Rich getting richer, hard to get ahead, etc...

[Corraleno]

. Drawing that out a bit more...someone mentioned backs of workers and business owners using them to build wealth to their (workers') harm. I agree. I have not said otherwise. This is where proper oversight comes in and dialing back interest groups. On the flip side...using my ideas of state controlled safety net programs, workers' backs wouldn't be hurt at all or the brunt of it would be lessened. The CEO and managers could still earn their wealth, businesses could still put un-taxed monies back into their business for (also in my PP) R&D, ad/PR, new materials, more workers, better company benefits, and workers get what they need for safety net living from their state.

 

How does letting each state decide who does or doesn't deserve food stamps, WIC, medicaid, subsidized insurance, etc., somehow relieve the burden on workers who are barely scraping by on an unlivable minimum wage?  :confused1:  And who is paying for this safety net? Are the states paying for it themselves out of their own tax revenue, or are they expecting the Federal government to give them a giant pile of money and let them do whatever they want with it? (Because ironically that is exactly what some people here are saying you can't trust poor people to do, so the idea that you can surely trust politicians, who are bought and paid for by special interest groups, to have the welfare of the poor as their top priority is a joke.) 

 

Actually, I think the fastest way to convince Americans of the necessity of universal healthcare and a living minimum wage would be to do exactly what you are suggesting —but require the states to pay for the services themselves entirely out of their own tax revenue. Whatever states are currently paying into the federal pot, they get to keep for themselves, and decide how to divide it up.

 

And then when states like Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky, etc. see their budgets slashed, and millions of people lose benefits because those states are no longer being subsidized by wealthier ones, maybe the voters there will finally realize that Mexicans, Muslims, and the big bad government aren't actually the ones who are screwing them over. And the states that contribute more than they take from the government can increase their budgets and improve their schools and social services and infrastructure even more.

 

Because why should poor states get to "steal" money that rightfully belongs to wealthy states, eh?

Edited July 20, 2017 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

There is a way to strike balance.  For example, payments to states could be made based on need instead of population.  All populations would pay federal income tax, but those wealthier states who can more readily support their needs wouldn't get as much, while poorer states would get equalizing payments so that they, too, can meet their population's needs.  Here, they call it transfer payments.   Each province gets to decide how to use fed money, plus their own revenues to meet the needs of their population.   I, particularly, like this way of doing government business because in effect, it's an application, albeit a mild one, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" that has a proven track record of success.  Granted, it's not perfect, but it works rather well overall.

We already do this — and in general it is blue states subsidizing red states. Delaware, Minnesota, and Illinois get back about half of what they contribute, while the states I listed in my post above get more than twice what they put in, and South Carolina gets $8 for every $1 they contribute. So let's let the voters in the "taker" states, who think cutting taxes for the rich and killing the ACA and getting rid of "big government" is going to solve all their problems, see what life is actually like when they get what they want.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I've had to stop reading some of this thread. I'm in tears. My kid has type one diabetes (like a few other boardies' kids). If he doesn't take insulin, he dies. Do you know how much insulin costs if you don't have insurance? Or even if you do have insurance, but it's crappy insurance? Do you know how much those damn test strips cost?? Test strips!! They're an inch long piece of plastic! It's outrageous! And that's just test strips and insulin (2 types of insulin daily, btw), not all the other junk that you *must* have.

What happens if my kid doesn't get a job with great insurance? What if his insurance costs plus medical costs are through the roof? What then? He decides, hey, do I want to eat and have a roof over my head or do I want to buy insulin.

US politicians have such screwed up priorities. They can go nuts trying to get their base to support stupid crap like trying to keep certain people out of bathrooms, but when it comes to something serious, they drop the ball over and over again. They don't care because most of them are loaded and can afford their medical costs. And, of course, they have their own insurance. This isn't partisan politics, btw, because they all suck. And yeah, ds can get care if it's emergent, but needing insulin day in and day out isn't emergent, so he's sol.

Sorry for the rant. It just makes me sick. I'm ready to pack my bags and go somewhere that gives a damn about their citizens' health.

 

My BIL and SIL adopted two boys 10 years ago. One has been diagnosed with Type 1.  He and his brother are under Medicaid as they were part of a "special needs" adoption.  SIL is worried sick about the potential cuts to Medicaid and what may happen to the preexisting condition protections for when he is 18.

 

Let's hope some basic human decency helps us find a true fix for this mess.

[mommyoffive]

Does anyone think a basic income would help anything?   

[Frances]

It could be one possible solution. With globalization, automation, and technology, there may simply not be enough jobs in the future to support everyone, especially those whose skills do not match the current positions. Although I have a hard time imagining widespread support for it in the US. But combined with some sort of universal healthcare, it could be a much more efficient way to deliver help. And maybe those worried about "givers" vs "takers" would find it more acceptable because everyone would get it.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Frances

[Carol in Cal.]

Does anyone think a basic income would help anything?   

I think what would help would be a living wage for a 30 hour work week plus enhancements to social security disability.  But I don't know how to make the numbers work.

[Audrey]

Does anyone think a basic income would help anything?   

 

 

I think it could be done well and save the government a lot of money while allowing people to meet their basic needs adequately.  If everyone were guaranteed a minimum income, then people wouldn't feel that they would make less if they worked.  They could only make more, and if they make some money on their own, they are still going to have at least that minimum amount.  It would drastically reduce the number of social assistance staff a government would need to have. Everyone from 18 to death could have it.  You could entirely eliminate Social Security and other government pension plans and replace them with the guaranteed income.  Students could go to school without having to take as many loans to pay for living expenses. And, there are many other possible benefits.

