(02-10-2018 02:17 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:10 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I think I characterized it correctly.
"Set the income floor high enough to support subsistence but low enough that getting a job is highly incentivized." Seems you also tied in some form of health care and tax incentives. If dems could do this, they would. Repubs would blow a gasket. You may be more, shall I say, progressive than you think. God Forbid!

Nope, you are misunderstanding something. The democrats would want to set such an income at $20,000-$30,000 or more, plus single payer health care, which would disincentivize working for many. Plus at that level either you have to make it go away at some point, thus having "poverty trap" impacts, or we can't afford it as a society and economy. This concept is more around $8,000 or so plus Bismarck health care, so getting a job is still attractive.
Actually this--in the form of the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--is part of the Fair Tax proposal that is almost exclusively a libertarian/republican concept. And it essentially revives the negative income tax proposal by Milton Friedman, who is also associated with classical liberal (libertarian) principles. I have not heard or read of a single democrat championing it, although I'm sure that among millions there may be one somewhere.

This is from Politico. Hardly a conservative rag. Read it and understand this. They don’t dispute it they just say it’s wrong because the recipient doesn’t get cash to spend as they wish. $20.83/hour ain’t bad for waiting around talking on your obama phone till the check comes in.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/s...-2083-hou/

That gets at my point, with so many diverse programs, the person who seeks to manipulate the system can get that much, whereas someone who may be more needy and deserving doesn't. And while very few may get $40,000, a lot get most of that. Under my approach, the family of 3 would get about $8,000 plus another $7,500-8,000 in medical benefits. A full time minimum wage job would be another $15,000, which would put them above the poverty line which is about $27,000. Without that job, they'd be surviving but poor. Now, the states would save the cost of their share of Medicaid, and they would be free to supplement with that money. Some would do so more than others.

But you wouldn't have the situation where zero income plus maxing out the various benefits gives you $40,000, while working for $55,000 disqualifies you for benefits and after taxes you are somewhere in the $45,000-50,000 range. Hardly makes the hassle of work worthwhile. The smart ones have figured out that they can do better manipulating the system than getting a job.

You can't make it universal if it's too high. That would bankrupt us. And if it's not universal, then it has to go away at some point, and at that point you get an inevitable "poverty trap" effect. A system where you basically just cut checks (or do automatic EFTs) is going to be a lot cheaper to administer than one with a lot of gatekeepers. The people who get hurt are the ones who are manipulating the current system and the bureaucrats who administer it. I'm perfectly fine with both those groups being worse off.

(02-10-2018 02:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 02:17 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:10 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I think I characterized it correctly.
"Set the income floor high enough to support subsistence but low enough that getting a job is highly incentivized." Seems you also tied in some form of health care and tax incentives. If dems could do this, they would. Repubs would blow a gasket. You may be more, shall I say, progressive than you think. God Forbid!

Nope, you are misunderstanding something. The democrats would want to set such an income at $20,000-$30,000 or more, plus single payer health care, which would disincentivize working for many. Plus at that level either you have to make it go away at some point, thus having "poverty trap" impacts, or we can't afford it as a society and economy. This concept is more around $8,000 or so plus Bismarck health care, so getting a job is still attractive.
Actually this--in the form of the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--is part of the Fair Tax proposal that is almost exclusively a libertarian/republican concept. And it essentially revives the negative income tax proposal by Milton Friedman, who is also associated with classical liberal (libertarian) principles. I have not heard or read of a single democrat championing it, although I'm sure that among millions there may be one somewhere.

This is from Politico. Hardly a conservative rag. Read it and understand this. They don’t dispute it they just say it’s wrong because the recipient doesn’t get cash to spend as they wish. $20.83/hour ain’t bad for waiting around talking on your obama phone till the check comes in.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/s...-2083-hou/

That gets at my point, with so many diverse programs, the person who seeks to manipulate the system can get that much, whereas someone who may be more needy and deserving doesn't. And while very few may get $40,000, a lot get most of that. Under my approach, the family of 3 would get about $8,000 plus another $7,500-8,000 in medical benefits. A full time minimum wage job would be another $15,000, which would put them above the poverty line which is about $27,000. Without that job, they'd be surviving but poor. Now, the states would save the cost of their share of Medicaid, and they would be free to supplement with that money. Some would do so more than others.

But you wouldn't have the situation where zero income plus maxing out the various benefits gives you $40,000, while working for $55,000 disqualifies you for benefits and after taxes you are somewhere in the $45,000-50,000 range. Hardly makes the hassle of work worthwhile. The smart ones have figured out that they can do better manipulating the system than getting a job.

