control.

We have a nation of welfare addicts that breed like cockroaches on someone else's dime.

Stop the idiocracy.

So what's the minimum income to have children? What if you make it for one child but not 2? Do you pick one that gets to die?

By proper financial standards a 1 bedroom can't even be afforded anywhere in the US for less than $20/hour without taking too much of your income. That's 40k/year. Children need a 2 bedroom at minimum, that's pushing it to $30/hour. Would you support no kids for anyone below 60k/year?

Bush's New Plan- Get Rid of Welfare

Jeb Bush probably has more support from liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans.

Seriously.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: luthier

I really like your ideas.
I don't think welfare as we know it should exist.
If there is a guaranteed minimum income then everyone collecting should owe X number of hours work to the state. Provide day care (more work for people on welfare) so people can do work or job training.
Apprentice those with aptitude and find manual labor for those with no skills.
We need to start community gardens so fresh, healthy food is available to people of all incomes.
Most infrastructure projects require a great deal of manual labor, put people to work on those.
Collecting money for doing nothing is inherently wrong.
Only those truly disabled or too old should be exempted though even they can probably contribute in some fashion.

Bravo to you for providing valuable service to your community.

Government should be about empowering people, not creating dependents of them.

Agree. Not to mention crime goes way up when people don't feel part of the society.

originally posted by: Aazadan

The simplified example I use is this example. You buy $3 sandwiches for $2 each so $6 spent. The following year you can only buy 2 sandwiches at $3 each so again $6. Under the old system this is seen as 50% inflation because the item went from $2 to $3 but under our current system it's marked at 0% inflation because $6 were spent in both years.

Yep another thing to get fixed as people see their true out of pocket cost to live goes up 25% but the Government says it was only 2.3% increase.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The problem is many want "good wages" for crap jobs. Good jobs equal good wages period. It seems like people are fine with low end jobs as long as those jobs pay well beyond their worth. We will see in the restaurant business this year a lot more of them going to a no server model to reduce employees. You will have like one person managing a string of Kiosk to order from and then you pick up your food when it is done. So you have 1 ordering person a couple of table cleaners and cooking staff that you pay more but 1/2 the normal number of employees. The wages will still not be good at 13.00 or so per hour.

We did it in the past. Minimum wage in 1955 had the same purchasing power as 40k/year today.

originally posted by: luthier
You can't add 15k to children. It's for adults so first off half your number. There are 158 million adults.

What is the number we spend on all social programs. SS and medacare alone are 1 trillion.

You have to account for children too, maybe not at the full value but they cost money. They need food, shelter, education needs, and so on. You're not raising a kid properly on a $15k basic income, but if that kid is also worth say $7500 to cover their expenses it's much more doable.

SS and Medicare wouldn't disappear with a basic income. What would be eliminated is most food stamps and most programs like TANF, disability, and so on but all of those only drop the amount by 800 billion or so. You're still looking at doubling revenues at a minimum in order to pay for it.

Maybe if they take the 6.5 million old people of Social Security that would help.

Old People on SS

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The problem is many want "good wages" for crap jobs. Good jobs equal good wages period. It seems like people are fine with low end jobs as long as those jobs pay well beyond their worth. We will see in the restaurant business this year a lot more of them going to a no server model to reduce employees. You will have like one person managing a string of Kiosk to order from and then you pick up your food when it is done. So you have 1 ordering person a couple of table cleaners and cooking staff that you pay more but 1/2 the normal number of employees. The wages will still not be good at 13.00 or so per hour.

We did it in the past. Minimum wage in 1955 had the same purchasing power as 40k/year today.

originally posted by: luthier
You can't add 15k to children. It's for adults so first off half your number. There are 158 million adults.

What is the number we spend on all social programs. SS and medacare alone are 1 trillion.

You have to account for children too, maybe not at the full value but they cost money. They need food, shelter, education needs, and so on. You're not raising a kid properly on a $15k basic income, but if that kid is also worth say $7500 to cover their expenses it's much more doable.

SS and Medicare wouldn't disappear with a basic income. What would be eliminated is most food stamps and most programs like TANF, disability, and so on but all of those only drop the amount by 800 billion or so. You're still looking at doubling revenues at a minimum in order to pay for it.

