Born Poor?

[Napsterbater]

http://sfreporter.com/stories/born_poor/5339/all/

An excerpt from the article:

If Bowles has the history of wealth figured out all the way back to the Stone Age, shouldn’t he have some practical advice?

Indeed he does. Here, one number will suffice.

$250,000.

OK, that’s a figure Bowles picked out of the air. It’s how much each person might receive under a key economic reform he supports: universal welfare.


It could also be called direct government investment in everyone. After all, taxpayers already invest in strangers’ children through the public schools before turning them loose with nothing.

“Suppose instead what we did is this: We said, ‘Look, when somebody turns 18, he gets a quarter of a million dollars and, after that, you’re on your own,’” Bowles says. “Once you’ve got your quarter-million, you’ve got to make a decision: ‘Should I go to college or do I want to start a business?’—which you could do with a quarter of a million.”

This is a variant of an old idea, more recently popularized—at least in Europe—by the Belgian economist Philippe Van Parijs. Under his “basic income grant” proposal, the government would redistribute wealth so that everyone has enough to live.

“They just get a check. And they get it no matter what—Rockefeller, the poorest person in America, everybody gets it,” Bowles says. “There’s nothing you can do to get more; there’s nothing you can do to get less.”

Such a system eliminates the disincentives to work in the current social safety net. “The problem with the welfare system is that as soon as you get a job, they start taking your money,” Bowles says. “This basically says, ‘You’ve got this nest egg and, if you go out and get a job, you keep the whole thing—except for whatever taxes you pay.”

Can you hear the Friedmanites groaning? “It sounds very radical,” Bowles says, “but it’s very consistent with economic ideas.”

It makes as least as much sense as giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street’s largest banks—some of which helped cause the recession—so that the banks can lend it back to taxpayers at outrageous interest rates.

[Napsterbater]

I've long thought that a reverse income tax would be the best way to approach the problem of inequality. This brings a refreshing twist on the idea.

[Evil Homer]

Pray tell, what's a reverse income tax?


As for the idea proposed, it does sound radical. Lets see, the number of births in the US is about 4 million per year. So the yearly cost of such a program would be somewhere on the order of 1,000,000,000,000 per year. Might be economically viable in the future. Phasing out back end entitlement and working in up front entitlement.

What would be the downsides of this program?

Possible inflation due to large injections of capital into society.
Definite potential for abuse, either in fraud, or in just having lots of kids. There aren't welfare queens now because it's not economically viable, but this would certainly do it.
Increased birthrate overall. 250K would definitely incentivize having kids. Although this could also be an upside too as it would keep the workforce replaced.
There's also a psychological issue; people aren't long-term thinkers. While it gives opportunity, it may just be an opportunity to ruin oneself. Look at the lottery; it destroys more lives than it saves. This would be like giving everyone a winning lottery ticket. I don't think everyone would be as responsible with the money as they would need to be in order to make such a system work.

[Foolsworth]

Originally Posted by Napsterbater

I've long thought that a reverse income tax would be the best way to approach the problem of inequality. This brings a refreshing twist on the idea.

Mere word trickery.A Liberal device.
Like Deficit neutral.
Why not a neutral income tax.
Or positive income tax.

[Napsterbater]

Originally Posted by Evil Homer

Pray tell, what's a reverse income tax?

Where if you make under a certain amount, the government gives you money to make up the difference.

As for the idea proposed, it does sound radical. Lets see, the number of births in the US is about 4 million per year. So the yearly cost of such a program would be somewhere on the order of 1,000,000,000,000 per year. Might be economically viable in the future. Phasing out back end entitlement and working in up front entitlement.

It wouldn't be so bad if it were the only entitlement program we have. No Medicare, no Social Security, no Earned Income Credit.

What would be the downsides of this program?

Possible inflation due to large injections of capital into society.
Definite potential for abuse, either in fraud, or in just having lots of kids. There aren't welfare queens now because it's not economically viable, but this would certainly do it.
Increased birthrate overall. 250K would definitely incentivize having kids. Although this could also be an upside too as it would keep the workforce replaced.
There's also a psychological issue; people aren't long-term thinkers. While it gives opportunity, it may just be an opportunity to ruin oneself. Look at the lottery; it destroys more lives than it saves. This would be like giving everyone a winning lottery ticket. I don't think everyone would be as responsible with the money as they would need to be in order to make such a system work.

