SO Money Thread: Minimum Income

[Leav97]

A guaranteed nation minimum income is actually an interesting idea.  I'm not sure the implementation would work well but, it would be an interesting paradigm shift.

 

Imagine everyone received (picking a # out of a hat) $18,000 / year from the government. An amount, for their area, that would be similar to the current mix of Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, etc.  An amount, for their area, that provided for very basic needs.  In exchange no one received the hodge podge of half working social services.  No more judging how someone chooses to spend their food stamps. Lower the levels of fraud because everyone receives the benefits.  Probably spread out in payments twice a month.

 

Opinions?

 

 

[sbgrace]

I had never heard of that before. I did a quick google. It looks like it has worked in some areas. Interesting.

 

I'll still put my initial, knee jerk thought, though.

This sounds like a judging person, which I really don't think I am. I think we are largely products of our circumstance, starting at conception/birth/early life etc. Person born in to a single mother in inner city wherever doesn't have the same chances my kids have from birth.  I also think we have a huge and growing segment of working poor, I absolutely recognize physical and mental disability as a poverty factor, etc. We have a huge problem in this country in this very area. There is a lot broken.

 

But my first reaction reading your post: I have a cousin. She's very much a product of her early life, and she makes poor adult decisions on her own but also as a consequence if that makes sense. Her kids are on welfare. With that, they get health care and food stamps to buy food. They qualify for free lunch at school and head start. They live in subsidized housing. I could go on. But her $18,000 would surely go to drugs instead of food, housing, etc. for those kids. I imagine she eventually won't have those kids, but CPS seems to be incredibly slow in this situation for whatever the reason. And many kids exist in situations where no one even knows or cares.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Imagine everyone received (picking a # out of a hat) $18,000 / year from the government.

 

If my hubby and I gets $18,000 per year each from the govt and medical is free, none of us need to work even in my high COL area because our mortgage payments are now low. If kids get that amount too then there is negligible incentive to work.

 

However rent is $2,300 or worse for a 2bedroom apartment here so the renters might still need to work part time, as do those with high mortgage payments.

[Danestress]

Would this replace medicaid? How about housing assistance? Unemployment benefits?

 

I am trying to think about how it would work. Let's say a family with young children is homeless because the parent, for whatever reason, have not managed that income well? Would they be without assistance until the next check comes?

[Bootsie]

Two implementation questions quickly come to mind:

 

1) Would it be income per person or per family?

 

2)  Would it be the same across the country (with very different COL in different areas.)?

[Ann.without.an.e]

I have family on the system. They would take the 18,000 and blow it in the first two weeks and not give a second thought to what they would live on the remainder of the year. They would then expect others (family, churches, etc) to support them the rest of the time. Cash is not good for them. Granted, not everyone on government assistance is like that.

 

ETA: if it was distributed monthly they would still have this issue. It would just be gone the first weekend of the month on nothing necessary - drugs, electronics, etc. I know because I see them get a tax return every year. They don't even have power turned on and their tax return goes to toys and drugs.

[regentrude]

I have grown up in a country where that was basically how it worked, even though people were nominally employed. Skill, qualification, amount of hard work did not make a difference. The idea was that "good" people want to be diligent at what they do and will work hard simply because that's the right thing to do, but guess what? It did not work that way. Human nature is such that there will be plenty of slackers taking advantage, and it is frustrating and impossible for the motivated people to pull the entire dysfunctional system.

 

I am fully in favor of society taking care of, and supporting, those people who are unable to earn their living through work. They should have food, shelter and health care.

I am against society alimenting able bodied adults.

[AimeeM]

18K a year PER PERSON? So a family of 5 would receive, say, 90K a year... for living?

 

ETA: the incentive to NOT work, would be far too great, imo. It would also only deepen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. If my husband, hypothetically, brings in a salary of 100K a year, plus our 90K for just EXISTING as a family of 5, we double our income.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that prices would go up then.

Just like the cost of medical assistance has gone up tremendously with medical insurance.

[AimeeM]

Yeah really sign me up!

 

Right? We could have almost our same standard of living... without the effort. Why not? (I'm being sarcastic - my husband enjoys his career)

[marbel]

 

A guaranteed nation minimum income is actually an interesting idea.  I'm not sure the implementation would work well but, it would be an interesting paradigm shift.

