It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Can't American Socialists Come up with a Plan to End Poverty

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Why is it that the American Socialists running for President can't come up with a plan to end poverty?


It seems all they do is suggest plans that ultimately keep people *IN* poverty as well as create more.

Odd set of circumstances.

I ran across a "plan" by an unknown source that presents what appears to be a "plan".

No details are available so ATS will have to come up with a final proposal that can be given to the Presidential candidates of all parties, not just Democrats and Republicans.

Here is the general outline. The costs seem to be correct.

Now, what are the details?


 


1. Eliminate all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA medical, and most (or all) welfare.

Background:
The U.S. Government spends per year: (general numbers and programs)

$900 billion Social Security

$600 billion Medicare

$300 billion Medicaid

$350 billion Welfare and Unemployment

$2.15 trillion (2,150,000,000,000) TOTAL



2. Pay $25,000 annually to each U.S. Citizen (Citizens only no exceptions).

Cost (300 million Citizens) = $2.1 trillion (2,100,000,000,000).

check every 2 weeks from government for adults 18 and older.

no tax federal or state on the $25,000.

automatic enroll in private minimum health insurance policy covering everything.

*children under 18:
*get savings bonds (every 2 weeks) until 18, then a check.
*bonds held in Treasury safekeeping account.
*available at 18.


3. Increase regular earned income payroll tax (FICA) to 8% with 8% employer match.

4. Put Nit-Picky petty jealousies aside, and don't micro-manage.

5. This ends the burdens on the bankrupt State and Local systems.

6. This partially relieves future bankrupt public pension plans.

7. This relieves employer headaches involving health insurance.
 


? Well ?






+2 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Someone will quickly tell you that $25,000 isn't enough to live on, and claim you don't care about the elderly who would have to eat dog food and go without heat in order to survive.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This is basically Milton Friedman's negative income tax, a plan that he proposed as a device to reveal how much waste is involved on the welfare state. Perhaps more specifically, how the employees are the beneficiaries rather than the poor.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Bout time you posted this. I think as you said before, is not a bad start but needs to be tweeked some to work. Certainly not a bad idea. I like it, even if it was only half to a third of that it would be a godsend to making the bottom more livable. 25,000 a year isn't even necessary to bring the bottom up to a more reasonable start.

Unlike what people like to pretend, all us "whiners" don't want anything unreasonable. I'd be happy with a third of that as a starting point for everyone.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

We could always try keeping to ourselves a bit more.

US Priorities

Here's an interesting thought too though, the total personal income in the US (as of 2012) is $13,401,868,693,000, so in terms of Medicaid, Medicare, etc, nearly a fifth of the current total income goes to social programs by your numbers. . .




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Why has capitalism allowed poverty to escalate in the recent past? Obviously capitalism hasn't done a very good job of hindering it, so what makes it any better than socialism in that respect?

ETA: Capitalism not Democracy
edit on 1/15/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

At least they're talking about poverty unlike the GOP at the debates last night.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Question: Is the $25,000 in addition to whatever people get if they are working/self-employed? If someone worked full time at minimum wage, that wouldn't be anything to sneeze at, estimating about $40,000/year. I don't even make close to $40,000/year at my full time well paying job. Now if someone can't/won't work, then it may be a stretch on $25,000/year.

So basically, one would get at least the $25,000/year for life once they turn 18. They wouldn't get social security, but would still have that $25,000/year.

You mentioned getting rid of VA medical. I'm assuming that one wouldn't need that, because everyone would get health insurance covering everything. So all our troops who have been injured and have all these problems would still be taken care of once they come home.

This sounds kinda like utopia. Ironic considering you are conservative.
Now I'm very much a lefty liberal, and this sounds like kind of a nice utopia kind of thing. However, I can tell you, working in my county human services office, helping people to get food stamps Medicaid and subsidized child care, there will always be people who are needy. There are so many mental illnesses and physical illnesses (chronic) that prevent people from working. It would be unrealistic to just cut off those programs. Most of the people getting "welfare" as you call it (outdated word by the way) are on it temporary, for a few months, until they get back on their feet. There is a very small minority that abuse it, but I believe most conservatives think everyone getting economic support benefits are total mooches on society. I know of two very conservative friends who are getting this "welfare" you all rant about.

