posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:41 AM
I still think welfare should be calculated as a sum total of the all the possible disbursements from various entitlements programs measured against
the mean income of an area. Pick a percentage of that amount that is about 20 to 25% below that mean income. Roll all those entitlement programs into
that one disbursement program.
So basically, people making welfare or less than the area's mean by that percentage (20 to 25%) are eligible to receive disbursement assistance. Since
that disbursement comes from ALL the other programs: rent, food, medicaid, etc., it replaces them.
That means people will become responsible for making their disbursement cover those areas is their responsibility and is at market rate, but it also
means the government will no longer be meddling to keep certain portions artificially low either which means things ought to settle out at a more
reasonable rate than before.
And you can never make too much. You means test it meaning that as people on the program make more, the percentage they receive in disbursement
gradually draws down. No sudden catastrophic loss of everything like today's programs do. It should be structured so that by the time a person is
making the area's mean, they are not taking any more in disbursement.
This should have the benefits of ending some of the artificial government meddling in the marketplace while allowing the many bureaucracies that
administer benefits now to be outright cut as the responsibility for money management is shifted back to the individuals which is more hand-up anyhow.
And it encourages people to wean themselves off by not trapping them in an all or nothing system.
Oh, and I forgot to say that whatever your disbursement percentage ends up being, it ought to be enough you can scrape by, not enough to be
comfortable, but you can never go below it.
edit on 25-6-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)