Put Me In Charge

[Cyberbob]

Not at all, bob. This thread isn't "wishing" for these policies to be implemented. It's presenting an extreme view on something to generate discussion.

have you read any of reapercharlie's posts (I mean I don't blame you if you haven't but you really should before you say stuff like this)

Wishing for anyone to be killed in a terrible way is just blatantly offensive.

you're a child

[TheLonging]

I'd rather die a quick death than starve

but I don't think I want to be pasted by an IED.

[mole]

What's your goal here? Is it to improve the lives of the poor/unemployed/homeless? Is it to reduce unemployment? Is it to improve efficiency and reduce government spending? Or is it to make you feel like people are spending their money in the "right" way?

All of the above.

Can you elaborate on these in your own terms? You say later, "What we're talking about is how to fix the problems in the welfare system. Pinpointing them and finding a solution." but I don't see a clear definition of what these problems are. Tell me what success would look like!

Also, if these are your goals, why did you post an OP that massively increases the size and cost of government?

In the UK a study into homelessness found that it was far cheaper for the government to care for people well--to put them into high-quality furnished accomodation--than it was to care for them poorly. The cost to society of providing these people's needs in other ways ended up being three times as expensive to the taxpayer than if the government had actually just paid for good accomodation up-front.

The U.S. has a lot to learn.

That is, if we can dig ourselves out of the hole we've dug ourselves into.

Hmm? Doesn't this proposal amount to giving the poor and homeless even

more

handouts?

Oh and I'm with Shea on this point:

And we are not talking about why welfare is an effective form of economic stimulus. Because it's clearly not.

Source please.

[popsofctown]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

The prisoners get fed every day. Housed too, actually. Are they billed for medical care? I'm not sure about that. You could charge them for being in prison, pay them, and then take the money right back.


If you're worried about the unemployed getting cut off from money because the prisoners are stealing their jobs, just take the money you would have spent paying those guys to do it and put it back into welfare and foodstamps. Then the only difference between the two is whether you'll have idle citizens or idle prisoners.
The prisoners don't deserve to be idle.

[Empking]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

The prisoners get fed every day. Housed too, actually. Are they billed for medical care? I'm not sure about that. You could charge them for being in prison, pay them, and then take the money right back.


If you're worried about the unemployed getting cut off from money because the prisoners are stealing their jobs, just take the money you would have spent paying those guys to do it and put it back into welfare and foodstamps. Then the only difference between the two is whether you'll have idle citizens or idle prisoners.
The prisoners don't deserve to be idle.

But what have the citizen done to deserved to be forced into idleness? Can't you just buy a bunch of rocks for the prisoners to break up?

[Ythill]

I'm not going to pretend I've read every post in this thread in depth. I skimmed the longer ones, but I have some comments about the topic in general.

If the goal is to reduce the tax burden by using the money more reasonably, then "fixing" the various welfare systems is not the highest priority. Ending the war on drugs, further reforming campaign finance laws, and improving our immigration system would all be worthwhile contributions. Holding corporations culpable for their own losses would have saved a ton of money over the last ten years and would probably do so over the next decade as well. Breaking the connection between the military and energy policies of the US would save billions. Of course, each of these solutions would temporarily increase unemployment, so having an efficient welfare system would be even more important in the short term.

I think one thing that RC is failing to realize is that public money spent by welfare recipients is as much a boon to the economy as it is to the "deadbeats." Poverty creates a spending vacuum that negatively effects those with jobs and investments. Since our system is based on consumption, allowing the unemployed to continue consuming is important not just for those people, but for everyone who works for and/or holds interest in the businesses that sell them things.

If I had to name the most problematic aspect of that cycle, I wouldn't say it is lazy people gaming the system. Instead, it is the dominance of low-profit-margin companies over the welfare demographic. A huge percentage of our welfare dollars eventually end up in the register at Wal-mart, McDonalds, and similar companies that profit by keeping costs and prices at rock bottom. Of course, these same companies are responsible for underpaying and under-benefiting the lower class, and for shipping jobs overseas. These companies are both contributing to poverty and profiting from it, which is far more problematic than RIMZZZZ.

If the goal, instead, is to make welfare more "fair," then the answer is not to limit or punish recipients of public funds but, rather, to increase the socialization of our system so that everyone receives them. The idea of providing basic health care, food, clothing, and shelter to

all citizens

, regardless of their financial situation, has always been very appealing to me. Some of this can be done with minimal expenditures, such as food-surplus programs, subsidized gleaners, and public camping space for the urban house-less. Of course the rest would require a bunch of extra money, and call for cuts elsewhere (see above).