No the minimum income is for adults. Not children. And yes medicare and social security would go. Thats the whole point of the guaranteed income. As would food stamps and all welfare. The only real question is how to deal with medical.

Why would you get a guaranteed income and social security? The guaranteed income is social security. There would be a time the older payins would need to be compensated if they payef more but there is no need for social security, food stamps, and welfare with a guaranteed income of 15k. You may need to rent a house with more than one person and combine incomes but that's part of responsibility. A crappy 15k job with an extra 15 k is a much better deal than the poor get right now.

originally posted by: luthier
No the minimum income is for adults. Not children. And yes medicare and social security would go. Thats the whole point of the guaranteed income. As would food stamps and all welfare. The only real question is how to deal with medical.

Why would you get a guaranteed income and social security? The guaranteed income is social security. There would be a time the older payins would need to be compensated if they payef more but there is no need for social security, food stamps, and welfare with a guaranteed income of 15k. You may need to rent a house with more than one person and combine incomes but that's part of responsibility. A crappy 15k job with an extra 15 k is a much better deal than the poor get right now.

Removing SS and replacing it with a minimum income would represent an income drop for those who are retired, it would seriously screw up their retirement plans. You could take the difference and phase it in over 30 years so that people aren't affected right now, but that still means that atleast initially you would be leaving SS fully intact, only reducing it by a little bit each year. Even with all this you're still looking at 3 trillion annually, and that still means large tax increases.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
No the minimum income is for adults. Not children. And yes medicare and social security would go. Thats the whole point of the guaranteed income. As would food stamps and all welfare. The only real question is how to deal with medical.

Why would you get a guaranteed income and social security? The guaranteed income is social security. There would be a time the older payins would need to be compensated if they payef more but there is no need for social security, food stamps, and welfare with a guaranteed income of 15k. You may need to rent a house with more than one person and combine incomes but that's part of responsibility. A crappy 15k job with an extra 15 k is a much better deal than the poor get right now.

Removing SS and replacing it with a minimum income would represent an income drop for those who are retired, it would seriously screw up their retirement plans. You could take the difference and phase it in over 30 years so that people aren't affected right now, but that still means that atleast initially you would be leaving SS fully intact, only reducing it by a little bit each year. Even with all this you're still looking at 3 trillion annually, and that still means large tax increases.

Your not making much sense. Where is this 3 trillion increase? Show me your math.

You can also not give guaranteed income to people who's ss is a higher payout than the GI until its gone. Your numbers don't add up.


We currently spend 3.5 trillion so you are saying the GI would cost 6.5.

No.

Having read the article, there are a few things that can be stated:

I will never like Jeb Bush, for his actions while as governor in Florida. But putting that aside, there are several things that is both good and bad on this:

By cutting all of the programs at once, will create a bigger crisis than what there is already. Nothing ever goes as plan, and rather than one day stopping it all, it would be better to try it in a few states, finding the states that have the largest fewest number of recipients, and do a test case.
Bush fails to take into account some of the problems with those who receive welfare, so states would have to increase the number of services to get them that assistance and keep them on such while they are working to become self-sufficient.
He is correct about the needs of one group is often ignored in favor of another group.
Ultimately, the thing that makes this suspect is that like most republicans, they tend to beat the war drums, and take from programs like social security to pay for the military and to shore up the budget when such programs should be left alone.

However, if he really was serious about such, then the other part of that, and it should go hand in hand with the cuts, should be job creation, skill training, and raising of the base min wage to off set the lack of public assistance. Assisting single parents with things like child care would go along way to ensuring that the parent is capable of working those odd hours.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Having read the article, there are a few things that can be stated:

I will never like Jeb Bush, for his actions while as governor in Florida. But putting that aside, there are several things that is both good and bad on this:

By cutting all of the programs at once, will create a bigger crisis than what there is already. Nothing ever goes as plan, and rather than one day stopping it all, it would be better to try it in a few states, finding the states that have the largest fewest number of recipients, and do a test case.
Bush fails to take into account some of the problems with those who receive welfare, so states would have to increase the number of services to get them that assistance and keep them on such while they are working to become self-sufficient.
He is correct about the needs of one group is often ignored in favor of another group.
Ultimately, the thing that makes this suspect is that like most republicans, they tend to beat the war drums, and take from programs like social security to pay for the military and to shore up the budget when such programs should be left alone.