Honestly, I like to let the economists figure such things out.

[Foolsworth]

Originally Posted by Napsterbater

Where if you make under a certain amount, the government gives you money to make up the difference.

As for the idea proposed, it does sound radical. Lets see, the number of births in the US is about 4 million per year. So the yearly cost of such a program would be somewhere on the order of 1,000,000,000,000 per year. Might be economically viable in the future. Phasing out back end entitlement and working in up front entitlement. [/quote]
It wouldn't be so bad if it were the only entitlement program we have. No Medicare, no Social Security, no Earned Income Credit.


Honestly, I like to let the economists figure such things out.[/quote]


**************************************************
Then,it isn't a tax but Relief.
You do comprehend the simplistic notion of Relief.
When you say the Government makes up the difference.What are you
referring to.?
The difference of what.? You either make such and such or you don't.
You { one } either pay taxes on such and such or no.
There are safety nets for those who make too little.
You qualify for assistance.Or GA { General Assistance } and have to meet
certain requirements for DHS { Dept. of Human Services } to assess one's
inability to be employable.

You've been harping on this idea'r of yourn,for some time.
You want to be taken care of by the State.
We here,all know that by now.
It's really not a far-fetched notion at all.
But why do you feel this way.What have you been reading or
noticing in Society to make you feel that you need to be a
ward of the state.That you haven't the worth to prosper on yer own.
I think you've been defeated,within yer own mind.
It is easy to do.
Man's greatest pasttime is feeling sorry for himself.
I feel yer pain brother.

[LionelHutz]

I actually like the idea if that were the only form of government assistance. The reality is though that some people would blow all their money and be poor, and we'd feel sorry for them and want to help them help themselves, and soon we'd be back to having welfare *and* this program. I think it's a "sounds great in theory" type of thing.

[Foolsworth]

Originally Posted by LionelHutz

I actually like the idea if that were the only form of government assistance. The reality is though that some people would blow all their money and be poor, and we'd feel sorry for them and want to help them help themselves, and soon we'd be back to having welfare *and* this program. I think it's a "sounds great in theory" type of thing.

Firstly it could only work in certain society.Those where the populace
are highly proud and self-determined.Because even in the most
productive of Society,a Slacker mindset,disrupts the overall good.
If a slacker mindset were to take hold,then what part of Society would have
to make up for them.There would have to be those who are productive and
in control of Society functions.
Even in Communism,a work ethic has to be highly instilled,even at
the point of a gun,in order for those lowborns to be taken care of.
A Society cannot effectively prosper with a negative work ethic.
Meaning to work is considered a negative thing.
What therefore would a seemingly healthy person do,if they
adopted a mindset to live off the State,even though able to work.
Granted this mindset that Man was born to work or toil is also
gruelingly pedestrian.But Society is a Hampster wheel and it has to turn.
A Hampster has to be active,otherwise it may fall into complacent
inactivity that translates into rigor.Thereby becoming Obsolete.
As in the Obsolete Man { Twilight Zone }.

[td57]

Originally Posted by Foolsworth

As in the Obsolete Man { Twilight Zone }.

One of my favorite episodes

[rendova]

Were there ANY bad Twilight Zone episodes????
My own fave--"A Stop at Willoughby".

Rod Serling was a GENIUS.

[td57]

Originally Posted by rendova

Were there ANY bad Twilight Zone episodes????
My own fave--"A Stop at Willoughby".

Rod Serling was a GENIUS.

It's tough to pick an absolute favorite, but I'd probably say "The Little People"

[rendova]

I don't remember that one, td. What's it about?


PS. We should start a "Twilight Zone" thread in the Movie and TV section. I'll bet a lot of people have very fond memories of that show.

PPS. Remember "Night Gallery"?
Another Rod Serling gem.

[td57]

Originally Posted by rendova

I don't remember that one, td. What's it about?