I'm not going to derail this thread entirely by getting into the details but, simply put, I believe that capitalism would work best if people started above zero and were incapable of falling all the way to zero. I think that the result would address many of the concerns in this thread and have positive ramifications that go well beyond the scope of discussion here.

[Herodotus]

All the evidence I've seen, all the studies I've seen, is that the majority of people on welfare would rather be working and making a decent living if they felt they had the option.

This one sentence covers about 50% of the issue.
That a statistically significant number of people prefer to not work and live on almost nothing, rather than work and live on, say, a 30th percentile income, is a misconception that allows people who dislike welfare to blame those who really have no choice.
And makes this thread tl;dr.

[popsofctown]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

The prisoners get fed every day. Housed too, actually. Are they billed for medical care? I'm not sure about that. You could charge them for being in prison, pay them, and then take the money right back.


If you're worried about the unemployed getting cut off from money because the prisoners are stealing their jobs, just take the money you would have spent paying those guys to do it and put it back into welfare and foodstamps. Then the only difference between the two is whether you'll have idle citizens or idle prisoners.
The prisoners don't deserve to be idle.

But what have the citizen done to deserved to be forced into idleness? Can't you just buy a bunch of rocks for the prisoners to break up?

Few areas have neither volunteering opportunities nor jobs.

[Herodotus]

Okay then, let's just pretend that your idea is even slightly good.

Tax bracket A goes from 0-£10,000 a year. In that bracket you don't pay any tax.

Tax bracket B goes from £10,001-£20,000 a year. In that bracket you pay 15% tax

Tax bracket B goes from £20,001 and up a year. In that bracket you pay 25% tax (We're not talking realistic numbers but simple ones to understand for this exercise, as it would work regardless of money involved)

Someone earns £

19,500

a year, and is therefore paying £2925 tax per year. Leaving a net profit of £16,575

They get a pay rise of £1000, to £21,500 a year

. They now pay £5375 tax each year. They now have a net profit of £16,125

Meaning they get a pay rise of £100 and actually lose £450 out of it.

According to you, this would be fair.

Math error bolded.

But regardless, using http://listentotaxman.com/index.php you can get £19500 -> £2605 and £20500 -> £2805, for an increase of £200, consistent with the 20% marginal rate.

[magnus_orion]

I didn't read the thread, but, the proposed systems seem to me like they would be much much more expensive and economically draining than the systems currently in place.

[shaft.ed]

Okay then, let's just pretend that your idea is even slightly good.

Tax bracket A goes from 0-£10,000 a year. In that bracket you don't pay any tax.

Tax bracket B goes from £10,001-£20,000 a year. In that bracket you pay 15% tax

Tax bracket B goes from £20,001 and up a year. In that bracket you pay 25% tax (We're not talking realistic numbers but simple ones to understand for this exercise, as it would work regardless of money involved)

Someone earns £

19,500

a year, and is therefore paying £2925 tax per year. Leaving a net profit of £16,575

They get a pay rise of £1000, to £21,500 a year

. They now pay £5375 tax each year. They now have a net profit of £16,125

Meaning they get a pay rise of £100 and actually lose £450 out of it.

According to you, this would be fair.

Math error bolded.

But regardless, using http://listentotaxman.com/index.php you can get £19500 -> £2605 and £20500 -> £2805, for an increase of £200, consistent with the 20% marginal rate.

with most graduated tax systems, you only pay the higher rate on the income above that tax bracket

[PranaDevil]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

The prisoners get fed every day. Housed too, actually. Are they billed for medical care? I'm not sure about that. You could charge them for being in prison, pay them, and then take the money right back.


If you're worried about the unemployed getting cut off from money because the prisoners are stealing their jobs, just take the money you would have spent paying those guys to do it and put it back into welfare and foodstamps. Then the only difference between the two is whether you'll have idle citizens or idle prisoners.
The prisoners don't deserve to be idle.

But what have the citizen done to deserved to be forced into idleness? Can't you just buy a bunch of rocks for the prisoners to break up?

Few areas have neither volunteering opportunities nor jobs.

Then give the volunteering jobs to the prisoners?

I previously worked in a charity store, and we took in volunteers from the local open prison. (Prisoners went there when they were due to be released shortly, so this was a way of helping them back into society rather than just dumping them outside and letting them get on with it).

I don't see why jobs that someone should be getting a wage for should be given up for free. Charity work for various organizations is fair play. Nobody gets paid for it to begin with (well, barring managers and the occasional shop assistant and people in offices) and so they're not taking jobs away from other people.