 

Imagine everyone received (picking a # out of a hat) $18,000 / year from the government. An amount, for their area, that would be similar to the current mix of Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, etc.  An amount, for their area, that provided for very basic needs.  In exchange no one received the hodge podge of half working social services.  No more judging how someone chooses to spend their food stamps. Lower the levels of fraud because everyone receives the benefits.  Probably spread out in payments twice a month.

 

Opinions?

 

 

 

Do you really mean everyone, or everyone who is currently under that minimum?  So, someone making $120,000 as an engineer still gets $18,000 (or whatever the amount is)?   Or not because it's over the amount?    What about spouse and children? 

 

What happens if people use the money unwisely and still need more?  Does the government say no even if it means kids are going hungry? 

 

How do you then incent people to work?  Who exactly is paying the bill?  Don't you risk lowering your tax base if fewer people need to work?  Or is it all going to be coming from people who do work to make money?

 

I know I sound judgmental now.   But really, I can't imagine what good comes of giving people an incentive not to work.  I am talking about able-bodied, healthy people here.    I believe there is a place for government/church/family assistance in the world for people who can't work.  But for the most part people should be encouraged to work in whatever capacity that they can if they are getting assistance.   It could be minimal hours, unskilled labor, etc. 

 

OK, I'm writing this as a stay-home mom who has not worked for 17 years and is unlikely to be employed again.  But I am pretty sure if my family needed financial help badly I'd find something I could do. 

[Valley Girl]

I could never get behind that model. How much more would taxpayers be taxed in order to provide this minimum income? Would supplemental programs be required for those who chose NOT to use the money to pay for necessities such as food and shelter?  Would people be required to hold some type of job in order to qualify--or is breathing enough? What happens when the powers that be decide that $18,000.00 (or whatever the amount is) no longer is sufficient? I can just imagine what kind of "judging" would go on in that kind of system.

 

ETA: Like everyone else, I'm referring to able-bodied people, not those who are ill or truly unable to work, for whom there is an obligation.

[Laura in CA]

My first thought was -- that sounds like communism. Regentrude nailed it.

My father also grew up in a communist country and will take the U.S. -- where his hard work is rewarded -- any day.

 

I'm reminded of an H. L. Mencken quote I saw at a restaurant in, of all places, Berkeley:

 

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."

 

 

 

[regentrude]

I agree with what you are saying and believe that most people would not "want to be good and diligent" for the heck of it.  But I often wonder why the way to motivate people is to have to make them scared as hell.  I get sick of worrying so much about money.  It's like you could go from one extreme to the other over night.  That seems wrong to me too.

 

Yes, that seems wrong. I do not think it is necessary to scare people to motivate them to work.

Where I come from, the societal consensus is to have a safety net in place that takes care of people falling on hard times. Yes, there are still homeless (usually people with mental illness who do not want/can avail themselves of the things that are available), but regular families are not scared that a serious illness will leave them destitute. The people have made the decision that it is in the best interest of stability in their society to spend tax dollars on the safety net.

 

There is a lot of middle ground between a guaranteed income for everybody and a system that scares families and has many folks a step from the abyss. Seeing that the single biggest cause for personal bankruptcy are medical bills, a universal health care system would go a long way towards making families more secure. It is a disgrace that a society as rich as ours takes so poor care of their sick.

 

If you look at the current German economy, it seems entirely possible to have a productive functioning capitalist society with enough safety net so that people do not have to be worried sick.

 

[TammyS]

 

A guaranteed nation minimum income is actually an interesting idea.  I'm not sure the implementation would work well but, it would be an interesting paradigm shift.

 

Imagine everyone received (picking a # out of a hat) $18,000 / year from the government. An amount, for their area, that would be similar to the current mix of Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, etc.  An amount, for their area, that provided for very basic needs.  In exchange no one received the hodge podge of half working social services.  No more judging how someone chooses to spend their food stamps. Lower the levels of fraud because everyone receives the benefits.  Probably spread out in payments twice a month.

 

Opinions?