 

My dh and I have discussed how such a thing could be implemented.  It's one of our frequent discussions.  Of course, we'd like to see it in our country everywhere.  And, here, we have the added advantage of universal health coverage.  It's a bit of a dream, to be honest, but it's a good one, and I do wish it could gain some more momentum.  I am encouraged by what Finland and Ontario are trying, of course. I will curiously await the outcomes of those.  It took one brave government in SK to give their citizens universal health care, and then the rest of the country followed suit.  Maybe one brave government in ON can blaze that trail for all of us? A girl can still dream, eh?

Edited July 21, 2017 by Audrey

[maize]

I love the idea of a guaranteed basic income. Along with universal health care.

 

The reduction in stress alone would likely lead to a healthier, more productive population.

[Guest]

I love the idea of a guaranteed basic income. Along with universal health care.

 

The reduction in stress alone would likely lead to a healthier, more productive population.

Idk. I wonder if things would just become more expensive.

[Sdel]

Yes, it does. It is rampant in some areas. One of our employees talked about how this kind of "scamming" was happening a lot in his extended family. (Working class poor white folks.) They sold their SNAP cards to other people as well. Black market food stamps.

I too know people who fraud the system. Sometimes it's not the gov't but the ex-spouse (not getting remarried to keep the alimony) and even charities. We go every 6 months or so to make sure the grandson isn't being used to defraud the system and to ensure that what he is entitled to goes to the right place and the social workers treat us like scum over it.

 

Stefanie

[fraidycat]

I think it could be done well and save the government a lot of money while allowing people to meet their basic needs adequately. If everyone were guaranteed a minimum income, then people wouldn't feel that they would make less if they worked. They could only make more, and if they make some money on their own, they are still going to have at least that minimum amount. It would drastically reduce the number of social assistance staff a government would need to have. Everyone from 18 to death could have it. You could entirely eliminate Social Security and other government pension plans and replace them with the guaranteed income. Students could go to school without having to take as many loans to pay for living expenses. And, there are many other possible benefits.

 

My dh and I have discussed how such a thing could be implemented. It's one of our frequent discussions. Of course, we'd like to see it in our country everywhere. And, here, we have the added advantage of universal health coverage. It's a bit of a dream, to be honest, but it's a good one, and I do wish it could gain some more momentum. I am encouraged by what Finland and Ontario are trying, of course. I will curiously await the outcomes of those. It took one brave government in SK to give their citizens universal health care, and then the rest of the country followed suit. Maybe one brave government in ON can blaze that trail for all of us? A girl can still dream, eh?

I was just discussing with a friend the other day how many social assitance programs are designed to keep people "in the system" due to losing coverage if they in any way start to "get ahead".

 

I think guaranteeing a minimum income could be a fantastic program.

[SKL]

I think any program that pays able-bodied people to NOT work for the long term is dehumanizing.  It might seem to reduce stress etc. but I believe it would be terribly unhealthy in the long term, for the individual and the society.

 

It makes more sense to make sure people have access to jobs at which they can earn a living wage, for the long term.

[TechWife]

I think any program that pays able-bodied people to NOT work for the long term is dehumanizing. It might seem to reduce stress etc. but I believe it would be terribly unhealthy in the long term, for the individual and the society.

 

It makes more sense to make sure people have access to jobs at which they can earn a living wage, for the long term.

I could be wrong on this, but I think everyone would get the guaranteed minimum income stipend regardless of their work status. Meaning, everyone starts out with this base income and it can be increased by engaging in work for others or building one' down business. Everyone would have the same starting point, so there would be no incentive not to work. Does that make sense? Again, I could be very wrong. The concept of guaranteed minimum income only came to my attention recently and I haven't done a lot of reading or thinking about pros/cons.

[SKL]

No, I don't think that would work, for the same reason it isn't healthy for a post-adolescent adult to live indefinitely in his parents' home regardless of work or study status.

[bookbard]

I feel that the basic income will eventually happen, but wiser people than I will have to work out the details.

 

What I've been interested in lately is an alternative to democracy, where people are voted in. Instead, people get into government by chance - a lottery. Sure, you could get some real disasters in there - but democracy has led to that too. The benefit that I see is that it would remove the link between government and entrenched wealth, and would remove the power of the lobby groups. 

 

There have been some successful trials of this method. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

 

 

[fraidycat]

No, I don't think that would work, for the same reason it isn't healthy for a post-adolescent adult to live indefinitely in his parents' home regardless of work or study status.

What is that reason? In other cultures, multi-generation households seem to manage just fine.

[SKL]

What is that reason? In other cultures, multi-generation households seem to manage just fine.

 

But the able-bodied individuals are studying, working, or contributing to the household in some significant way.  They are integral parts of something important.  That is necessary for a healthy human and a healthy society.

 

[Frances]

I think any program that pays able-bodied people to NOT work for the long term is dehumanizing. It might seem to reduce stress etc. but I believe it would be terribly unhealthy in the long term, for the individual and the society.

 

It makes more sense to make sure people have access to jobs at which they can earn a living wage, for the long term.

As has been discussed on this board many times, paid work is not the only type of work. Volunteer work, caring for an elderly parent, caring for children, etc are all work. There are already people who do very little paid work during their lives, but still contribute greatly to their families and society.

 

Plus, only people who want to live at the most basic level would be living off only the basic income. Everyone would also be free to do paid work.

 

Besides, how do we make sure everyone has a job that pays a living wage for the long term? Figure that one out and you could be our next president.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Frances

[Sdel]

Does anyone think a basic income would help anything?

No, nice in theory, but I think it would quickly decentivize a significant portion of people it is designed to help and we'd be right back where we started pretty quickly. Seen the dynamic pretty frequently. I happen to know more people that would use it to justify working less while simultaneously demanding "more" than people who would use it to get ahead. And I include my family in that, yes, we work hard for what we have, but I know if we knew we had x amount of dollars coming in, no matter what, our response would be to cut back on working hours, but we wouldn't necessarily demand "more".