You can't make it universal if it's too high. That would bankrupt us. And if it's not universal, then it has to go away at some point, and at that point you get an inevitable "poverty trap" effect. A system where you basically just cut checks (or do automatic EFTs) is going to be a lot cheaper to administer than one with a lot of gatekeepers. The people who get hurt are the ones who are manipulating the current system and the bureaucrats who administer it. I'm perfectly fine with both those groups being worse off.

#thecrux

that's where the msm and politicians prey upon the emotions of the meek......

again, all men are NOT created equal......however, in this country, all have equal opportunity....

unfortunately, not all are willing to accept such....

therefore, #thedivision

Benjamin Franklin, hardly a hater of the poor (he invented the pot belly stove and never took a patent out nor a dime of royalties to specifically help the poor) , was famously quoted as saying “The best we can do for the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty.”
This is the problem. In our compassion to help the poor we have made them comfortable in their poverty. Hence no reason to work.

(02-10-2018 03:18 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Benjamin Franklin, hardly a hater of the poor (he invented the pot belly stove and never took a patent out nor a dime of royalties to specifically help the poor) , was famously quoted as saying “The best we can do for the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty.”
This is the problem. In our compassion to help the poor we have made them comfortable in their poverty. Hence no reason to work.

In our compassion to help the poor we have made them comfortable in their poverty. Hence no reason to work. (^^^from above)

The ones that prey on these types of people are the Demons as like Biden says but blames it on Reps, "they want to keep them in chains". Or as Tennessee Ernie Ford sang it in his song, "Sixteen Tons" reliant on the company store aka the Demoncraptic Party.

There's so many ways of getting out of poverty but it requires two things, a set of balls and the willingness to work. We complain about illegals but one thing that you will not see in the streets are them begging for handouts. They'll beg for work instead. In my city the ones begging for handouts are mainly white people, I'd say 99% of them are white. Why?

(02-10-2018 04:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 03:18 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Benjamin Franklin, hardly a hater of the poor (he invented the pot belly stove and never took a patent out nor a dime of royalties to specifically help the poor) , was famously quoted as saying “The best we can do for the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty.”
This is the problem. In our compassion to help the poor we have made them comfortable in their poverty. Hence no reason to work.

In our compassion to help the poor we have made them comfortable in their poverty. Hence no reason to work. (^^^from above)

The ones that prey on these types of people are the Demons as like Biden says but blames it on Reps, "they want to keep them in chains". Or as Tennessee Ernie Ford sang it in his song, "Sixteen Tons" reliant on the company store aka the Demoncraptic Party.

There's so many ways of getting out of poverty but it requires two things, a set of balls and the willingness to work. We complain about illegals but one thing that you will not see in the streets are them begging for handouts. They'll beg for work instead. In my city the ones begging for handouts are mainly white people, I'd say 99% of them are white. Why?

Why?...Because nothing is worse than a sorry white man.

(02-11-2018 01:50 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 03:18 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Benjamin Franklin, hardly a hater of the poor (he invented the pot belly stove and never took a patent out nor a dime of royalties to specifically help the poor) , was famously quoted as saying “The best we can do for the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty.”
This is the problem. In our compassion to help the poor we have made them comfortable in their poverty. Hence no reason to work.

In our compassion to help the poor we have made them comfortable in their poverty. Hence no reason to work. (^^^from above)

The ones that prey on these types of people are the Demons as like Biden says but blames it on Reps, "they want to keep them in chains". Or as Tennessee Ernie Ford sang it in his song, "Sixteen Tons" reliant on the company store aka the Demoncraptic Party.

There's so many ways of getting out of poverty but it requires two things, a set of balls and the willingness to work. We complain about illegals but one thing that you will not see in the streets are them begging for handouts. They'll beg for work instead. In my city the ones begging for handouts are mainly white people, I'd say 99% of them are white. Why?

Why?...Because nothing is worse than a sorry white man.

That's a pretty simplistic view. It's undoubtedly true for most, but not everyone. Educational opportunities and family background figure into the equation as well as a little luck. I'm sure we both know family's where both parents work, a lot of times 2 jobs, and they barely get by. Hard work and big balls don't always work.

Wish Rand Paul was president rather than that clown we have right now.

(02-11-2018 04:52 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Wish Rand Paul was president rather than that clown we have right now.

For me, rather Rand than anybody else who ran on either side.

(02-11-2018 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 04:52 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Wish Rand Paul was president rather than that clown we have right now.

For me, rather Rand than anybody else who ran on either side.

yup agree

Liberalism is the Nazism of the 21st Century.