 

 

 

Well, if my dh and I got $18K, he would absolutely quit his job (and would stop paying taxes), because we only gross about $43K annually.  We'd have to tighten our budget some, but we'd be willing to do it in order to be completely free of a job.  If we also got $18K annually for each of our kids we'd be buying a larger house and a new car (we currently only have 1 car).

 

I can only imagine how harrassed a lot of my friends with large families would be by others who think their kids cost too much.  They already get harrassed as it is (and none of them take a nickle in gov't assistance).

 

[TammyS]

  But I often wonder why the way to motivate people is to have to make them scared as hell.

 

Well, it's not simply motivating them to "work" but motivating them to "row their own boat", so to speak.

 

If this plan was implemented, my dh would quit his job because for the two of us, our income would shrink minimally.  If it included our kids, it would nearly double.

 

He wouldn't do nothing all day.  He'd concentrate on woodworking and carving fine pieces.  That's what he loves to do.  But you can't make money at that (not enough to live on) because of the time involved to do it right.  But with someone else picking up the tab for our living, he wouldn't worry about making enough to live on.  Just enough to buy more wood and tools.

 

 

[DawnM]

Where is the money going to come from?  

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, that seems wrong. I do not think it is necessary to scare people to motivate them to work.

Where I come from, the societal consensus is to have a safety net in place that takes care of people falling on hard times. Yes, there are still homeless (usually people with mental illness who do not want/can avail themselves of the things that are available), but regular families are not scared that a serious illness will leave them destitute. The people have made the decision that it is in the best interest of stability in their society to spend tax dollars on the safety net.

 

There is a lot of middle ground between a guaranteed income for everybody and a system that scares families and has many folks a step from the abyss. Seeing that the single biggest cause for personal bankruptcy are medical bills, a universal health care system would go a long way towards making families more secure. It is a disgrace that a society as rich as ours takes so poor care of their sick.

 

If you look at the current German economy, it seems entirely possible to have a productive functioning capitalist society with enough safety net so that people do not have to be worried sick.

The German economy also provides extra money to help all parents. They provide preschool for all kids (which can allow parents to work, if they want without figuring out how to pay for childcare).

 

Universal health care and the safety nets mean that liability lawsuits are far, far, far fewer. Things are better, easier for small businesses to function.

[AimeeM]

The German economy also provides extra money to help all parents. They provide preschool for all kids (which can allow parents to work, if they want). Universal health care and the safety nets mean that liability lawsuits are far, far, far fewer.

 

Yes... but the cost of living in Germany is much higher, too, in general. My husband works for a German company, and most of his associates are German. When he complained once about housing prices here, they laughed at him. Apparently in most places there, our "small" (relative, obviously) 1400 square foot cottage style home would cost around half a million. Apparently certain fresh foods are also either outrageous, or non-existent. I do know that when German based associates come over here, and my husband takes them to dinner, they ALWAYS choose a steakhouse, lol ;)

 

I"m not sure my comment has anything to do with your comment, or where it fits into the thread. I'm just remembering, and inwardly giggling, about the last couple of times my husband has mentioned their lunch time conversations.

[TammyS]

My husband would not quit.  It would be an amount that would make our lives easier.  We wouldn't enjoy living on that amount.

 

I get the "row their own boat" thing, but I'm saying a person can do everything right and wake up one day and have everything completely come crashing down on then.  I think we have taken as many responsible and reasonable precautions to assume for the unexpected, but like most people we aren't very far off from disaster.  I wish I could just turn that worry off, but I can't.  It makes me feel miserable pretty much every day of my life.

 

I guess fear of disaster has always been the motivating factor for human beings.  Even the bible talks about those who won't work should not eat.  I don't mean to make this theological, but just mentioning that this is from a culture that is 2000 years ago in a non-western area.  Even then and there, they had to deal with those who didn't want to work and the connection to survival.

[JustEm]

Hmm if dh and I both got that we'dget as much as he earns now working 55 hours a week. He'd likely still work so we could pay off the mortgage faster and do some travelling but he wouldn't work as many hours. I think a system like that would give too many people a reason not to work. And sadly in the US people already want too much for nothing so I can't imagine it going over well.

[Carrie12345]

I have completely mixed feelings on the subject. 

