Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Latest Socialist idea, the government gives everyone a basic guaranteed income each year, with no strings attached. Did I say socialist? I meant Libertarian   (reason.com) divider line 153
    More: Strange, University of San Diego, Rugy, paternalism, rocket fuels, Manhattan Institute  
•       •       •

1541 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2014 at 2:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-05 12:32:50 PM  
This could work- give away $10,000 for a person per a year and fire the $45,000 Social worker working at the Welfare office to pay for it- that's what?  A 66% savings?
 
2014-08-05 01:01:29 PM  
FTA:

Zwolinski argues that there's a pragmatic libertarian case for dishing out cash, no strings attached, rather than continuing to rely on our current patchwork of poorly-managed and work-disincentivizing welfare programs.

Later on:

First, they involve a cash grant with no strings attached. Unlike other welfare programs which encourage or require recipients to consume certain specific kinds of good-such as medical care, housing, or food-a BIG simply gives people cash, and leaves them free to spend it, or save it, in whatever way they choose.


And this somehow incentivizes work while the current system doesn't?

Really?
 
2014-08-05 01:05:29 PM  

Trailltrader: This could work- give away $10,000 for a person per a year and fire the $45,000 Social worker working at the Welfare office to pay for it- that's what?  A 66% savings?


I'm pretty sure each welfare recipient doesn't get their own personal social worker.
 
2014-08-05 01:10:20 PM  

nekom: Trailltrader: This could work- give away $10,000 for a person per a year and fire the $45,000 Social worker working at the Welfare office to pay for it- that's what?  A 66% savings?

I'm pretty sure each welfare recipient doesn't get their own personal social worker.


Well no.  They have more than one.  Several working 8 hour shifts, plus your weekend, vacation(8 weeks per) and emergency coverage.
 
2014-08-05 01:33:25 PM  
GAI? Interesting idea, I've always thought. Would be best to test it's practicality in a smaller country first I'd imagine but nobody has gone this far yet.

Odd that this should be championed by the lolbertarian crowd at tReason (the T is silent but deadly) as it's usually a bogeyman offered by the right as to why Democrats shouldn't be trusted.

I actually heard some Focus on the Family AM radio derp earlier this week in which an earnest sounding teatard swore up and down that Obama was dead set on "overwhelming the system" with debt in order to enact what they perceive as the  Cloward-Piven Strategy.

The  Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by  sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven and that called for overloading the US Public Welfare System in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty"

Tracing the derp back through Snopes apparently the idea is based on something said on FOX.

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos - thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp#fDrhuq0YZ7e4FZj T. 99

Now who said that again?

Wayne Allyn Root, a political commentator who was the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, is a regular contributor to FOX News and the author of several books, including  The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.

Okay, maybe not so surprising this shows up in tReason now.

Not surprised to find it's part of Beck's schtick either.
 
2014-08-05 01:33:53 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

Zwolinski argues that there's a pragmatic libertarian case for dishing out cash, no strings attached, rather than continuing to rely on our current patchwork of poorly-managed and work-disincentivizing welfare programs.

Later on:

First, they involve a cash grant with no strings attached. Unlike other welfare programs which encourage or require recipients to consume certain specific kinds of good-such as medical care, housing, or food-a BIG simply gives people cash, and leaves them free to spend it, or save it, in whatever way they choose.


And this somehow incentivizes work while the current system doesn't?

Really?


Sure, a BIG can and would give people an incentive to not work. If they think they can live off of the BIG alone that is. I wouldn't recommend trying to live off of $10,000 a year though.
 
2014-08-05 01:48:45 PM  

Trailltrader: This could work- give away $10,000 for a person per a year and fire the $45,000 Social worker working at the Welfare office to pay for it- that's what? A 66% savings?


Only if you are really, really bad at math.

Firstly, even assuming that there is one social worker for every person on welfare, you'd end up saving $35,000 per case, or 77% savings (35/45 = 0.77).

Secondly, assuming there is one social worker per person on welfare is completely insane, so let's just stop there. Instead, let's try some real numbers:

The US population 21 years and over: 196,899,193
Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.
US budget for FY 2014: $3.77 Trillion.

So just to pay for the new BIG, it would suck up 52% of the TOTAL annual budget.

Now, let's say it gets rid of Social Security, just adding up Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Budget (don't kid yourself that we'll reduce that sucker), we reach a grand total of $3.44 Trillion.

