Jump to content

Menu

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


Moxie
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I don't think the government, which is actually all of us, is purposely trying to enable disabled people to not work. There are all sorts of programs, both public and private, to assist with this. Could there be more and could aid be better spent? Of course. Just like high school could actually give everyone the basic skills needed to be an educated adult. But of course it doesn't.

 

I'm also not sure unless we know someone very well, we can really know their situation. We have such unmet mental health needs in this country that are often a confounding factor for many people.

 

One reason I like the idea of a minimal basic income is that people would have enough to cover the basics and then could go do more. So a disabled person would not have to worry about getting a part-time job that might actually leave them financially worse off after losing some benefits or doing volunteer work that might disqualify them from receiving disability payments.

 

And by eliminating the vast majority of current government safety net programs, efficiency would be greatly increased. Although I'm with Creekland in being very concerned about children with irresponsible and/or dysfunctional parents. I'm not sure how we solve that one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)?

Honestly, I think you can't. This is where in my opinion the more immediate environment is needed. What I mean is this: I am a huge proponent of a good social safety net. Health insurance for all, basic needs covered, free/inexpensive education etc. And these will cover at least some aspects (e.g. here it is basically impossible not to have health care). But no system can be perfect. Even the sturdiest system will have cracks that people slip through exactly because it is a system and it can't consider every possible variation or it will become too complicate to operate. Quite aside of the fact that the control/oversight aspect would seriously endanger personal freedom.

 

So the only solution is for people/organisations that are closer to the individual case to step in. These are the cases where we need neighbors to invite the kids over for dinner, teachers to gift extra pencils to a child, a church to donate Christmas presents for kids etc. (these are just possible scenarios not musts). And if the general safety net is sturdy it shouldn't overload individuals (as for example medical costs are covered so noone needs to donate for those).

 

Yes, some people will still slip through, because they are ashamed, don't know many people, are surrounded by others in a similar situation etc. But hopefully it should be a much smaller number than now.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think you can't. This is where in my opinion the more immediate environment is needed. What I mean is this: I am a huge proponent of a good social safety net. Health insurance for all, basic needs covered, free/inexpensive education etc. And these will cover at least some aspects (e.g. here it is basically impossible not to have health care). But no system can be perfect. Even the sturdiest system will have cracks that people slip through exactly because it is a system and it can't consider every possible variation or it will become too complicate to operate. Quite aside of the fact that the control/oversight aspect would seriously endanger personal freedom.

 

So the only solution is for people/organisations that are closer to the individual case to step in. These are the cases where we need neighbors to invite the kids over for dinner, teachers to gift extra pencils to a child, a church to donate Christmas presents for kids etc. (these are just possible scenarios not musts). And if the general safety net is sturdy it shouldn't overload individuals (as for example medical costs are covered so noone needs to donate for those).

 

Yes, some people will still slip through, because they are ashamed, don't know many people, are surrounded by others in a similar situation etc. But hopefully it should be a much smaller number than now.

I agree with this so much. I would also add that I think we need to do everything possible to help people delay having children until they are ready to be parents. For mean, this means comprehensive real sex education and free or very inexpensive birth control readily available. And I mean seriously easily available. Once someone who is not ready to parent, for whatever reason or reasons, brings a child into the world, the solutions just got a whole lot more complicated and expensive.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have a free clinic here. It is for people without insurance. I will have to check what their income levels are since my ds has no insurance. So far he has gone twice to an urgent care/family practice physician who is really good with doing things like giving him a sample medication and not requiring unnecessary tests. Like last month, he went in to get doxycycline since he had been bitten by a deer tick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

To my knowledge:

 

For the basic income test in Ontario, Canada, the people recieving the money will get 75% of the money needed to be above the poverty level. And yes, you would get the amount regardless of income. For the test of the idea the 4000 people in the test are poor, and not middle class.

 

In Kenya for the basic income, everyone will receive the money. They will hand it out using cell phone money transfers. They have raised enough money that they can promise the people the program will last for 19 years.