I would assume COL adjustments and total amounts to be calculated by family size, not simply multiplied.

 

I wonder if such a system would free up private charities to focus their moneys and efforts more on people with deeper troubles than "just" money while the more capable manage on their own. In which case abuses of assistance might be handled more effectively within the community.

 

I don't have any urge to hop aboard the idea, but it's an interesting one.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes... but the cost of living in Germany is much higher, too, in general. My husband works for a German company, and most of his associates are German. When he complained once about housing prices here, they laughed at him. Apparently in most places there, our "small" (relative, obviously) 1400 square foot cottage style home would cost around half a million.

I don't know that I agree that cost of living is higher. Yes, housing costs more, but other costs are lower. I lived in Germany for several years.

 

Apparently certain fresh foods are also either outrageous, or non-existent.

Not true at all in my experience.

 

I do know that when German based associates come over here, and my husband takes them to dinner, they ALWAYS choose a steakhouse, lol ;)

It is probably most similar to what they get in Germany. The restaurant in our neighborhood had the best rump steaks in herb butter, delicious.

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess fear of disaster has always been the motivating factor for human beings. Even the bible talks about those who won't work should not eat.

It also talks about taking care of widows and orphans, the sick and poor.

[Moxie]

I think that prices would go up then.

Just like the cost of medical assistance has gone up tremendously with medical insurance.

Agreeing with this.

[TammyS]

It also talks about taking care of widows and orphans, the sick and poor.

 

I absolutely agree, but my answer was in reference to a comment about "why do people have to be scared to death" in order to motivate them (paraphrase, sorry if that's wrong).   So, it's a different issue.

[AimeeM]

I don't know that I agree that cost of living is higher. Yes, housing costs more, but other costs are lower. I lived in Germany for several years.

 

Not true at all in my experience.

 

It is probably most similar to what they get in Germany. The restaurant in our neighborhood had the best rump steaks in herb butter, delicious.

 

It definitely could just be the specific areas - theirs vs ours. We live in a pretty low cost of living area in a southern state.

 

I will say that working for a German company is amazing. The health and dental benefits? Schmoly Cow - it's the best we've ever had. Seriously.

[Carrie12345]

As much as I hate paying deductibles and all that jazz, I do think you have a point.  Growing up we did have a decent insurance plan for the most part, but it really encouraged wastefulness.  Copays were like $5 for everything.  So the doctor would have you come back 5 times as a follow up to something piddly.  Or order tests that weren't all that necessary.  Stuff like that.  It's ridiculous.  My mother brought us to the doctors constantly and we didn't have health issues. 

 

I blame that equally on doctors though.

 

Once my husband went for a physical.  They scheduled up a follow up to discuss results of labs.  Ok fine.  At the "follow up" the doc said everything looks fine.  Ok why do we need a visit for that?  That wasn't the worst part. The doctor wanted to schedule a follow up to that.  My DH asked why.  "To just check up on things."  We have to pay a lot of money for all these visits so we certainly don't want to pay for unnecessary vague random "follow ups".  So DH got a different less gold digging doctor.

 

That's an individual problem though, imo.

You can't FORCE people to be morally just.  It simply isn't possible.

OTOH, while we pay dearly for our health plan, I chose it so I'd know exactly what our health care costs would be for the year. Premium + low deductible, then 0 copay, 0 coinsurance, 0 anything (save for durable medical equipment at 50% and $10 generic prescriptions.) And now all 7 of us are catching up on minor (and major) health issues that have been brushed under the rug for fear of bills.  It's the best thing that could have happened to us after years of that weight.  When I think about the things that could continue to go unchecked without that freedom, THAT's scary.

[Moxie]

Would we then have a society that PAYS women to give birth?? I can think of lots of ways for that to end badly.

[SKL]

Some random thoughts.