 

Stefanie

[Rosie_0801]

I wonder if a universal income would change the culture of excessive working hours. If people didn't have to work 80 hours a week, perhaps employers would offer more reasonable full time or more part time positions. That should lead to more people working?

[Carrie12345]

I think any program that pays able-bodied people to NOT work for the long term is dehumanizing.  It might seem to reduce stress etc. but I believe it would be terribly unhealthy in the long term, for the individual and the society.

 

It makes more sense to make sure people have access to jobs at which they can earn a living wage, for the long term.

 

I don't really have any strong feelings one way or another about a basic income, but I have very strong feelings about universal health care.

 

I think using the term "able-bodied" is incredibly sticky.  There are people with physical disabilities who are able to secure employment, and people with physical disabilities who aren't.  There are people with developmental disabilities who are able to secure employment, and people with developmental disabilities who aren't.  Who determines the criteria for "able-bodied"?

 

I've spent years being frustrated, angry, resentful, blah, blah, blah, about specific individuals in my life who "won't" hold onto jobs.  It took a very long time for me to put 2 and 2 together and recognize that their mental illnesses just won't allow for it.  Several very different illnesses, with several different manifestations, all resulting in the inability to keep a stable income.  All of them HAVE had decent to well-paying employment at one time or another, but then one thing or another triggers, and they're back to square one.  Are they "able-bodied" or not?

[Twolittleboys]

I am honestly always puzzled that people in the US are so accepting of the problems with the health care system. I mean obviously there are a lot of complaints, but overall it isn't seen as completely inacceptable.

 

Living in Europe not having necessary medical care is just not something I can imagine. Sure, the system isn't perfect here either. Sometimes there is a lot of paper work, sometimes it doesn't make sense, some things may not be covered or there may be a longer wait than one wants. But honestly I have never heard of anyone being worried about not receiving medication or going into debt because of it. Luckily, we are all pretty healthy so maybe I am just not as aware as I should be, but I don't think that is it.

 

The US is not a poor country. There must be a way to get affordable health care for everyone.

 

Maybe the problem in the US is that in the past people relied heavily on family/friends/neighbours etc.? I do think that is great (here noone from church brings over food if I am sick) but I think society is changing so much, systems have to change with it. Not everyone has family/church friends these days. And even if, they can bring chicken soup but not chemotherapy. A hundred years ago there just weren't so many medical options so not having access to them was less of a problem.

 

I am much less certain about minimum wage/universal income. There are many jobs in the US that just don't exist in Europe (at least not where I live), presumably because they just can not pay a decent wage. Increasing minimum wages does mean there will be less jobs. So it needs to be counter-acted with education, automation etc. Economies are such complicated constructs with so many interactions that I feel any changes should be incremental so unforeseen/negative consequences can be mitigated.

[Laura Corin]

There are many jobs in the US that just don't exist in Europe (at least not where I live), presumably because they just can not pay a decent wage.

This is interesting. What kinds of jobs? ETA, grocery bagging comes to mind.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Laura Corin

[Carrie12345]

Not everyone has family/church friends these days. And even if, they can bring chicken soup but not chemotherapy. 

 

This.

This.

This.

 

The comment I really want to add is probably against the politics rule.  

[Guest]

This is interesting. What kinds of jobs? ETA, grocery bagging comes to mind.

Grocery bagging in my area is a job only as a partnership with an agency for special needs adults. The job is onky open to their clients. Unpacking is also done as a partnership, but its open to non special needs due to not enough clients who can be trained successfully. Transportation and job coach are supplied by agency and funded by the state, or if its a high school program,by the local school tax and the state contribution to the school funding. The cashier helps the customer bag when there is no bagperson.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[Twolittleboys]

This is interesting. What kinds of jobs? ETA, grocery bagging comes to mind.

Grocery bagging does come to mind. Here, you have to get them into your bag yourself and you'd better be quick about it! I do miss it as it can be a bit stressful. And noone drives the cart out to your cart for you either.

 

I used to see college kids standing on highways etc. with signs during constructions in the US - not sure they still do that though.

 

People assigning seats in restaurants (though I think that is more cultural and not related to minimum wages as such).

 

Car washes. At least in LA I used to drop off my car before the actual wash. Someone went inside, cleaned/vacuumed. Then they drive it into/out of the car wash and then you sit on lawn chairs! watching as some guy dries/polishes your car for the next 10 to 15 minutes (which made me pretty uncomfortable). Here you drive your car in and out of the machine and that is it as far as I know. Maybe there is some fancy special service (I don't have a car so not sure) but I have never seen someone other than the owner polishing/drying it.

[Guest]

L

 

Maybe the problem in the US is that in the past people relied heavily on family/friends/neighbours etc.? I do think that is great (here noone from church brings over food if I am sick) but I think society is changing so much, systems have to change with it. Not everyone has family/church friends these days. And even if, they can bring chicken soup but not chemotherapy. A hundred years ago there just weren't so many medical options so not having access to them was less of a problem.

 

I am much less certain about minimum wage/universal income. There are many jobs in the US that just don't exist in Europe (at least not where I live), presumably because they just can not pay a decent wage. Increasing minimum wages does mean there will be less jobs. So it needs to be counter-acted with education, automation etc. Economies are such complicated constructs with so many interactions that I feel any changes should be incremental so unforeseen/negative consequences can be mitigated.