Edited by Julie Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

If 51% of the population had comprehensive health insurance that would be "most" of the people. Yet, IMO, that would be completely unacceptable. So what percentage of the population is acceptable? Even with the current social safety net we are still talking about tens of millions of people without access to affordable health care. We bat around these numbers like we are counting marbles or something - 30 million uninsured, 20 million uninsured, 18 million uninsured. Whatever the numbers, these are millions and millions of real live people. How can the fortunate 150-200 million who have employer based insurance simply ignore the rest of the population.

 

IMO, one can only ignore these people by refusing to see what life is really like for many, many, many Americans.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a timely article on the front page of the WaPo

 

Ă¢â‚¬Å“There is a critical divide in the minds of low-income whites, between people who work, even if they struggle, and what has historically been called Ă¢â‚¬Ëœwhite trash,Ă¢â‚¬â„¢ Ă¢â‚¬ said Lisa Pruitt, a professor at the University of California at Davis who researches rural poverty and grew up in Newton County, Ark., which has one of the nationĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s highest disability rates. Ă¢â‚¬Å“The worst thing you can do in rural America among low-income whites is not work.Ă¢â‚¬ ThereĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s a mentality, she said, that Ă¢â‚¬Å“only lazy white trashĂ¢â‚¬ accept whatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s derided as Ă¢â‚¬Å“handouts.Ă¢â‚¬

 

Ă¢â‚¬Å“Were you morally upstanding or were you not?Ă¢â‚¬ was a question Jennifer Sherman, the author of Ă¢â‚¬Å“Those Who Work, Those Who DonĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America,Ă¢â‚¬ came to associate with the idea of work and public benefits while living in a remote California community where the timber industry had capsized. Ă¢â‚¬Å“Could you make some claim to work and having a work ethic or could you not? It was your claim to moral capital and your identity.Ă¢â‚¬

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/07/21/how-disability-benefits-divided-this-rural-community-between-those-who-work-and-those-who-dont/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_disabled-10a-10%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.01a53d31266b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I am not understanding your argument.  How are you concluding that tax money would end up out of the pockets of employees and directly back into the profit margins of corporations?  Does that mean that corporations are the ones really bearing the burden of taxation now?  What about the doctor who is in private practice?  If her income wasn't taxed, that same amount would go directly into the profit margin of a corporation?  I am not seeing how that would happen.  Does this logic hold regardless of the current taxation rate?  If not, how do we know what the tax rate is that if the government taxed me any less I wouldn't have more of my income to keep?  

 

If I work all week baking cakes and sell them, the money I earn is a reward for using my time in that way is income.  If that income is not mine to begin with, whose is it?  The governments?  Society?  To me, that is claiming that the government or society owns my labor resources.  Does my time belong to the government?  If I spent the same time gardening, does the government own the right to my labor sources?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

That story is so sad.  

Why doesn't his sister want to help him? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I could see something like this working with some basic requirements in place to assure that the people chosen had the basic capacity to fill their roles. So maybe to enter the pool from which people would be selected there would be some minimal requirements in mental health, education, and background knowledge. Something like what is required to join the military minus the physical fitness standards but adding in basic history, government, and economics knowledge. Um, and a basic understanding of science would be great too!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not understanding your argument. How are you concluding that tax money would end up out of the pockets of employees and directly back into the profit margins of corporations? Does that mean that corporations are the ones really bearing the burden of taxation now? What about the doctor who is in private practice? If her income wasn't taxed, that same amount would go directly into the profit margin of a corporation? I am not seeing how that would happen. Does this logic hold regardless of the current taxation rate? If not, how do we know what the tax rate is that if the government taxed me any less I wouldn't have more of my income to keep?

 

If I work all week baking cakes and sell them, the money I earn is a reward for using my time in that way is income. If that income is not mine to begin with, whose is it? The governments? Society? To me, that is claiming that the government or society owns my labor resources. Does my time belong to the government? If I spent the same time gardening, does the government own the right to my labor sources?

The government has the right to a certain portion of the GDP. As citizens we work part of the day to fund society and part of the day to fund our cost of living. That's the contract.

 

I know my example of corporations isn't perfect, but I was thinking of the comment upthread about business using the extra money to invest in their employees. I disagree that would happen in most cases. When gas prices were $4-5 a gallon and airlines raised fares because of increased costs,did anyone expect them to lower them when fuel prices dropped? Are insurance companies using those huge premiums to provide better coverage or higher salaries?