Two men land on another planet and discover people that you have to have a microscope to see. One of the men develops a God complex.

Another favorite was "To Serve Man".

PS. We should start a "Twilight Zone" thread in the Movie and TV section. I'll bet a lot of people have very fond memories of that show.

I've got the original episodes on DVD. Converted them to watch on my Ipaq.

Outer Limits too.

PPS. Remember "Night Gallery"?
Another Rod Serling gem.

Yep. A lot of good old shows seemed better than most of the stuff on today. It used to be the story was more important than the glitz...

"The Invaders"?

"The Immortal"?

"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"?

And (not sci-fi, but a great show) "12 O'Clock High"?

They sure don't make 'em like they used to.

[rendova]

I remember "Voyage" and also "Outer Limits".

We control the horizontal!
We control the vertical!

There was one OL episode about a spider creature that killed people on a spaceship that was so terrifying I was scared to walk down the hallway.

OK, I was only 6 or 7 but still......

[td57]

Originally Posted by rendova

I remember "Voyage" and also "Outer Limits".

We control the horizontal!
We control the vertical!

That intro gets a lot of attention from bystanders on the Ipaq too

[Napsterbater]

Originally Posted by LionelHutz

I actually like the idea if that were the only form of government assistance. The reality is though that some people would blow all their money and be poor, and we'd feel sorry for them and want to help them help themselves, and soon we'd be back to having welfare *and* this program. I think it's a "sounds great in theory" type of thing.

I think that solutions would evolve for that sort of scenario. People who grow up in church might be compelled to donate a portion of their benefit to a church fund designed to provide assistance to those who blew their wads. Hell, if worse comes to worse, they'd just be regular people without the benefit of a $250,000 trust fund. They can get jobs like the rest of us. If the program does as it's supposed to, there should be lots more small businesses to employ people.

[Echo2]

It would certainly kill off a lot of drug adicts.

[Canadianreader]

The idea seems to close to Enron's disaster. Paying people in advance of expected (inflated) earnings.

Besides most people would loose their money to scam artist. The money would leave the States faster than it can be printed. Homicides would go up from people wanting the money on so on.

Now in reality everyone probably has access to this money but the government dwindles it out in monthly checks. At least you don't have to hide $250 000

[Dunkirk101]

Originally Posted by Napsterbater

http://sfreporter.com/stories/born_poor/5339/all/

An excerpt from the article:

If Bowles has the history of wealth figured out all the way back to the Stone Age, shouldn’t he have some practical advice?

Indeed he does. Here, one number will suffice.

$250,000.

OK, that’s a figure Bowles picked out of the air. It’s how much each person might receive under a key economic reform he supports: universal welfare.


It could also be called direct government investment in everyone. After all, taxpayers already invest in strangers’ children through the public schools before turning them loose with nothing.

“Suppose instead what we did is this: We said, ‘Look, when somebody turns 18, he gets a quarter of a million dollars and, after that, you’re on your own,’” Bowles says. “Once you’ve got your quarter-million, you’ve got to make a decision: ‘Should I go to college or do I want to start a business?’—which you could do with a quarter of a million.”

This is a variant of an old idea, more recently popularized—at least in Europe—by the Belgian economist Philippe Van Parijs. Under his “basic income grant” proposal, the government would redistribute wealth so that everyone has enough to live.

“They just get a check. And they get it no matter what—Rockefeller, the poorest person in America, everybody gets it,” Bowles says. “There’s nothing you can do to get more; there’s nothing you can do to get less.”

Such a system eliminates the disincentives to work in the current social safety net. “The problem with the welfare system is that as soon as you get a job, they start taking your money,” Bowles says. “This basically says, ‘You’ve got this nest egg and, if you go out and get a job, you keep the whole thing—except for whatever taxes you pay.”

Can you hear the Friedmanites groaning? “It sounds very radical,” Bowles says, “but it’s very consistent with economic ideas.”

It makes as least as much sense as giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street’s largest banks—some of which helped cause the recession—so that the banks can lend it back to taxpayers at outrageous interest rates.

Someone already came up with an idea somewhat similar to this. It was called Communism!