In the past, the price of medical care was not so high that people would not call the doctor. The trouble was lack of cure, but if you did get cancer you could get care that wouldn't bankrupt the survivors..even the VA didn't delay care so long that first round treatment was not done. Our supply of doctors has not kept up with population growth, and the price is so high that people do without. What puzzles me is the growth in the number of type 2 diabetics, a disease that does not have to happen and is a major portion of money spent on health care. I did not know anyone growing up who sat all day, or drank soda in ,ieu of water,.and I from rural poverty where the communities are not walkable. I know so many people who have had their patient education,have the time and places to exercise and the funds to eat healthy, but refuse to do the work to improve their situation. Edited July 21, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[Laura Corin]

Grocery bagging does come to mind. Here, you have to get them into your bag yourself and you'd better be quick about it! I do miss it as it can be a bit stressful. And noone drives the cart out to your cart for you either.

 

I used to see college kids standing on highways etc. with signs during constructions in the US - not sure they still do that though.

 

People assigning seats in restaurants (though I think that is more cultural and not related to minimum wages as such).

 

Car washes. At least in LA I used to drop off my car before the actual wash. Someone went inside, cleaned/vacuumed. Then they drive it into/out of the car wash and then you sit on lawn chairs! watching as some guy dries/polishes your car for the next 10 to 15 minutes (which made me pretty uncomfortable). Here you drive your car in and out of the machine and that is it as far as I know. Maybe there is some fancy special service (I don't have a car so not sure) but I have never seen someone other than the owner polishing/drying it.

The other job that barely exists in the UK is supermarket trolley corralling. The trolleys here mostly have deposits, so customers put them away.

 

On the other hand, grocery delivery is big business here, but less so in the US, I think.

[Guest]

The other job that barely exists in the UK is supermarket trolley corralling. The trolleys here mostly have deposits, so customers put them away.

 

On the other hand, grocery delivery is big business here, but less so in the US, I think.

 

This depends where you live. In some areas here, there are deposits on the carts, its just a lock where one inserts a quarter and gets it back when the cart is put away. Children will return carts in order to obtain the quarter. A store employee who has other duties periodically brings carts from parking lot storage to storage by entrance of store.

 

Grocery delivery in my area is popular. The elderly like the local chain grocery as the delivery charge is low enough that its reasonable..combine that with mail order delivery of prescriptions and they have more free time. My friends in urban area, dinks (dual income no kids) who often work a long day, use a service like Blue Apron. One grocer also has ordering online...they pick and pack, customer drives up and order is placed in vehicle...popular for commuters. And then there is Amazon..

[creekland]

I love the idea of a basic minimum income, but I seriously wonder how that is affordable because one needs to pull all that money in from taxes - meaning taxpayers would really be paying quite a bit more to only be paid back their own money (literally)... I don't think it would get rid of any jealousy.  I like the idea of just giving a check (as talked about before), but are we really ready to let kids go hungry if their parents use that check on their drug/alcohol/toy habit rather than buying enough food before the next check comes in?  This is the major problem I see (probably working in school lets me see it more among the kids).  If there were a way to sort through recipients of checks to see who can intelligently use their money (financial intelligence - bills/needs first) and who can't - restricting the latter - it might work better.

 

Speaking of that jealousy, I really don't get why folks are jealous of those getting welfare.  I've seen various aspects of welfare in action from WIC to SNAP to Unemployment, to Section 8, to "basic" welfare and it's just not a lifestyle I envy.  If someone wants it, go ahead, have it.  There aren't enough jobs to go around anyway.  Those who want more (including the pure satisfaction of a job) can choose otherwise - just as we do now.  If enough folks opt to join the "loafing" (and poor) lifestyle, wages will go up to attract workers.  Everyone can figure out where their balance is.  (NOTE:  This "loafing" lifestyle is NOT what people are choosing when they use these benefits to help themselves economically with a plan to get off the programs or they simply need the programs due to disabilities, etc - it's solely when someone were to opt to do it instead of getting a job if they were able.)

 

I also don't see where any of this has anything to do with universal health care.  That needs to be a right for all - regardless of what is done with other aspects of welfare.  When one is sick, the last thing they ought to have adding to their stress are worries about finances or arguing with insurance or similar.

Edited July 21, 2017 by creekland

[FaithManor]

What is that reason? In other cultures, multi-generation households seem to manage just fine.

I think that is a myth. Do they exist and have for centuries? Yes. Manage just fine? No. If you get into these cultures deeper what you often see are very big, not so pleasant, and oft times abusive behaviors from the elders.

 

Our dear friend with Doctors Without Borders has worked in nineteen countries and reports numerous cases of horrible abuse of the younger generations by the eldest members of multi generation households. It is accepted practice.

 

Here, I would not expect any rampant, wide-spread physical abuse. But other types of abuse and control? Absolutely.

 

I know many of my friends right now who like us are steam rolled between the care of elderly relatives, relatives that never saved a dime and expect their kids to support them financially, and raising kids and launching young adults, who CAN NOT allow these elders to move in because they have no respect for their adult children, demand to be the ultimate authority of the household, expect to be the center of the household universe. To be honest, this is way more common in my community than elders who want to be loving, helpful, compassionate, respectful members of the household. I have been the abused care giver while trying to home school, raise kids, figure out the finances. It.was.a.nightmare!

 

Move into the elder's house instead? How many have heard, "My house, my rules"? Try being the parent who does not hit your children moving in with the grandparents who think training a child is using the belt on a regular basis, or who yell and scream and insult, or don't support your homeschooling, or.... it is their house. They paid for it. In their eyes, you should do things their way because you moved in with them. What about religious differences? Can you really live with elders whose religion you have rejected, especially if they belong to a group that ties eternal reward to proselytizing?

 

People may be forced by economics to live multi generational, but that doesn't make it desirable or good, and the consequences of self centered relatives moving in and being supported by the next generation can be pretty awful, not to mention the immense stress once these elders require a lot of supervision and care while the care givers must continue working to earn enough to keep the whole thing spinning.