 

You don't have to agree with how your tax dollars are spent. I was pretty pissy when they (supposedly temporarily) raised our sales tax a full percent "for schools" and then five years later made the raise permanent and reallocated that money elsewhere. But one cannot take issue with the fact that in a civilized society with niceities like fire departments and police officers one works for part of the day to fund all of the government-provided services we take for granted.

Edited by Barb_
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That story is so sad.

Why doesn't his sister want to help him?

She, like many others, views him as worthless to society, a person who simply should have sucked it up and become successful like her and her husband. She contributes in absolutely no way to the care and well being of her disabled parents, and stands to inherit a boatload. The money comes from her mother's side of the family and the grandparents viewed him as a drain, and to punish him left the money in such a way that he cannot inherit any of it. Her parents live on nice teacher pensions but of course that goes a way when they die. They took out a reverse mortgage on the house so it will go back to the bank when they pass.

 

She has the same attitude as her maternal grandparents, and they were actually pretty nasty people when you get right down to it. Elitist, racist, eugenics supporters... As a person with a major problem, he didn't stand a chance with them.

 

It is all very sad. I think those grandparents had a strong influence in his life when he was little. He was darker skinned than his sister who is lily white and they found that appalling. His parents never had any backbone so refused to cut these people out of their lives. He was born a month early and since he was sickly, the grandparents thought he should be institutionalized. I am sure these scums contributed to his problems. I can imagine the damage done to his sense of self worth. He has never thought of himself as a person with something to contribute.

 

The sister is a "chip off the old block" in terms of taking after the maternal grandparents. Thankfully the paternal grandparents - dh's side - were loving to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government has the right to a certain portion of the GDP. As citizens we work part of the day to fund society and part of the day to fund our cost of living. That's the contract.

 

I know my example of corporations isn't perfect, but I was thinking of the comment upthread about business using the extra money to invest in their employees. I disagree that would happen in most cases. When gas prices were $4-5 a gallon and airlines raised fares because of increased costs,did anyone expect them to lower them when fuel prices dropped? Are insurance companies using those huge premiums to provide better coverage or higher salaries?

 

You don't have to agree with how your tax dollars are spent. I was pretty pissy when they (supposedly temporarily) raised our sales tax a full percent "for schools" and then five years later made the raise permanent and reallocated that money elsewhere. But one cannot take issue with the fact that in a civilized society with niceities like fire departments and police officers one works for part of the day to fund all of the government-provided services we take for granted.

What portion of GDP does the government have a right to?  Why does how much of my work the government has a right to depend upon whether I am working for an income or not?  

 

I do not see why if Person A chooses to spend an hour cooking a meal for her family, the government (or others in society) do not have a right to a certain percentage of the outcome of that effort.  But, if Person B chooses to spend an hour digging ditches for slips of paper (which she plans to trade with someone who is cooking a meal so that she can feed her family), the government has a right to a percentage of the rewards for her work.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your mind is there an alternative to taxation? Would you prefer to do without military protection or public hospitals or interstates and bridges that don't crumble? Is there an alternative I've not thought of?

 

The government provides services and must be paid for them. We have to be able to agree on at least that premise as a society

Edited by Barb_
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I disagree with calling it the "burden" of taxation. We have the responsibility of taxation.

Economists use the term "burden" to refer to who really pays the taxation.  If an item costs $10 before a tax is placed on it, and a $1 tax is placed on it with the store having the responsibility of paying the tax, the price of the item will rise to something less than $11 (say $10.75)--the consumer's burden of the tax is $0.75 and the producer's burden of the tax is $0.25.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economists use the term "burden" to refer to who really pays the taxation. If an item costs $10 before a tax is placed on it, and a $1 tax is placed on it with the store having the responsibility of paying the tax, the price of the item will rise to something less than $11 (say $10.75)--the consumer's burden of the tax is $0.75 and the producer's burden of the tax is $0.25.

I get that. But you weren't using the term in that context. ETA- I should say that in in the context of this conversation you are arguing that taxes are an economic, psychological and existential burden.