• Per person or per family / household?
• Lots of people would be content to not work (or only do casual work) if they received enough $$ to pay basic expenses.
• How much would the remaining workers have to be taxed to support this, assuming some of the taxpayers are content to quit working?
• Negative:  more families would be raising kids with no idea of work ethic.
• Negative:  there would be less incentive to do well in school.
• Negative:  the freedom to not care about producing income would increase the gap between the classes
• Negative:  not working would lead to depression / mental health issues for many people
• Positive:  there would be labor shortages instead of job shortages, especially in the blue collar sector.
• Positive:  the labor blue collar labor shortages would create jobs in the technologies etc as employers adjusted by automating, right-sizing, outsourcing.
• Positive or negative depending on who you are:  capital owners have more control over the economy
• Not sure if positive or negative (immigration perspective):  more blue collar jobs open both north and south of the border
• There would be no going back once employers reorganized their businesses to eliminate blue collar positions
• Positive: more security for modest-income families with responsible parents.
• Negative:  less security for kids of irresponsible parents.
• Negative:  the psychological class relations / stigma of poverty would probably get worse.  And if there were racial correlations, race relations would get worse.
• Negative:  tax revenues diverted from opportunities to improve mental health care, education, environment, etc.
• Politically incorrect:  some people might have more kids if they didn't have to worry about supporting them - making the cost of the arrangement higher and higher

I will stop there for now, but I'm sure there are a lot more I will think of.

[regentrude]

Yes... but the cost of living in Germany is much higher, too, in general. My husband works for a German company, and most of his associates are German. When he complained once about housing prices here, they laughed at him. Apparently in most places there, our "small" (relative, obviously) 1400 square foot cottage style home would cost around half a million. Apparently certain fresh foods are also either outrageous, or non-existent. I do know that when German based associates come over here, and my husband takes them to dinner, they ALWAYS choose a steakhouse, lol ;)

 

The above is not entirely accurate. Yes, buying a house is expensive because it is a small country (80 million people on the size of twice Missouri which has 5 million), so most people do not own single family houses. But food is generally much cheaper than in the US, even compared to our low COL area. And fresh foods are absolutely available. It's just that beef is expensive - which again, has partly to do with the size of the country (a cow needs space) and partly with cultural traditions that consider beef a Sunday meal, not a staple.

 

[AimeeM]

The above is not entirely accurate. Yes, buying a house is expensive because it is a small country (80 million people on the size of twice Missouri which has 5 million), so most people do not own single family houses. But food is generally much cheaper than in the US, even compared to our low COL area. And fresh foods are absolutely available. It's just that beef is expensive - which again, has partly to do with the size of the country (a cow needs space) and partly with cultural traditions that consider beef a Sunday meal, not a staple.

 

 

I understand. I'm just giving feedback from my husband's friends who want to hit Longhorn (or the local equivalent) first thing (and every week), lol.

 

But if housing is that much more expensive, is it really cost comparison friendly to say that it's an affordable place to live? I would assume that rent there is higher, too, since homes do cost more in general.

This is just a curious question (nothing to do with the topic at hand), by the way. Tony's friend told him that he recently sold his single family home, which is smaller than our 1400 square foot home, for the US equivalent of around $900,000. Yikes.

[TammyS]

• Politically incorrect:  some people might have more kids if they didn't have to worry about supporting them - making the cost of the arrangement higher and higher

 

 

You call it non-PC (and for sure, you're right).  I call it a good thing.  I think it's sad that the existence of so many is snuffed out by a price tag (or perceived price tag).

[Moxie]

You call it non-PC (and for sure, you're right). I call it a good thing. I think it's sad that the existence of so many is snuffed out by a price tag (or perceived price tag).

I wonder if child abuse and neglect would skyrocket?? If suddenly all you needed to get another 18k of crack was to get pregnant??

[SKL]

Like some have said, I have relatives who would use the money in all the wrong ways and would have kids just to get more drug money.  I know it's politically correct to say that is rare bla bla bla, but I don't think it's that rare.

[regentrude]

I understand. I'm just giving feedback from my husband's friends who want to hit Longhorn (or the local equivalent) first thing (and every week), lol.

 

But if housing is that much more expensive, is it really cost comparison friendly to say that it's an affordable place to live? I would assume that rent there is higher, too, since homes do cost more in general.

This is just a curious question (nothing to do with the topic at hand), by the way. Tony's friend told him that he recently sold his single family home, which is smaller than our 1400 square foot home, for the US equivalent of around $900,000. Yikes.