However, if he really was serious about such, then the other part of that, and it should go hand in hand with the cuts, should be job creation, skill training, and raising of the base min wage to off set the lack of public assistance. Assisting single parents with things like child care would go along way to ensuring that the parent is capable of working those odd hours.

Yes well said.

Though the democrats are no better at long term planning. The social programs they create are often either poorly thought out logistically or poorly thought out politically (meaning they get hammered by Republicans)

Neither side really seams to care about the reality on the ground.

originally posted by: luthier
Your not making much sense. Where is this 3 trillion increase? Show me your math.

You can also not give guaranteed income to people who's ss is a higher payout than the GI until its gone. Your numbers don't add up.

We currently spend 3.5 trillion so you are saying the GI would cost 6.5.

No.

We're going to have to agree on the need for counting children income. If you don't give the money directly to the child you'll need to give it to their parent. Part of a basic income working is contingent on the idea that people have the freedom to not work but still cover food and rent. You can't do that on a basic income with a child, which locks those people into working, which removes any benefit you would have in being able to eliminate the minimum wage with such an income.

Lets look at the numbers for population demographics.
en.wikipedia.org...
Age 0-19 is 83,267,556 people.
Age 20-64 is 185,209,998 people.
Age 65+ is 40,267,984 people.

So lets say 0-19 is getting 50% for cost of living, working age is getting 100%, and 65+ is getting 0% because Social Security is already providing that, and we can just shift the source of the money.

That comes to $3,402,656,640,000 that's 3.4 trillion. Even if you ignore children it's 2.77 trillion. Federal revenues are currently at $3.5 trillion. Adding another 3.4 trillion or even 2.77 trillion means doubling taxes in order to raise those revenues. So we're looking at a budget of somewhere between 6.3 and 6.9 trillion, just to keep things simple lets split the difference and call it 6.6 trillion.

Last comes what a basic income would allow us to cut. Social Security can be ignored because I'm not counting basic income for that age group in the first place. The main thing we would be able to cut is the ~16% of the budget that goes towards non medical welfare spending which is around 600 billion. So we could reduce the budget to 6 trillion.

I like the idea but make no mistake, it would require a lot of taxes that people just don't want to pay.

If I'm making a mistake in these numbers and it wouldn't cost this much, please show me where there's an error.

originally posted by: Aazadan

We did it in the past. Minimum wage in 1955 had the same purchasing power as 40k/year today.

How do you figure when 1 dollar in 1955 is under 7 bucks an hour today. 1969 was at the highest with a little over 10 bucks an hour today. What does it take to buy a $22,000 house in 1955? One thing to think about is much of the increased cost is that we keep getting bigger and more advance. In 1955 a 1300 sqft house was about the norm, today that is 2600 or more. Same with cars in what they provided us in 1955 compare to today.

You have to account for children too, maybe not at the full value but they cost money. They need food, shelter, education needs, and so on. You're not raising a kid properly on a $15k basic income, but if that kid is also worth say $7500 to cover their expenses it's much more doable.

Why do we need to account for children? I pay you a wage based on you doing a job, not you and what it cost to raise your 5 kids... If you can not afford kids do not have them, this is not the business problem to pay more.

This brings up a good point, America is about the only country that sees a living wage equal to one person living all on their own, all by themselves as if privacy is a right and not a luxury. Go to Japan and you do not have our 2600 Ft house you have like a 1600 ft house with Grand Parents, their kids, their kids kids all under one roof. 10 to 15 people all sharing a 1600 ft house. All helping in the cost of living, and this is a rather normal situation outside the US.

The way I see it, if you can not afford kids do not have them. If you can not afford to live on your own you better find roommates/family to create synergy. This 40k living wage minimum has too many privileges involved in the equation.