Edited by Barb_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that. But you weren't using the term in that context. ETA- I should say that in in the context of this conversation you are arguing that taxes are an economic, psychological and existential burden.

Yes, I was using in that context I was using the term in.  I was asking about the idea that if I didn't pay taxes, that money would just go to corporations for their profits.  That would be making the argument that I do not bear the burden of the tax but that the corporation bears the burden of the tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was using in that context I was using the term in. I was asking about the idea that if I didn't pay taxes, that money would just go to corporations for their profits. That would be making the argument that I do not bear the burden of the tax but that the corporation bears the burden of the tax.

Ok fine. So do you believe we (corporations, which have been recognized as individuals, as well as individual employees) have a repsponsibility to fund public works or do you not?

Edited by Barb_
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that paying taxes is a responsibility.  It is a responsibility for all able people.  I used to actually call it a privilege ... until it got to the point of being a ~50% marginal tax rate when almost all the rest of my income was going for student loans.  Then it did feel like a burden, I'm not gonna lie.

 

I feel that for those whose earnings justify paying little or no income tax, some contribution of services should be expected.  I saw the comments above about having to choose between volunteering and working for pay, but in my experience, people who work full-time (or more) tend to volunteer a fair amount of time as well.  So I don't think it's ridiculous or punitive to expect part-time workers, unemployed people, and students to contribute services in lieu of paying taxes.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok fine. So do you believe we (corporations, which have been recognized as individuals, as well as individual employees) have a repsponsibility to fund public works or do you not?

My personal opinion is that we do not have a responsibility to fund the government at its current level and size. It is also my opinion that that responsibility should not fall on someone more heavily because the person chooses to specialize in a particular type of work that is then traded for other services (the person digging ditches for pay and then trading money for services)  than on someone who chooses to produce a variety of services in in-home production that does not enter the marketplace for trade.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that we do not have a responsibility to fund the government at its current level and size. It is also my opinion that that responsibility should not fall on someone more heavily because the person chooses to specialize in a particular type of work that is then traded for other services (the person digging ditches for pay and then trading money for services) than on someone who chooses to produce a variety of services in in-home production that does not enter the marketplace for trade.

So we agree that we have a responsibility to fund our government? You just disagree with the amount?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we agree that we have a responsibility to fund our government? You just disagree with the amount?

You know, saying that responsible citizens contribute in various ways to civil order is a far cry from saying that the government has a right to their earnings.  Don't you see the difference?  It's quite grating, and the putting it like that is not going to sit well with too many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we agree that we have a responsibility to fund our government? You just disagree with the amount?

I am not sure what amount you are asking me whether I agree with or not.  A certain percentage of GDP?  Certain programs?  

 

Even though I think I have a responsibility to contribute to society, I am not sure that I should have the right to demand that others do the same.  I find it illogical to demand that my neighbor who works at a job pay a particular percentage of that income to fund the government (or face jail time), but not demand that another neighbor contribute to providing government resources.  I also have trouble with thinking that one of my neighbors has a greater responsibility to fund the government than I do.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I think this is where private charities or churches, etc, need to fill the gap.  I don't think gov't can do it all for a reasonable price.  I think it needs to cover the basics of food, shelter, healthcare, and education (including job training - and in some states - there is job training for those with disabilities).  In our area, the most recent newspaper talked about one similar option - teaching folks how to work in the restaurant industry - 85% job placement rate -  having to close in August due to lack of funding.  I'm hoping the fact that it made the news will bring in a private donor.  Can't say I have the extra $100,000 to contribute (sigh).

 

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?

 

When I read up on some proposed programs a few months ago, it seemed everyone gets the money.  It doesn't replace welfare.  If you earn nothing, you get a check.  If you earn a million, you get a check.  I suspect there was a minimum age, but in general, it's per capita for adults.  If something is per capita, taxes will need to increase quite a bit to cover it.

 

If it is just a check replacing welfare, I think it has better promise (only going to those with less than X income).

 

But one still has to figure out what to do with those who can't manage money.  Do we close our eyes and let them starve and live on the streets when they spend their money on something else?  Perhaps we're ok with that for adult (only perhaps), but what about their kids?