 

These multi generational cultures have been historically dependent on a stay at home, non income earning adult female of reasonably good health to work like a dog in the household. This nation is very rapidly approaching the threshold where single income will not be an option, and for those that manage it while their children are little, the pressing need to contribute to retirement funds, college for young adults, exponentially rising healthcare costs, etc. will often drive these once sah adults back into the work force. How many threads have we had just on this board about juggling work and home schooling? Placing kids in school in order to go back to work because single income is no longer an option? So now add in elderly relatives who have to be financially supported, potentially supervised, require physical care? Mostly it will result in lower life expectancy for my generation as our stress levels kill us young.

 

Birthrates are below replacement now in many developed nations which results economically in younger generations having to pay in at higher tax rates and working later into their infirm years in order to keep national stability resulting in fewer healthy adults able to be unpaid care givers to the elder generation. It means having fewer siblings to help spread the workload among.

 

Multi generational households is a rosy plan in theory, but not in practice.

[Barb_]

I'm late to the the thread. I'm still stuck back at "gumption".

 

My daughter's friend with schizophrenia who believes his cat protects him against dark magic just needs gumption? Same for the lady with three kids whose husband walks out? Or the guy with the drug addicted wife? Or the couple with elementary schoolers who suddenly have to take on dementia care for a parent? Or the sweet, empathetic, little boy who was raised on a steady diet of insults: stupid, lazy, careless, worthless and has internalized that to the point his believes it. Or even the introvert who finds working with others overstimumlating to the point of painful?

 

Carrie is right. Able-bodied is a misnomer. It used to be all you needed was an able body and the willingness to do repetitive, mind numbing work. I won't argue that's was such a good place in our history. Regardless, those jobs are gone. Most of our entry level jobs are in the service industry where it takes a certain sort of personality to grab the job and to keep it. Why do we begrudge help to those who are unemployed or underemployed becasue for whatever reason they are ill equipped by mental health or physical health or family circumstances or even personality to claw their way to the top of the pile? Why should my daughter with the scrappy personality who defaults to looking out for number one deserve a bigger piece of the infinite pie than the other daughter who is kind, puts others first and tends to give away her pie to other people?

[Barb_]

Now I'm on to "confiscation" of money. Taxes pay for roads, libraries, museums, national parks, infrastructure, etc. Government must tax in order to run a country. Where are they going to get it from? From citizens who use these services. Do I use every road or library or museum or program I pay for? Of course not. But there is no other efficient way to go about funding a free society.

 

Look at it this way. Businesses know they must pay people enough to cover the tax bill. Economies set wages that are competitive in order to maximize the number of skilled workers while also maximizing profit. If all taxes went away tomorrow, that extra money would eventually work its way right out of the pockets of employees and directly back into the profit margins of corporations, due to the pressure of competition and supply and demand and the maximumization of profits. In a sense, the money earmarked for taxes isn't ours anyway. Employees are simply conduits for the money to flow through in order to keep society running.

 

Confiscation is taking something that was yours against your will. Your taxes were never your to begin with, so the premise is incorrect.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Barb_

[SKL]

The problem of health care in the US has changed a lot in recent years.  Not long ago, it was pretty easy to be on a comprehensive insurance plan that covered the big stuff.  At some point costs got crazy, employers cut benefits by paying a smaller portion of the insurance bill / buying less comprehensive insurance / both, previously-affordable individual plans became harder / impossible to buy.  There was always the issue of gap insurance between jobs, but that could have been addressed as a separate issue, which was a big lost opportunity.

 

My mom was diagnosed with advanced colon cancer pre-Obamacare.  She had surgery, radiation, chemo, and lots of follow-ups.  It did not cost my family a penny.  (My folks were modest middle-class, dad worked at a factory and mom had retired but used part of her retirement to fund health insurance.)

 

It remains true that most people in the US have comprehensive health insurance.  There's free coverage for the poor, the elderly, and in at least many states, the chronically ill.  Coverage has gotten more expensive for the rest of us, but it's not out of reach for most.  We do still have gaps and excess costs that we need to address better.  Every country has some gaps and budget issues though.

 

One thing I've been wanting to ask - do we no longer have "free clinics" for non-emergency care?  I was not aware that they did away with those.  [ETA I checked and they still operate in my area, and include physical health, dental, and psychological services.]

Edited July 21, 2017 by SKL

[Barb_]

No we do not have free clinics that I am aware of. And as far as prices going up with coverage going down, the free market system is the culprit for the current awful state we find ourselves in. The ACA was created in part to stop the runaway train of the insurance industry.

 

Healthcare cannot operate as a free marketplace becasue it isn't susceptible to the pressures of supply and demand. If you need chemo, you can't just opt for vitamins if you can't afford it. It's not like choosing between salmon and hot dogs. All of this talk about buying only what you need and shopping around is floated to confuse people by using language they are used to hearing in a capitalist economy. There is no picking and choosing when your daughter has croup at 3am and is turning blue.

[FaithManor]

Agreed Barb. We see this in extended family. Dh's cousin had multiple emotional issues that made it very difficult for him to remain employed in service industry jobs, particularly noisy ones, busy ones. He would have been fine in a solitary office, rarely disturbed, but could not find that type of work. Then he found a volunteer job driving blind and elderly folks to their appointments. Chauffeuring for the disabled, one or two people at a time. He LOVES it! And he is kind, compassionate, gracious. It should be paid work, really. But these kinds of things are nearly always volunteer. He is 55, still living at home with his now eighty + year old parents who for the time being can afford to maintain and insure his vehicle. He is a blessing to them - one of the only households in which I have seen this being a positive because usually the care giving adult is quite used and abused - but his sister, a radiologist with a husband who is a contractor and combined makes mega money, has every intention of putting him out on the street when the parents pass. They see no value in what he does, and figure homeless is what he deserves for not making "good money".