Decent jobs are gone to offshore and won't be coming back. Only remedy is to quit buying from these big companies and go back to small business. Gonna have to give up convenience and some things to rebuild a base for people to make a decent living. I suspect the people won't do it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How do you figure when 1 dollar in 1955 is under 7 bucks an hour today. 1969 was at the highest with a little over 10 bucks an hour today. What does it take to buy a $22,000 house in 1955? One thing to think about is much of the increased cost is that we keep getting bigger and more advance. In 1955 a 1300 sqft house was about the norm, today that is 2600 or more. Same with cars in what they provided us in 1955 compare to today.

Those inflation numbers you're using to compare 1 dollar in 1955 to 7 dollars today are based on CPI. CPI determines the official inflation rate and from there everything like adjustments in pay and loan rates are figured. Because of the restructuring of CPI in the early 80's we've been advancing pay at one rate while the cost of goods has been advancing at another.

What you need to do is factor the change over time in minutes of work to buy something. Believe it or not, food is the one sector where things have held steady (and if you use recent prices, gas is currently extremely cheap). Land, homes, entertainment, and so on all require more minutes of work to purchase now than they did back then.

You also have to take productivity into account, that's a metric that has only been tracked since the mid 80's but since then it's gone up 2.5 times. The same effort that went into building a widget or 1300 sqft house in 1985 could build 2.5 widgets or a 3250 sqft house now. However, despite this increased productivity which should be increasing the supply of everything and therefore lowering prices that's not happening which is due to the wage stagnation caused by CPI.

There's also a second factor at work that the 50's didn't have to contend with which was the state of the world economy after WW2, but given productivity increases we should still be able to match that, or 1967, even 1979 would be an improvement.

Why do we need to account for children? I pay you a wage based on you doing a job, not you and what it cost to raise your 5 kids... If you can not afford kids do not have them, this is not the business problem to pay more.

What I was referring to was a basic income not a wage for doing labor such as what Norway does. With a basic income we would be able to eliminate the minimum wage and unions letting the market determine everything while also giving workers more negotiating power as they would have the freedom to not work but that's a separate issue.

a reply to: Aazadan

if everyone received a check for a guarenteed income, then the businesses could lower their wages significantly, and they'd be making much more profit. it would be like the first $15,000 would be given unconditionally, weather you work or not. then well, mc donalds might decide to lower their wage down to two or three dollars an hour, and well, their employees would gripe because they would be getting more from the gov't regardless. and well, those companies who higher engineers, and other high market valued employees could also reduce their wages without much griping and well, their employees would still make out. therefore, I suggest that the companies take on a larger part of the tax burden of this plan not so much so that they lose all of the advantages of the plan, but maybe 50% of the projected net savings involved in it.
and well, all those able bodied workers out there who aren't working should be required to report to the employment commission every so often and see if their skills match up to any paid or voluntary positions that might be available if need be. But, considering that most of the position will still have a least a little bit of a wage being paid on top of the guaranteed income, I don't really think it would be needed much.

They already get it just the people are DEAD OK .Dead people getting checks

originally posted by: Aazadan

You also have to take productivity into account, that's a metric that has only been tracked since the mid 80's but since then it's gone up 2.5 times. The same effort that went into building a widget or 1300 sqft house in 1985 could build 2.5 widgets or a 3250 sqft house now. However, despite this increased productivity which should be increasing the supply of everything and therefore lowering prices that's not happening which is due to the wage stagnation caused by CPI.

I understand but for houses it is pretty much the same widgets used, and so a 1500 sq ft today would be about 120k based on 80 per foot, much less in other parts of the country, and only about 5x a 1955 house of the same size.

What I was referring to was a basic income not a wage for doing labor such as what Norway does. With a basic income we would be able to eliminate the minimum wage and unions letting the market determine everything while also giving workers more negotiating power as they would have the freedom to not work but that's a separate issue.

Where does the basic income come from? A lot of small countries can do all kinds of things that a big country can not.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
Your not making much sense. Where is this 3 trillion increase? Show me your math.

You can also not give guaranteed income to people who's ss is a higher payout than the GI until its gone. Your numbers don't add up.

We currently spend 3.5 trillion so you are saying the GI would cost 6.5.

No.

We're going to have to agree on the need for counting children income. If you don't give the money directly to the child you'll need to give it to their parent. Part of a basic income working is contingent on the idea that people have the freedom to not work but still cover food and rent. You can't do that on a basic income with a child, which locks those people into working, which removes any benefit you would have in being able to eliminate the minimum wage with such an income.

