Or you know, so much is spent on the administration of welfare programs alone that if we just cut welfare altogether, then instituted a payout system where everyone gets X amount of money per year divided over a biweekly pay schedule (18,000 a year?) Then drop corporate taxes (they don't actually tax the corporation--they tax the consumer through the corporation which in turn makes goods and services more expensive for the poor) then offer tax relief for people who buy things like public transportation passes, and set up a system where for every two dollars you earn one dollar is removed from the overall payout...

...We could actually have a smaller government with a stronger overall welfare system that doesn't discriminate by race or gender, and corporations further empowered to make lower prices which enlarges the total potential reach of the market, in turn creating a larger amount of better paying jobs, which means less people become dependent on the payout system.

Because yes, while you could live on 18,000 a year, it wouldn't be comfy living. So getting a job so you can live comfortable becomes incentive.

But I guess that makes sense so fuck that, gotta go ludicrously extreme one way or another and fuck the poor or the rich. I mean it's not like we can ever devise a system that lets the rich be rich and doesn't make the entirety of the US government plunge itself into debt anytime it hits a problem like a heroin addict looking for his next shot.

The Nexerus said
The difference being that while spending on the military sustains and advances it, spending on welfare adversely affects those who receive it, in the long run.

The reason for this is because welfare gets into your blood and it makes you think weird things. I come from poverty I know welfare. It's a chaotic system that makes no sense. Its original intent has been lost. We need to scrap it and start over and do something more efficient which we can do in the modern era with technology that we couldn't do back in the Roosevelt era.

The Nexerus said
The difference being that while spending on the military sustains and advances it, spending on welfare adversely affects those who receive it, in the long run.

War and Military are not the same thing. It is possible to spend money to sustain your military and have them survive without bloodshed every couple months. And I would suggest that spending this money on war also adversely effects those we engage with as well as us. The infrastructures we destroy, we also try to rebuild. We have to pay for that, and we also have to pay for every dollar that we send and seems to go elsewhere. It's no secret that corruption runs deep with everyone involved in our efforts to rebuild in Afghanistan and Iraq, and really, this shouldn't be a surprise. We helped to create the desperation leading to the corruption, not to mention much of it lies within our own ranks (ViceNews has some really great articles and videos on this). So, basically, I'd say that's pretty damn similar to welfare

Just throwing this out there... wouldn't be it be better to increase funding to Community Colleges to help solve unemployment issues? Community Colleges are specifically designed to accept everyone they can within the community with as little restriction as possible. We create affordable programs that students can complete in as short a time as 6 months. We also have massive resources allocated to Professional Technical programs that are designed hand-in-hand with local businesses, so students are exposed to as much of what employers want as possible. At the institution I work for, tuition is also a third of what for-profit schools like Everest and Devry charge (yet these schools are sprouting up everywhere). Perhaps investing money to options like Community Colleges would be a good way to make Welfare less cyclical. Giving the painfully poor and unemployed easy and cheap access to an education that can get them a job may cost a little more, but it would probably solve the problems you see rather than just cutting everyone off and leaving them high-and-dry.

I completely agree that pains should be taken to educate people in a way that prepares them for employment, but the reality is that we'd have to be educating a lot of people by force. For as long as the system allows it, there will be a segment of people that would rather live off of society than in it.

It should be noted that I live in the area of North America with the lowest unemployment rate and highest employment growth rate. Unemployment where I live only exists for people who actively choose not to get a job.

The Nexerus said
I completely agree that pains should be taken to educate people in a way that prepares them for employment, but the reality is that we'd have to be educating a lot of people by force. For as long as the system allows it, there will be a segment of people that would rather live off of society than in it.

Yes, though there is a much greater part of the population that would reach for more if they could. Especially if their situation was made easier in such a way as to incentive it. (ex: 2 dollars in = 1 dollar loss on the payout still means 50% increased profit until they're "weened" off the payout, in which case they double up to 100% increase in profit. Unlike what it is now, where when you hit the point that you are no longer eligible for welfare, it hits and it hurts.)

Brovo said
Yes, though there is a much greater part of the population that would reach for more if they could. Especially if their situation was made easier in such a way as to incentive it. (ex: 2 dollars in = 1 dollar loss on the payout still means 50% increased profit until they're "weened" off the payout, in which case they double up to 100% increase in profit. Unlike what it is now, where when you hit the point that you are no longer eligible for welfare, it and it .)