 

If you want to live in US size housing which considers 2000+ square feet the norm, it would be ridiculously expensive. But Germans don't live on 2000+ square feet per family! An apartment with 800 square feet is considered appropriate for a family with two young children. An apartment that is 1000+ square feet is considered large.

So, yes, per square feet it is much more expensive - but people don't have that much living space, and thus rent does not consume an outrageous portion of income, unless you are in a big metropolitan area like Munich... but you'd have to compare that with prices in NYC.

 

Most people rent apartments in apartment buildings. My last apartment in Germany was very nice, 750+ square feet, two bedrooms, with 10 other apartments in the same building. So, the expensive land cost would be split among many families.

Free standing single family houses are a luxury and not the typical form of housing.

[Katy]

I didn't read all of the responses, but I think it's a terrible idea, and I think you can see the evidence of the way different Indian (by which I mean Native American) tribes handle their casino and/or oil money.

 

In tribes where a share of casino profits is cut as a check to each tribe member monthly and where no one owns property, they just all live in small houses or trailers on a reservation, poverty and addiction run rampant.

 

In areas where a tribe provides healthcare, scholarships, and elderly care with the casino and/or oil money instead of cutting a check, and where they help people purchase their own home instead of simply giving someone a place to live, people work hard, succeed, and addiction rates are so much lower.  One example of a tribe that does this:  The Cherokee Nation (the one in Oklahoma).

 

A safety net (healthcare and assistance with something you must work towards) is much more valuable to an economy than free money, which enables the lazy to never do anything at all.

[Arcadia]

Apparently in most places there, our "small" (relative, obviously) 1400 square foot cottage style home would cost around half a million.

In my complex, a 2 bedroom around 1200 sqft condo unit sold for about $660,000 recently. The single family homes are over a million easily. Other areas are more expensive. Its all relatively speaking.

[Guest]

Some random thoughts.

• Per person or per family / household?
• Lots of people would be content to not work (or only do casual work) if they received enough $$ to pay basic expenses.
• How much would the remaining workers have to be taxed to support this, assuming some of the taxpayers are content to quit working?
• Negative: more families would be raising kids with no idea of work ethic.
• Negative: there would be less incentive to do well in school.
• Negative: the freedom to not care about producing income would increase the gap between the classes
• Negative: not working would lead to depression / mental health issues for many people
• Positive: there would be labor shortages instead of job shortages, especially in the blue collar sector.
• Positive: the labor blue collar labor shortages would create jobs in the technologies etc as employers adjusted by automating, right-sizing, outsourcing.
• Positive or negative depending on who you are: capital owners have more control over the economy
• Not sure if positive or negative (immigration perspective): more blue collar jobs open both north and south of the border
• There would be no going back once employers reorganized their businesses to eliminate blue collar positions
• Positive: more security for modest-income families with responsible parents.
• Negative: less security for kids of irresponsible parents.
• Negative: the psychological class relations / stigma of poverty would probably get worse. And if there were racial correlations, race relations would get worse.
• Negative: tax revenues diverted from opportunities to improve mental health care, education, environment, etc.
• Politically incorrect: some people might have more kids if they didn't have to worry about supporting them - making the cost of the arrangement higher and higher

I will stop there for now, but I'm sure there are a lot more I will think of.

If I took the time to sum my thoughts on this, I would say almost exactly this whole post.

[StephanieZ]

Nope. Not a fan.

 

I'd rather provide free health care, free education (truly free), heavily subsidized basic food/housing  . . . The staples of a basic healthy life. 

[AimeeM]

You call it non-PC (and for sure, you're right).  I call it a good thing.  I think it's sad that the existence of so many is snuffed out by a price tag (or perceived price tag).

 

I'm not sure what to say to this.

Where on earth are we to come up with this money? Hypothetically, if my husband quit working because we would making almost as much money NOT working, as he does working (if all individuals in the house get 18K a year)... and assuming that many choose to do the same... who will be left paying taxes? Without the taxes, who would pay for these children? The only resort we would have left is to PENALIZE, with much higher taxes, those who DO "choose" to still work.