Lets look at the numbers for population demographics.
en.wikipedia.org...
Age 0-19 is 83,267,556 people.
Age 20-64 is 185,209,998 people.
Age 65+ is 40,267,984 people.

So lets say 0-19 is getting 50% for cost of living, working age is getting 100%, and 65+ is getting 0% because Social Security is already providing that, and we can just shift the source of the money.

That comes to $3,402,656,640,000 that's 3.4 trillion. Even if you ignore children it's 2.77 trillion. Federal revenues are currently at $3.5 trillion. Adding another 3.4 trillion or even 2.77 trillion means doubling taxes in order to raise those revenues. So we're looking at a budget of somewhere between 6.3 and 6.9 trillion, just to keep things simple lets split the difference and call it 6.6 trillion.

Last comes what a basic income would allow us to cut. Social Security can be ignored because I'm not counting basic income f
or that age group in the first place. The main thing we would be able to cut is the ~16% of the budget that goes towards non medical welfare spending which is around 600 billion. So we could reduce the budget to 6 trillion.

I like the idea but make no mistake, it would require a lot of taxes that people just don't want to pay.

If I'm making a mistake in these numbers and it wouldn't cost this much, please show me where there's an error.

There are huge errors in philosophy and in approach.

No we do not need to give children money. We don't agree. Yeah the parent has to work or get housemates. I have three kids and feed two others from an after school program I teach.

I work with my hands for a living I understand the minimum wage and inflation/CPI situation. When I was younger I was a finish carpenter had a truck full of tools and lots of technical knowledge. I capped out at about 25 an hour but started at 10 in the early 90's.

I also worked for a high end guitar manufacturer for three years and made about 13. Basically the same as a bagger at whole foods. Why? Because manufacturing went overseas and illegal immigrants took over building. The whole economy being based on the CPI is disaster waiting to happen.

You are forgetting to subtract the social programs that already exist. Currently we have 3.5 trillion wrapped into them. There is close to 2 trillion that could be cut immediately if the GI went in place for most people.

Ss is a bit trickier. Since its supposed to be a trust not a Bank account that money is supposed to exist already in the account.

The guaranteed income isn't supposed to be a salary its a safety net. It's a starting point or of your unable or just plain lazy you can eak out a life as long as you have roommates.

Again it's way better than the poor have now. You could go back to school and not have your wellfare revoked. You could work part time whatever.

I just think you are not subtracting the current wellfare from the budget before you talk about the increase it would make.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Aazadan

You also have to take productivity into account, that's a metric that has only been tracked since the mid 80's but since then it's gone up 2.5 times. The same effort that went into building a widget or 1300 sqft house in 1985 could build 2.5 widgets or a 3250 sqft house now. However, despite this increased productivity which should be increasing the supply of everything and therefore lowering prices that's not happening which is due to the wage stagnation caused by CPI.

I understand but for houses it is pretty much the same widgets used, and so a 1500 sq ft today would be about 120k based on 80 per foot, much less in other parts of the country, and only about 5x a 1955 house of the same size.

What I was referring to was a basic income not a wage for doing labor such as what Norway does. With a basic income we would be able to eliminate the minimum wage and unions letting the market determine everything while also giving workers more negotiating power as they would have the freedom to not work but that's a separate issue.

Where does the basic income come from? A lot of small countries can do all kinds of things that a big country can not.

Basically we are already spending as much as a guaranteed income. Except everyone gets the money not just certain people who fill out the forms and qualify. The administrative buracracy takes up an enormous amount of social wellfare.

If you take in consideration all the necessary daily things including rent/home food, taxes, etc it's much more than a 5x increase. People lived off of far less in 1855 as well but that isn't reality anymore. I also want to say illegal immigrants keep the housing cost down. They get paid lower than citizens and do really crap work because of it. But the consumer rarely knows or cares how bad building has become. They just want a big house.

I do agree we have far more than most people around the world and our consumer demands create budget issues for many. But we have played with the dollar value to an extreme. A Republican even created this situation whe n he opened the door to China and took away the gold standard.