But we haven't touched on our other mandatory spending yet (like our debt obligations). That adds another $373 Billion, bringing our grand total up to $3.813 Trillion dollars.

That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.
 
2014-08-05 01:48:53 PM  

quatchi: GAI? Interesting idea, I've always thought. Would be best to test it's practicality in a smaller country first I'd imagine but nobody has gone this far yet.


Canada tried it in a small town in Manitoba back in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
 
2014-08-05 01:49:37 PM  

Rev.K: And this somehow incentivizes work while the current system doesn't?

Really?


The real issue at hand is that some people feel that making bad decisions should necessarily result in suffering. The goal of society isn't to keep people from suffering, it's to make sure people get what's coming to them.

These people really suck.
 
2014-08-05 01:50:59 PM  

nmrsnr: That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.


If the people want bridges, they'll invest in them.

/LOL
 
2014-08-05 02:21:34 PM  
Is this the same guy who suggested a couple years ago just giving everyone one lump-sum in cash?

/dnrtfa
//yet
 
2014-08-05 02:25:23 PM  

nmrsnr: Trailltrader: This could work- give away $10,000 for a person per a year and fire the $45,000 Social worker working at the Welfare office to pay for it- that's what? A 66% savings?

Only if you are really, really bad at math.

Firstly, even assuming that there is one social worker for every person on welfare, you'd end up saving $35,000 per case, or 77% savings (35/45 = 0.77).

Secondly, assuming there is one social worker per person on welfare is completely insane, so let's just stop there. Instead, let's try some real numbers:

The US population 21 years and over: 196,899,193
Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.
US budget for FY 2014: $3.77 Trillion.

So just to pay for the new BIG, it would suck up 52% of the TOTAL annual budget.

Now, let's say it gets rid of Social Security, just adding up Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Budget (don't kid yourself that we'll reduce that sucker), we reach a grand total of $3.44 Trillion.

But we haven't touched on our other mandatory spending yet (like our debt obligations). That adds another $373 Billion, bringing our grand total up to $3.813 Trillion dollars.

That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.


Just increase the tax rate by 15-20%.  Problem solved.
 
2014-08-05 02:26:07 PM  

nmrsnr: Trailltrader: This could work- give away $10,000 for a person per a year and fire the $45,000 Social worker working at the Welfare office to pay for it- that's what? A 66% savings?

Only if you are really, really bad at math.

Firstly, even assuming that there is one social worker for every person on welfare, you'd end up saving $35,000 per case, or 77% savings (35/45 = 0.77).

Secondly, assuming there is one social worker per person on welfare is completely insane, so let's just stop there. Instead, let's try some real numbers:

The US population 21 years and over: 196,899,193
Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.
US budget for FY 2014: $3.77 Trillion.

So just to pay for the new BIG, it would suck up 52% of the TOTAL annual budget.

Now, let's say it gets rid of Social Security, just adding up Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Budget (don't kid yourself that we'll reduce that sucker), we reach a grand total of $3.44 Trillion.

But we haven't touched on our other mandatory spending yet (like our debt obligations). That adds another $373 Billion, bringing our grand total up to $3.813 Trillion dollars.

That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.


Don't argue with libertarian math, commie.
 
2014-08-05 02:26:17 PM  

Lucky LaRue: That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.

Just increase the tax rate by 15-20% 25-35%. Problem solved.


Sorry - forgot about Obamacare.
 
2014-08-05 02:34:54 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: nmrsnr: That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.

If the people want bridges, they'll invest in them.

/LOL


Libertarians would say that all bridges should have toll booths on them to pay for upkeep.
 
2014-08-05 02:41:52 PM  
Thomas Paine - libertarian jesus - argued that every adult should receive a citizens dividend "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property"

that was in Agrarian Justice, published in 1797.

this was the guy who was kicked out of the american revolution for being too hard-core.
 
2014-08-05 02:41:59 PM  
If we just give them money with no strings attached and no restrictions, can we still complain when they buy all the steak and lobster?
 
2014-08-05 02:45:39 PM  

enry: hillbillypharmacist: nmrsnr: That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.

If the people want bridges, they'll invest in them.

/LOL

Libertarians would say that all bridges should have toll booths on them to pay for upkeep.


i.imgur.com

That'll be $5 in American. We don't take any of that colored Canadian toilet paper here.
 