 

Having not paid much in social security withholding, and disability being based largely on previous earnings, his service to the community as a chauffeur for the disabled being of no account to the system, he will end up in a homeless shelter. We cannot take him in because our last bedroom will end up going to my mom while we still have college students living at home. I have to go back into the work force to pay for my mom who is pretty destitute, and contribute to college funds as well as our retirement so have enough to prevent the domino effect on the next generation. Car insurance is killing us in this no fault state, so providing a vehicle for him and insuring/maintaining it so he can continue volunteer work is not an option at this time.

 

This nation really does put price tags on people's heads, and worth and community contribution is tied entirely to earning potential with no consideration of other types of contribution.

 

Due to sah individuals going back into the work force, the number of boy scout troops in our county is one third what it was a decade ago. 4H clubs are down half. Yet these volunteer positions provide an immense public good, education and character training at a time when families need the assist the most. Another decade? They may not exist anymore. But paid work rules the day, and there is no assistance for those volunteering to make others' lives better.

[Barb_]

Yes Faith, personal worth is tied very closely to a paycheck. Which is why we who devote our lives to raising educated, functioning memebers of society, volunteer, take care of elders, and put in countless hours of unpaid labor not only forfeit a paycheck and a whole lot of societal respect, we also leave ourselves vulnerable in old age because social security doesn't recognizw our worth either.

[Scarlett]

I'm late to the the thread. I'm still stuck back at "gumption".

 

My daughter's friend with schizophrenia who believes his cat protects him against dark magic just needs gumption? Same for the lady with three kids whose husband walks out? Or the guy with the drug addicted wife? Or the couple with elementary schoolers who suddenly have to take on dementia care for a parent? Or the sweet, empathetic, little boy who was raised on a steady diet of insults: stupid, lazy, careless, worthless and has internalized that to the point his believes it. Or even the introvert who finds working with others overstimumlating to the point of painful?

 

Carrie is right. Able-bodied is a misnomer. It used to be all you needed was an able body and the willingness to do repetitive, mind numbing work. I won't argue that's was such a good place in our history. Regardless, those jobs are gone. Most of our entry level jobs are in the service industry where it takes a certain sort of personality to grab the job and to keep it. Why do we begrudge help to those who are unemployed or underemployed becasue for whatever reason they are ill equipped by mental health or physical health or family circumstances or even personality to claw their way to the top of the pile? Why should my daughter with the scrappy personality who defaults to looking out for number one deserve a bigger piece of the infinite pie than the other daughter who is kind, puts others first and tends to give away her pie to other people?

Yep. And I dont believe that giving basic human needs ( food shelter, clothing, health care) will bring on a bunch of loafers. In fact it might very well help people who feel hopeless and paralyzed to become functioning members of society.

 

Drug addiction is a huge problem though. People on drugs can't be trusted to care properly for their own children regardless of where their money is coming from.

[fairfarmhand]

Just looked up numbers: about 20% of the students at our university are first generation college students. That's not that rare.

 

As a side note: One thing that is super exciting about living in TN is the TN Promise program that pays for a two year college degree for all high school graduates in the state.

 

This program is designed for first generation students. The meetings that you're required to attend are SO very basic. (how to do well in college--study and do your homework, attend class, Here's what a credit hour is, don't forget to apply to colleges, schedule your classes) and they assign mentors to every student.

 

For me, my focus is less on what others have accomplished and more on "Look how far we've come." Without my dh's college scholarships, we would not be here.

 

I'm so excited to be part of a state that is trying to better the lives of students...even the students who are C students. Even if they never become millionaires, or wealthy, the fact that these kids can be funded for solid careers (it counts for certificates like EMT training and such) and better their lives is really awesome.

[Carrie12345]

 

 

It remains true that most people in the US have comprehensive health insurance. There's free coverage for the poor, the elderly, and in at least many states, the chronically ill. Coverage has gotten more expensive for the rest of us, but it's not out of reach for most. We do still have gaps and excess costs that we need to address better. Every country has some gaps and budget issues though.

 

One thing I've been wanting to ask - do we no longer have "free clinics" for non-emergency care? I was not aware that they did away with those. [ETA I checked and they still operate in my area, and include physical health, dental, and psychological services.]

There are no free clinics in my area. There are many, many crappy Urgent Cares and several ERs.

 

When my niece and nephew were here, we made sure to get their mom to sign up for "free health care". Couldn't get the kids basic check ups because all doctors met their Medicaid patient limits for the calendar year. "Try agan in 5 months." Couldn't even go OOP, because they had coverage.

 

They did have UC visits in that time (with bills, which is almost funny), but UCs don't do vaccinations or developmental assessments or any other well care. And these kids were at risk even if just for being poor. But, since they were poor, they couldn't get care to combat the effects of being poor.

[TravelingChris]

I'm pretty sure it's because too many who made it attribute all their success to themselves and don't have one iota of belief that there are many who didn't make it who tried just as hard or who can't make it due to no fault of their own.  Their stereotype of the poor matches many folks' stereotypes of homeschoolers.  (Meaning some are out there like that, but it in no way is the whole population.)

 

It's quite akin to a top sports star telling everyone they had enough grit to make it to the top, so did - implying that anyone who wanted to can do the same.  They totally overlook all those who had just as much grit, but got injured along the way, didn't have enough talent in spite of putting in as many hours, or couldn't even afford the time or $$ to play/practice to begin with.  Supposedly, it's all choices.

 

I know for myself, I was good at riding (English - show), but could never afford to compete at top levels even though I won quite a bit locally and a little bit I did regionally.  That wasn't my choice to not move on.

 

I also know there's no way in the world I'd have made it to being a top Volleyball player no matter what choices I made or how much practice time I put in.  I'm short... and can't fix that.