Count your blessings. Oh and military pensions and VA benefits are not entitlements. They are earned by us veterans.

Just some food for thought.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Somebody needs to get to the details of the health insurance.

Are there any stumbling blocks?

It looks like the plan calls for private insurance.

We know some states are placing Medicaid people onto what looks like private plans that resemble HMO styles.

No copays etc, and the state pays the premiums apparently.

Also many Medicare and Medicaid systems are being "administrated" by private contractors.

So maybe "privatization" works to a point?

Advantages - Disadvantages ??




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

It looks like the plan has nothing to do with jobs.

All Citizens get the money.

Everything else could be free market (minus the regulations) just like it already is.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I believe the intention here is the 25k would more commonly be a supplement income. But 25k is reasonable to live on with roommates I suspect.

This system would also negate to some degree...abuse of Medicare and SS...

I kinda like the direction of this proposal. My family would be far better off when I retire with my wife and I in charge of investing and saving the giant chunk of my income our crooked government extracts every 2 weeks.
edit on 15-1-2016 by BlueJacket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This is a pretty socialist plan out side of eliminating all the welfare...
Because obviously it would be taxes that paid the 25k.

I think there would still be a need for social plans with this, but agreed not at the extent we have.

We can dip a bit into the defense budget since we are talking about cutting some fat here too.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah but that's assuming everyone is at exactly zero. 25,000 is actually pretty doable. 25,000 per year amount to over 2,000 a month. Let's call rent and utilities for an apartment that is middle of the line $1000(which of course might be considered low for urban living and high for suburbia, but remember that you have relative freedom over where you live). However, (and this doesn't apply for everyone I know) many people choose to live with a partner, married, roommates, whatever... So between two fairly normal people (could be elderly), 4,000 income per month, minus 1,000 for shelter, water and warmth. So that leaves 3,000 for food and transportation for two...

Modest living there is maybe a car (again, this can be manipulated even more favorably if walking or mass transit or car pooling is involved), but let's call it 500 a month for using that system, so for two people there is 2,500 dollars a month to eat with. That's more than $35 per day per person for food!

Sounds fine to me. And mind you, this is without family support (your parents get old and then you can help them out and then no one has to bite the bullet on being cruel), and this still doesn't even factor in ANYONE having a job! Holy smokes! Of course if we had this system, it sounds like there would still be an 8% income tax, so the adjusted are slightly different but not much (seeing as I played middle to worse case scenario in my loose calculations).


This biggest thing this doesn't account for is healthcare... an entirely separate system that should probably be remolded to some extent for sure.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The problem is, even though it's paying the same we all are already, there will be complainers because the plan has the audacity to not keep people in poverty for being at the bottom or not working. Despite that the desire for stuff will keep most people working anyway.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

We need to compare numbers.

Do people already getting "benefits" have a $25,000 total?

Military retirement is what on average?

etc. etc.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

No, I think we should cap it. Once you hit the income median, you should start losing off your basic until you are making all of your own income. If you fall below the threshold, you start picking back up again.

Of course, there will always be those who figure out how to make the max they can without losing any of their basic, and then they will complain they don't have what others who do earn for themselves have.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

On the surface, it's possible the FICA would fund most of this.

Look for some holes.

Keep the jealousies and over thinking away like the plan insists.

I am.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Careful.

Let's not over think.

Anything anybody can make over the initial 25,000 would represent reward for work and skill.

But perhaps some income tax adjustments would work later after the plan moves for a few years.

The millionaires and CEOs will make big money regardless of any laws and ultra high tax rates and regulations.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: ChiefD

We need to compare numbers.

Do people already getting "benefits" have a $25,000 total?

Military retirement is what on average?

etc. etc.



I think if you took the benefits people receive and turned them into cash value, a lot of people receive more in total benefits by the time you figure in housing subsidy, utility assistance, child care benefits, assistance for needy families, SNAP, etc.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And that's the idea. They don't lose any of their earned money, and they can never make less than the national median unless they fail to work themselves. And they don't lose their earned income. They only lose the basic as they earn more of their own.


edit on 15-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join