2014-08-05 02:47:49 PM  

Shostie: quatchi: GAI? Interesting idea, I've always thought. Would be best to test it's practicality in a smaller country first I'd imagine but nobody has gone this far yet.

Canada tried it in a small town in Manitoba back in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome


Hmmm, did not know that. TY for linkage.

She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse

Interesting.

I've always had a hard time with the idea that a mincome or BIG or GAI would disincentivize work.

Basically that is saying that money which is what you get from work would no longer be viewed as incentive.

That's dumb. Money is always incentive. That's pretty much all it is. People are competitive social animals.

Work provides more than just money it provides a place in society.

To me it's like the argument that if you made pot legal everyone would turn into a pothead overnight.

Does not scan.
 
2014-08-05 02:49:08 PM  
We just handed out 3 trillion in entitlements last year....whats a couple trillion more?
 
2014-08-05 02:49:16 PM  
This isn't really new, this is similar to FairTax.  The idea is to reduce all other forms of assistance and streamline everything into this concept.
 
2014-08-05 02:51:04 PM  
Those aren't real libertarians.  They're still statists under the guise of thick libertarianism
 
2014-08-05 02:51:24 PM  
"I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country" - Friedrich Hayek
 
2014-08-05 02:52:04 PM  

Shostie: quatchi: GAI? Interesting idea, I've always thought. Would be best to test it's practicality in a smaller country first I'd imagine but nobody has gone this far yet.

Canada tried it in a small town in Manitoba back in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome


Beat me to post this. I had a friend who was on that.
 
2014-08-05 02:52:24 PM  

nmrsnr: Only if you are really, really bad at math.

Firstly, even assuming that there is one social worker for every person on welfare, you'd end up saving $35,000 per case, or 77% savings (35/45 = 0.77).

Secondly, assuming there is one social worker per person on welfare is completely insane, so let's just stop there. Instead, let's try some real numbers:

The US population 21 years and over: 196,899,193
Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.
US budget for FY 2014: $3.77 Trillion.

So just to pay for the new BIG, it would suck up 52% of the TOTAL annual budget.

Now, let's say it gets rid of Social Security, just adding up Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Budget (don't kid yourself that we'll reduce that sucker), we reach a grand total of $3.44 Trillion.

But we haven't touched on our other mandatory spending yet (like our debt obligations). That adds another $373 Billion, bringing our grand total up to $3.813 Trillion dollars.

That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.


A few things you are ignoring. Not everyone will qualify, or take, or how ever you want to label it, for 10k, they will earn enough to pay it back in taxes. You also assume every bit of welfare is at the federal level. What would happen to state and local budgets and initiatives?
 
2014-08-05 02:53:00 PM  

Shostie: quatchi: GAI? Interesting idea, I've always thought. Would be best to test it's practicality in a smaller country first I'd imagine but nobody has gone this far yet.

Canada tried it in a small town in Manitoba back in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome


Wow it sounds like everyone actually came out better for that, all around.  Never work in america tho.
 
2014-08-05 02:53:13 PM  
I've beeen infromed by my Libertarian friend that the Dems will never pass this because "it's all about the power, man"
 
2014-08-05 02:53:27 PM  
Recent idea? Friedman and Hayek would be surprised to hear that.
 
2014-08-05 02:55:00 PM  

Skink Wrangler: Shostie: quatchi: GAI? Interesting idea, I've always thought. Would be best to test it's practicality in a smaller country first I'd imagine but nobody has gone this far yet.

Canada tried it in a small town in Manitoba back in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Beat me to post this. I had a friend who was on that.


PS: Wikipedia omits to mention it was NDP (socialist) provincial government.
 
2014-08-05 02:56:46 PM  

Madewithrealbitsofpanther: nmrsnr: Only if you are really, really bad at math.

Firstly, even assuming that there is one social worker for every person on welfare, you'd end up saving $35,000 per case, or 77% savings (35/45 = 0.77).

Secondly, assuming there is one social worker per person on welfare is completely insane, so let's just stop there. Instead, let's try some real numbers:

The US population 21 years and over: 196,899,193
Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.
US budget for FY 2014: $3.77 Trillion.

So just to pay for the new BIG, it would suck up 52% of the TOTAL annual budget.