We know we benefited from good genetics(with regards to our abilities) and the right type of personalities to get ahead. OTOH, we lost out in many ways because of when we were born (tail end of baby boomers), because of health, because of timing of economic incidents, because of my health issues, etc.

 

I am not one of those who think everyone can be without a safety net. But it makes me sad that I was watching a younger woman who is deaf and who is on disability. There was nothing wrong with her except for deafness and I don't know whether she didn't get a good enough education, didn't have enough family help, didn't want to leave her rural community, all I know is that more disabled people should be helped in ways so they can become productive citizens. It isn't so much about the money but the wasted lives. The government is all set to pay for SS disability forever and Medicare/Medicaid for those disabled but doesn't want to help get that modified vehicle or help get whatever is needed to get these people more functional. I strongly believe that having work or volunteer work or education or other meaningful tasks to do is important for peoople's own health. Wasting away watching tv endlessly is probably not the wisest use of time.

[Frances]

The problem of health care in the US has changed a lot in recent years. Not long ago, it was pretty easy to be on a comprehensive insurance plan that covered the big stuff. At some point costs got crazy, employers cut benefits by paying a smaller portion of the insurance bill / buying less comprehensive insurance / both, previously-affordable individual plans became harder / impossible to buy. There was always the issue of gap insurance between jobs, but that could have been addressed as a separate issue, which was a big lost opportunity.

 

My mom was diagnosed with advanced colon cancer pre-Obamacare. She had surgery, radiation, chemo, and lots of follow-ups. It did not cost my family a penny. (My folks were modest middle-class, dad worked at a factory and mom had retired but used part of her retirement to fund health insurance.)

 

It remains true that most people in the US have comprehensive health insurance. There's free coverage for the poor, the elderly, and in at least many states, the chronically ill. Coverage has gotten more expensive for the rest of us, but it's not out of reach for most. We do still have gaps and excess costs that we need to address better. Every country has some gaps and budget issues though.

 

One thing I've been wanting to ask - do we no longer have "free clinics" for non-emergency care? I was not aware that they did away with those. [ETA I checked and they still operate in my area, and include physical health, dental, and psychological services.]

From numerous discussions on this board we've seen that having insurance, even comprehensive insurance, does not mean you can actually afford to use it. Also, prior to the ACA, a fairly significant percentage of adults did not have comprehensive coverage.

 

Personally, I have great insurance at very little cost to me through my job. I've also had big bills completely covered. That doesn't mean I don't realize that many others are in a very different situation and that compared to other developed countries, we spend far more for generally worse oucomes. And the patchwork nature of our system is pretty much the definition of insanity and inefficiency.

[Barb_]

I am having trouble doing multi-quotes right now, but here are a few points to share in response to PP's...

 

1. To the people who think I disagree with a Safety Net concept for those in need, you are not reading far enough back into the conversation, which I know, is tough now that this is 12+ pages long. But, I do support helping, but at a state level for all of those above mentioned items like healthcare, education, food, and so on. I have shared that due to each state being so different and having its own set of troubles, each state, with some Federal oversight, would benefit taking the responsibility for its own citizens. As we have discussed in past discussions in other threads, the wide variety of cultural uniqueness across various state lines is quite significant. We are asking a behemoth Federal government to aid people from AK to ME, and FL to HI. It is craziness.

 

2. I PP was accurate, I do live in MN and we do have some of the best programs in the country despite the Federal government, because MN has gone beyond many other states. I think Federal policies hold back many states from achieving what they need for their own citizens. If Uncle Sam, just went hands-off for these programs, and said, "States this is up to you now," I do believe that the blue, red and purple places would just do what they needed to help their own people. I have seen that work here in my own county (yes, immensely smaller scale) when the county gave control of many things to our 13 cities and townships.

 

3. Regarding Points 1 and 2, these are valid ideas to solve our problems as a nation and to make many people here happy about safety nets, access, and more equality, as well as moving with more ease through life as our European friends do. But, you all ignore these ideas in favor of continuing to discuss how unfair current policies are and how the only way is to tax more at a Federal level. I respectfully disagree.

 

4. Also, in a PP of mine, I mentioned how our wealth is all worthless paper and metal as well as binary code (fiat money) and yes, that it could all just go away, in fact, even worse than 2008/2009.

 

5. Having a pie analogy does \ne I think people are lazy, stupid, or crooks. In fact, none of my posts use those words or suggest any of those ideas to be the case. When my analogy does demonstrate is the position that some people think wealth is finite and it is not.

 

6. Drawing that out a bit more...someone mentioned backs of workers and business owners using them to build wealth to their (workers') harm. I agree. I have not said otherwise. This is where proper oversight comes in and dialing back interest groups. On the flip side...using my ideas of state controlled safety net programs, workers' backs wouldn't be hurt at all or the brunt of it would be lessened. The CEO and managers could still earn their wealth, businesses could still put un-taxed monies back into their business for (also in my PP) R&D, ad/PR, new materials, more workers, better company benefits, and workers get what they need for safety net living from their state.

 

I just really think this is a win-win. I also mentioned how our European neighbors' own nations are more like our individual states than our entire nation is. They operate so well (aside from the 4 like Cyprus, Greece, etc..) because they are trim and slender in terms of population size and geographic size. Each U.S. state is like that. Texans take care of Texans. Iowans take care of Iowans, and so on.

Do you really believe each of our states should operate like it's own little country? There are so many misconceptions and illogical assumptions in this post that I hardly know where to begin.

 

In order to be the United States of America, we must have a centralized government. Otherwise we are simply a confederation of states and that didn't work out so well in the 18th century.

 

The federal government doesn't take care of New York and California and wealthier states so much as these states take care of their poorer cousins. You are fortunate to live in a state where services are good. Don't move to Mississippi or Kentucky or Oklahoma or Kansas if you want to keep believing states will take care of their own.