[Mrs Mungo]

I didn't read all of the responses, but I think it's a terrible idea, and I think you can see the evidence of the way different Indian (by which I mean Native American) tribes handle their casino and/or oil money.

 

In tribes where a share of casino profits is cut as a check to each tribe member monthly and where no one owns property, they just all live in small houses or trailers on a reservation, poverty and addiction run rampant.

Can you name a tribe with a reservation with trailers, etc that owns a large casino? I've never seen what you describe in a tribe with large oil fields or large casinos (might be regional, but I'm curious). I've only seen the type of poverty you describe in tribes in which the members who live on the reservation subsist on government reparations and such.

 

In areas where a tribe provides healthcare, scholarships, and elderly care with the casino and/or oil money instead of cutting a check, and where they help people purchase their own home instead of simply giving someone a place to live, people work hard, succeed, and addiction rates are so much lower.  One example of a tribe that does this:  The Cherokee Nation (the one in Oklahoma).

Have you been to the Chickasaw Cultural Center in Oklahoma? It is actually pretty amazing what they have been able to do for their community. They have a LARGE safety net and MANY social services (day care centers, senior center, scholarships, grants, etc).

[AimeeM]

Can you name a tribe with a reservation with trailers, etc that owns a large casino? I've never seen what you describe in a tribe with large oil fields or large casinos (might be regional, but I'm curious). I've only seen the type of poverty you describe in tribes in which the members who live on the reservation subsist on government reparations and such.

 

 

Have you been to the Chickasaw Cultural Center in Oklahoma? It is actually pretty amazing what they have been able to do for their community. They have a LARGE safety net and MANY social services (day care centers, senior center, scholarships, grants, etc).

 

I can. The Cherokee reservation in North Carolina (western end). My childhood bestfriend lived there most of her life - in poverty, her family with rampant addiction problems, and in shacks/trailers. They have a thriving casino.

[Mrs Mungo]

I can. The Cherokee reservation in North Carolina (western end). My childhood bestfriend lived there most of her life - in poverty, her family with rampant addiction problems, and in shacks/trailers. They have a thriving casino.

Is the casino actually owned by the tribe? The Chickasaws built and own their casino in Oklahoma. Other "Indian casinos" are owned by large casino chains and only a portion of the money is given to the tribe.

[Caroline]

Is the casino actually owned by the tribe? The Chickasaws built and own their casino in Oklahoma. Other "Indian casinos" are owned by large casino chains and only a portion of the money is given to the tribe.

 

Isn't the Cherokee one owned by Harrah's?

[AimeeM]

Is the casino actually owned by the tribe? The Chickasaws built and own their casino in Oklahoma. Other "Indian casinos" are owned by large casino chains and only a portion of the money is given to the tribe.

 

I just looked it up. Accorder to the internet (lol), it is owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

[AimeeM]

Isn't the Cherokee one owned by Harrah's?

 

From what I just read, it is owned by the Cherokee (Eastern Band of the tribe), and operated with help by Caesar's Entertainment.

[Leav97]

It's not something I've given much though so I mostly expected people to come up with issues I did foresee.

 

How in the world did we jump from people getting enough money, for their area, to replace social services, to people getting 90K a year?

 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

From what I just read, it is owned by the Cherokee (Eastern Band of the tribe), and operated with help by Caesar's Entertainment.

So, built with Caesar's money, operated by Caesar's and a portion of money goes to the tribe. That isn't the same as what is happening with the Chickasaws. That is a large part of the difference-the casino proceeds that the Chickasaws receive is fully managed by the tribe.

 

I asked because a casino came to my grandmother many years ago and said they would lobby to get the tribe federally recognized, if the tribe would let them build a casino and operate it in their name.

[LucyStoner]

I would honestly rather provide cash incentives for people from generational poverty to finish meaningful college and technical/trades programs and to delay having children until into their 20s than see a national minimum income. Also to provide quality drug treatment and addictions related healthcare for all who seek it. I personally think that the money for these things would come back to us on savings on the prison industry (and for those not up on the slime that is the for-profit prison companies, yes, I really do mean to say prison industry).

 

I think a minimum government payment that everyone gets regardless of their working income would have an inflationary impact and minimize any benefits. It's also nearly impossible to adjust for local price levels.