Now, let's say it gets rid of Social Security, just adding up Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Budget (don't kid yourself that we'll reduce that sucker), we reach a grand total of $3.44 Trillion.

But we haven't touched on our other mandatory spending yet (like our debt obligations). That adds another $373 Billion, bringing our grand total up to $3.813 Trillion dollars.

That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.

A few things you are ignoring. Not everyone will qualify, or take, or how ever you want to label it, for 10k, they will earn enough to pay it back in taxes. You also assume every bit of welfare is at the federal level. What would happen to state and local budgets and initiatives?


How does any of that change the overall price tag?
 
2014-08-05 02:57:20 PM  
Nixon might have been a crook and a murderer and a war criminal but he did support the guaranteed minimum income.
 
2014-08-05 02:59:12 PM  

nmrsnr: The US population 21 years and over: 196,899,193
Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.


A gmi isn't supposed to go to everyone, it's basically competition for labor. It would empower lower wage workers.
 
2014-08-05 02:59:52 PM  

You Are All Sheep: Never work in america tho.


The country whose history is basically a string of laughing in the face of people doubting what was possible, has somehow adopted this refrain. I don't understand it. When did we become the withering pussies of the world?
 
2014-08-05 03:00:49 PM  
I see Fark libertarians are already dismissing the article because it wasn't written by true Scotsmen libertarians.

As to the article?

Should libertarians support proposals to scrap the current welfare regime

stoppedreadingrightthere.jpg
 
2014-08-05 03:01:59 PM  
What happens if you give this to someone and they spend it all on drugs/alcohol/gambling and now there's no other safety net because you cut it to do the BIG?  Do we let them starve? I like the idea in principle, but I fear it might not work in practice.
 
2014-08-05 03:02:03 PM  

You Are All Sheep: Shostie: quatchi: GAI? Interesting idea, I've always thought. Would be best to test it's practicality in a smaller country first I'd imagine but nobody has gone this far yet.

Canada tried it in a small town in Manitoba back in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Wow it sounds like everyone actually came out better for that, all around.  Never work in america tho.


Funny how things that totally work in other countries cannot possibly work here because....  Reason.  Usually the reason you get from a tighty righty is America is too diverse to work like any nordic country (brown people are abusers of any system doncha know), or too big because you cannot scale things up.  Because reasons.
 
2014-08-05 03:04:53 PM  
RE:  Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.

FYI: The federal government paid $2,007,358,200,000 in benefits and entitlements in fiscal year 2013 from government programs, according to data from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's Monthly
 
2014-08-05 03:07:48 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Lucky LaRue: That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.

Just increase the tax rate by 15-20% 25-35%. Problem solved.

Sorry - forgot about Obamacare.


so give everyone $10,000, then take it away in higher taxes.  lolwhut?
 
2014-08-05 03:08:49 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: The real issue at hand is that some people feel that making bad decisions should necessarily result in suffering. The goal of society isn't to keep people from suffering, it's to make sure people get what's coming to them.


And the really evil extension of this worldview is that if something bad happens to you, or you're otherwise in a bad situation, it's entirely your fault and it would somehow be wrong to help you.
=Smidge=
 
2014-08-05 03:08:53 PM  

Rev.K: And this somehow incentivizes work while the current system doesn't?

Really?


i figure the argument is that the relief systems are for people who need relief, and some people who are capable of pulling themselves out of the welfare system choose not to because it's easier to not work

and that a basic income would instead say "here is your money, do with it what you choose", not providing any government driven incentive one way or another on the whole work thing. if you want to purchase luxuries beyond the minimal lifestyle the basic income provides, get a job. if you don't, then that's your choice and you can wallow

or something

quatchi: I've always had a hard time with the idea that a mincome or BIG or GAI would disincentivize work.

Basically that is saying that money which is what you get from work would no longer be viewed as incentive.

That's dumb. Money is always incentive. That's pretty much all it is. People are competitive social animals.


i imagine a large part of the equation is how much is being paid out and what kind of quality of life can that buy you. if the mincome was, say, equivalent to 2000 hours at current minimum wage, you'd get about $14.5k/year. enough to feed yourself, get a shiatty place, and stay clothed, but not much more. and you'd have to work for those luxuries
 
2014-08-05 03:09:31 PM  

TheOnion: What happens if you give this to someone and they spend it all on drugs/alcohol/gambling and now there's no other safety net because you cut it to do the BIG?  Do we let them starve? I like the idea in principle, but I fear it might not work in practice.