A staggered approach does seem like it would be much more effective than absolute cut offs.

The Nexerus said
A staggered approach does seem like it would be much more effective than absolute cut offs.

Especially since every citizen has a SIN and a Birth Certificate. Ergo everyone has access to a bank account. Ergo everyone can get the payout electronically--further cutting overhead, which saves money the government can either use to tweak the payout or to cut down on taxes, which in turn makes products cheaper.

-That- is, in a crude sense, how you could enforce trickle down theory, without punishing the rich for being rich. The only problem is implementing it. You would have some pretty serious inflation to start with. Not deadly levels, but enough to be a concern to the market.

EDIT

Heck while we're at it, if everyone was guaranteed 18,000 a year, you could even cut down minimum wage, making it easier and cheaper to hire more workers, which means more money all around.

AreYouMyMummy said
It is not the government's right to give money to the poor. They are funding these programs with our taxes. We are paying for people to be lazy and not get a job. The government is promoting irresponsibility and lack of work ethic.

I want to throw a hypothetical situation at you.

Say you and a member of your family are involved in a car crash that you are at fault or the insurance doesn't quite cover the cost of your vehicle and you end up in the hospital for a month each, which hits your income and in the US, you end up having to pay tens of thousands of dollars. Suddenly, you are in massive debt and can't afford rent.

What do you do?

Revans Exile said
Speak English, until then go screw a cactus.

lmao hydro-pumpd

Nex:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm

I'm sorry, you're right I'm wrong I pulled 4% completely from my ass.

The actual number is less then 2%

and the money they get? much much MUCH less then you're "estimated" number.

Will not say it, to make sure people actually read the link/

Any measure of what percentage of the people using a program are abusing it can only be of the people who are known to be abusing it. Obviously they don't keep known abusers on their payroll. The entire system is a waste of money, but they don't make a point to waste as much money as possible.

Welfare fundamentally should not be necessary. If there is a surplus of labour in one area of the country, the unemployed in that area should move to where there is work. If one industry is downsizing, the people working in that industry should seek employment elsewhere until the industry recovers. The problem with this is the simple reality that numerous people living on social assistance simply do not want off of it, and do not want to have to work for a living.

Turtlicious said
Nex:I'm sorry, you're right I'm wrong I pulled 4% completely from my ass.The actual number is less then 2%and the money they get? much much MUCH less then you're "estimated" number.Will not say it, to make sure people actually read the link/

For starts, that is unemployment and doesn't include TANF or medicaid, second of all your bro said 8.2% were overpayments, but he justified it with this.

8.2% of all unemployment benefits, or a total of $2.45 billion, are classified as overpayments.  Of this $2.45 billion, approximately $385 million can be attributed to technical eligibility issues, primarily meeting a State’s work search requirements.  In other words, many UI payments, while technically “overpayments” under current state eligibility definitions within the UI program, are made to individuals who failed to meet certain technical eligibility requirements but otherwise meet the primary UI eligibility requirements of being unemployed through no fault of their own and wanting to work.  For instance, a payment made to a claimant who failed to maintain sufficient documentation concerning his ongoing work search requirements would be considered an “overpayment” under the BAM program.  States, however, would not necessarily seek recovery of such an overpayment.

Which is dumb. If I don't file my tax paperwork right, they send the IRS after me, and that's whem I give THEM money. If your stuff ain't in order, you shouldn't be able to get the money.

Now, he said also one third of the unemployment overpayments were to people who already had jobs, obvious, indisputable waste. One third of 8.2% is more than 2%.

Then there's this.

Because there is no fault on the part of the individual claimant in such an instance, many states would not attempt to recover such an overpayment.  $1.37 billion of the $2.45 billion in total overpayments are classified as nonfraud overpayments that are recoverable.  These include cases such as where an initial finding of eligibility is reversed following an employer’s appeal, and where a claimant has erroneously reported earnings.

What? If I "erroneously report earnings" in my tax forms, they throw me in a cell, or at least audit me, certainly if they know I am. If erroneously reporting earnings isnot fraud, I don't know what is.

Third, old source is old.