[popsofctown]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

The prisoners get fed every day. Housed too, actually. Are they billed for medical care? I'm not sure about that. You could charge them for being in prison, pay them, and then take the money right back.


If you're worried about the unemployed getting cut off from money because the prisoners are stealing their jobs, just take the money you would have spent paying those guys to do it and put it back into welfare and foodstamps. Then the only difference between the two is whether you'll have idle citizens or idle prisoners.
The prisoners don't deserve to be idle.

But what have the citizen done to deserved to be forced into idleness? Can't you just buy a bunch of rocks for the prisoners to break up?

Few areas have neither volunteering opportunities nor jobs.

Then give the volunteering jobs to the prisoners?

I previously worked in a charity store, and we took in volunteers from the local open prison. (Prisoners went there when they were due to be released shortly, so this was a way of helping them back into society rather than just dumping them outside and letting them get on with it).

I don't see why jobs that someone should be getting a wage for should be given up for free. Charity work for various organizations is fair play. Nobody gets paid for it to begin with (well, barring managers and the occasional shop assistant and people in offices) and so they're not taking jobs away from other people.

Sure, making prisoners volunteer works. I just figured it would be logistically difficult to put prisoners in volunteer work. (they have to be supervised and whatnot. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and rules).

I'm just not happy if the honest poor are working harder than prisoners. It's not good for incentives and work is in all likelihood good for their rehabilitation (or whatever you call it, convincing them not to be repeat offenders and to straighten their act).

[Yosarian2]

Okay then, let's just pretend that your idea is even slightly good.

Tax bracket A goes from 0-£10,000 a year. In that bracket you don't pay any tax.

Tax bracket B goes from £10,001-£20,000 a year. In that bracket you pay 15% tax

Tax bracket B goes from £20,001 and up a year. In that bracket you pay 25% tax (We're not talking realistic numbers but simple ones to understand for this exercise, as it would work regardless of money involved)

Someone earns £19,500 a year, and is therefore paying £2925 tax per year. Leaving a net profit of £16,575

They get a pay rise of £1000, to £21,500 a year. They now pay £5375 tax each year. They now have a net profit of £16,125

Meaning they get a pay rise of £100 and actually lose £450 out of it.

According to you, this would be fair.

I just explained, in my very last post, that that's not at all how graduated income taxes work. You should probably go back and read my post, rather then me wasting time explaining this again.

Edit: Ok, he did say that didn't read my post before making his, fair enough.

[PranaDevil]

Wasn't really much supervision needed. If they upped and disappeared you just contacted the prison, who in turn contacted the police station and a warrant was issued for their arrest. Of course very very few people actually ran away from that prison because you were moved there when you were basically ready to be released. Be bloody stupid to run away and get another year or so inside when you were due to be released in 6 months.

Meaning the closest you had to bother with supervision was making sure you didn't stick anyone for theft or drugs on the shop floor where they could potentially access the money.

The guy we had driving the van was one of the prisoners in fact. A guy who was in for murder and due to be released within a couple of years (He was just waiting on the parole to come through). Pretty good bloke in fact, wound up being perhaps the best person we had working there.

[PranaDevil]

I just explained, in my very last post, that that's not at all how graduated income taxes work. You should probably go back and read my post, rather then me wasting time explaining this again.

You should probably go back and read my response to JD, who has already said the same thing, than me wasting time explaining this again.

[Yosarian2]

Sure, making prisoners volunteer works. I just figured it would be logistically difficult to put prisoners in volunteer work. (they have to be supervised and whatnot. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and rules).

I'm just not happy if the honest poor are working harder than prisoners. It's not good for incentives and work is in all likelihood good for their rehabilitation (or whatever you call it, convincing them not to be repeat offenders and to straighten their act).

Oh, having prisoners work (usually called "prison industries") isn't a bad thing, and if handled well, can be good.

There are some problems with it. For one, work safety and fair treatment can be a real problem, especally since prisoners can't exactly complain or unionize. For another, I find it a little disturbing when for-profit companies come into prisons and use prisoners as basically free labor, and then keep all the profits for themselves.

That being said, some prisoners can learn useful skills by working, and just being in the habit of going to work every day is a good thing.

[CooLDoG]

Never forget, Never forgive

[Thestatusquo]

RIMZZZ

[CooLDoG]

RIMMZ indeed.

DONALD TRUMP 2016!!!!!!!!!!

[Egg]

For what it's worth, the OP is pretty good.

[Thestatusquo]

in a comedic sense, sure.

[Egg]

Nah. I agree with it

[Thestatusquo]

The you are an odious person.

I'm sorry.

[Egg]

*shrug*