 

Businesses have no incentive to offer better company benefits with all their extra money. They have all sorts of incentive to give themselves raises and push their stock prices higher. Business don't give money away.

 

I have to quit even though I'm just getting started. My kids are starting to wake up.

 

ETA please forgive autocorrects. I'm not going back

Edited July 21, 2017 by Barb_

[BarbecueMom]

I'm not opposed to the basic income idea, but as someone who grew up with a parent who was consistently employed with a not-minimum wage income and reliable child support and STILL suffered the effects of poverty, what do you do about people that can't manage money, at all, but are out of the reach of social programs (not unemployed, not on food stamps or WIC, not getting Medicaid, etc.)?

 

This is where I get frustrated and twitchy, because we had nothing and qualified for nothing. It was just stupid decision after stupid non-decision. Is there a way to "fix the stupid" (despite my personal quote in my high school yearbook that says you can't)?

[FaithManor]

Yep. And I dont believe that giving basic human needs ( food shelter, clothing, health care) will bring on a bunch of loafers. In fact it might very well help people who feel hopeless and paralyzed to become functioning members of society.

 

Drug addiction is a huge problem though. People on drugs can't be trusted to care properly for their own children regardless of where their money is coming from.

This is why I am for robust drug addiction rehab, in patient. In these cases we do not need o give them a check, we need to for their sakes and our own, place them in rehab and potentially term care until they can function. Not prison. Care. Therapy. Medical supervision. Then when they can function decently, we can talk about employment or basic income, safety nets etc. Giving a drug addict money is simply like handing them a weapon they can use to further harm or kill themselves.

[Barb_]

We know we benefited from good genetics(with regards to our abilities) and the right type of personalities to get ahead. OTOH, we lost out in many ways because of when we were born (tail end of baby boomers), because of health, because of timing of economic incidents, because of my health issues, etc.

 

I am not one of those who think everyone can be without a safety net. But it makes me sad that I was watching a younger woman who is deaf and who is on disability. There was nothing wrong with her except for deafness and I don't know whether she didn't get a good enough education, didn't have enough family help, didn't want to leave her rural community, all I know is that more disabled people should be helped in ways so they can become productive citizens. It isn't so much about the money but the wasted lives. The government is all set to pay for SS disability forever and Medicare/Medicaid for those disabled but doesn't want to help get that modified vehicle or help get whatever is needed to get these people more functional. I strongly believe that having work or volunteer work or education or other meaningful tasks to do is important for peoople's own health. Wasting away watching tv endlessly is probably not the wisest use of time.

You are so right. But that would be even MORE government help and there are those on this thread who begrudge that woman even the most basic level of care. We can't even talk about the government helping people become self-supporting.

[Twolittleboys]

I love the idea of a basic minimum income, but I seriously wonder how that is affordable because one needs to pull all that money in from taxes - meaning taxpayers would really be paying quite a bit more to only be paid back their own money (literally)... I don't think it would get rid of any jealousy.  I like the idea of just giving a check (as talked about before), but are we really ready to let kids go hungry if their parents use that check on their drug/alcohol/toy habit rather than buying enough food before the next check comes in?  This is the major problem I see (probably working in school lets me see it more among the kids).  If there were a way to sort through recipients of checks to see who can intelligently use their money (financial intelligence - bills/needs first) and who can't - restricting the latter - it might work better.

I am not sure I quite understand the above - probably because I haven't paid that much attention to the whole "basic minimum income" thing (and I didn't read the entire thread yet). Are you talking about receiving money as opposed to food stamps or similar though?

 

We kind of/sort of have a mix between a basic minimum income and welfare. Basically, you have to be looking for a job but you do get a minimum amount per month to live on. People who make money do not get it but if you earn less than you would get under the program you will get the difference. There is a lot of complaining that the amount budgeted is too low (and of course it depends a lot on individual situations) but I checked the other day and I thought for our family it didn't look that bad (as in it barely makes it worth working).

 

Anyway, the main amount you do get is just deposited into your bank account and you can do as you wish with it. There is probably some sort of checking on it but not that much (we did get this for a while when the kids were little and there was no oversight). I actually don't think there is a huge amount of abuse (though I may be wrong). I mean there is sure to be some but I don't know if it is worse than if there were food stamps etc.

[Barb_]

Yep. And I dont believe that giving basic human needs ( food shelter, clothing, health care) will bring on a bunch of loafers. In fact it might very well help people who feel hopeless and paralyzed to become functioning members of society.

 

Drug addiction is a huge problem though. People on drugs can't be trusted to care properly for their own children regardless of where their money is coming from.

This is true, but a completely separate social problem. That takes money. Probably from taxes.

[Barb_]

I'm not opposed to the basic income idea, but as someone who grew up with a parent who was consistently employed with a not-minimum wage income and reliable child support and STILL suffered the effects of poverty, what do you do about people that can't manage money, at all, but are out of the reach of social programs (not unemployed, not on food stamps or WIC, not getting Medicaid, etc.)?

 

This is where I get frustrated and twitchy, because we had nothing and qualified for nothing. It was just stupid decision after stupid non-decision. Is there a way to "fix the stupid" (despite my personal quote in my high school yearbook that says you can't)?

In most cases it's only a generational fix. You did it :) There has always been stupid. Look at literature and family histories. But we have to decide as a society whether we're going to help everyone--people with gumption and people without, sick and well, stupid and smart--or not. No litmus test, no judgement. It may not fix stupid, but neither does not helping.

[FaithManor]

I was just thinking about the very neurologically damaged children in lead laden Flint. So many of them are going to die young because of the stupidity of our system. And if they live and cannot be employed, they will be labeled drains on society, generally by the very people who allowed the pollution to occur to begin with....GAH!!!