If an idiot spends all of their BIG on drugs/alcohol/gambling and they starve, well...I don't think this would happen in practice with any kind of regularity, but yeah, if they used up their BIG on those purposes, then they're idiots and should go the neighbor/charity/church/state route to get food rather than looking for money from the federal government.
 
2014-08-05 03:10:50 PM  

Rev.K: And this somehow incentivizes work while the current system doesn't?


If you only give assistance to those who make under a certain amount, then people near the bubble are sometimes better off avoiding working more so they avoid losing their benefits.
 
2014-08-05 03:11:09 PM  
Given the pace of robotics advancements, we'll need it in less than a century, maybe just a few decades.
 
2014-08-05 03:12:36 PM  

lecgbe: RE:  Giving each of them $10,000 in cash: $10,000 x 196,899,193 = $1,968,991,930,000 or, $1.97 Trillion.

FYI: The federal government paid $2,007,358,200,000 in benefits and entitlements in fiscal year 2013 from government programs, according to data from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's Monthly


That seems...unlikely. Was there a breakdown?
 
2014-08-05 03:12:53 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

Zwolinski argues that there's a pragmatic libertarian case for dishing out cash, no strings attached, rather than continuing to rely on our current patchwork of poorly-managed and work-disincentivizing welfare programs.

Later on:

First, they involve a cash grant with no strings attached. Unlike other welfare programs which encourage or require recipients to consume certain specific kinds of good-such as medical care, housing, or food-a BIG simply gives people cash, and leaves them free to spend it, or save it, in whatever way they choose.


And this somehow incentivizes work while the current system doesn't?

Really?


Has been tested in several places in Africa. Seems to work. May not work in an urban environment where there are lots of things and activities to take the money out of the poor's hand. In Africa (and India, too, I believe), people get the money, but there's no local 7-11 or Starbucks, so they actually use the money in a wise, entrepreneurial way. The point is that those people have a better idea of how to use the money entrepreneurially than the funds providers, who have a set belief of how things should be done, and they generally don't jibe with the boots-on-the-ground realities.
 
2014-08-05 03:13:27 PM  

SlothB77: Lucky LaRue: Lucky LaRue: That leaves a whopping -$33 Billion dollars to do literally everything else the government does. So yeah, it'll totally work.

Just increase the tax rate by 15-20% 25-35%. Problem solved.

Sorry - forgot about Obamacare.

so give everyone $10,000, then take it away in higher taxes.  lolwhut?


You're only taking it away from the people who can already afford it.  Do you think rich people shouldn't have to pay their fair share?
 
2014-08-05 03:14:00 PM  

Madewithrealbitsofpanther: When did we become the withering pussies of the world?


I'll give you 9, no, 11 guesses.
 
2014-08-05 03:14:44 PM  

12349876: Given the pace of robotics advancements, we'll need it in less than a century, maybe just a few decades.


Not necessarily.  Robots can only do what they are programmed for.  They can't improvise.  A person can improvise.  However, I want my flying cars.  Where the fark are my flying cars!
 
2014-08-05 03:17:39 PM  

Rev.K: And this somehow incentivizes work while the current system doesn't?

Really?


A commonly noted problem with current assistance programs is that they phase out as you get more income. The net effect of the phasing out of assistance is that the marginal benefit of additional work income (e.g. from a raise or from a second job) to someone just approaching the poverty line is almost zero, or even negative. I recall reading a study (albeit from an ideologically conservative source) that notes that the marginal "tax" in our current system is highest for people in I think the second lowest quintile because of this effect.

If you replace conditional, restricted benefit programs with unconditional money, you eliminate the marginal tax problem, because every additional dollar earned gives you a net benefit and does not place other benefits in jeopardy. It also saves the applicant a lot of paperwork.


grumpfuff: Should libertarians support proposals to scrap the current welfare regime

stoppedreadingrightthere.jpg


"Welfare regime" is commonly used in social science to describe social safety net systems with no negative connotations. You might also sometimes encounter the word "scheme" used to describe various programs, although that might be a British thing.
 
2014-08-05 03:18:40 PM  

Giltric: We just handed out 3 trillion in entitlements last year....whats a couple trillion more?


Good point, keep the deep thoughts comin'.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report