 

What portion of GDP does the government have a right to?  Why does how much of my work the government has a right to depend upon whether I am working for an income or not?  

 

I do not see why if Person A chooses to spend an hour cooking a meal for her family, the government (or others in society) do not have a right to a certain percentage of the outcome of that effort.  But, if Person B chooses to spend an hour digging ditches for slips of paper (which she plans to trade with someone who is cooking a meal so that she can feed her family), the government has a right to a percentage of the rewards for her work.   

 

It's tough to tax anything without an income.  Sales taxes work, but can promote a "trade" black market to avoid them, plus, tend to hit the poor harder percentage-wise, esp when necessities (food, clothing, etc) aren't exempt from the tax.

 

I guess one can be against a general income tax as long as they are willing to fund their own roads, hospitals, military, parks, and the oodles of other common use things taxes go for.  Otherwise, what system to pay for them can you come up with?

 

The general gist for those who stay home is that the other partner is earning enough for both of them - and paying taxes for both too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, saying that responsible citizens contribute in various ways to civil order is a far cry from saying that the government has a right to their earnings. Don't you see the difference? It's quite grating, and the putting it like that is not going to sit well with too many people.

It's a different way of framing it. Thinking of taxes as "my" money that the government "confiscates" breeds resentment. If we think of taxes as the peice of our economy the government needs to provide infrastructure, protection and a safety net we can begin to break out of the mindset of seeing taxes as a personal affront. Take home pay plus benefits is the actual salary. I've always thought of it that way (I make X per hour after taxes, my bonus is x after taxes). It helps to remove the existential burden. It wasn't my money to begin with. It's the money I've agreed to have taken from my paycheck before I started the job. As I mentioned above, it's the contract we make for living in a feee society.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I think I have a responsibility to contribute to society, I am not sure that I should have the right to demand that others do the same.  I find it illogical to demand that my neighbor who works at a job pay a particular percentage of that income to fund the government (or face jail time), but not demand that another neighbor contribute to providing government resources.  I also have trouble with thinking that one of my neighbors has a greater responsibility to fund the government than I do.   

 

When we reach the society of The Giver where everyone is exactly the same - no variations at all - then it's fine to say everyone contributes the same.  Until then, we operate in the Real World and this is an impossibility - not to mention - incredibly unfair with everyone's different start in life.  

 

If we took each baby and put them into a school(?) giving them exact same finances, education, opportunities - no inheritances at all, nor family gifts, etc, I guess I could see what you're saying, but I have no desire to live that way at all.

 

Even then, I have no desire to make those who didn't get genetic gifts to "make it" get shafted by having to work minimum wage jobs and pay the same amount as someone who ends up on the high end of our human-made ladder - unless we're talking percentages and their "costs" are also a percentage of what high end costs  equal (less for food, shelter, etc) to make it ALL proportional.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a different way of framing it. Thinking of taxes as "my" money that the government "confiscates" breeds resentment. 

Thinking of earned money as something the government has a unique *right* to is breeding my resentment.  

 

Because, no, they don't have a right to it, any more than they have a right to conscripted labor, or unreasonable search and seizure, or to knowing or controlling all my innermost thoughts and beliefs.

 

And in general, why would they have a "right" to my money but not to, say, my volunteer labor or my domestic labor or any of a million things that we claim to value in this country but which are unpaid?  That is both illogical and deeply annoying.

 

I am more than willing to assume my civic responsibilities, but don't tell me that that voluntary commitment on my part, particularly since so many don't make it, is something that the government has a "right" to.  Ever.  Rights are for people, not governments.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Why would it?  That does follow economically speaking.  There are no studies yet on the current basic income pilots, but almost everywhere that there is some kind of universal health care, costs are remarkably lower (even adjusting for the exchange rate) than in the US. 

 

As to basic income, there is a bit of research on a program done in MB in the 1970's. It doesn't directly address costs of goods, but it does discuss some of the outcomes and benefits.  Here's a brief read on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

 

 

 

 

 

Edited to fix link

Edited by Audrey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The general gist for those who stay home is that the other partner is earning enough for both of them - and paying taxes for both too.

I would be alright with that if the SS income didn't halve when the worker died. Often that means the female has to give up the home, and leave the community as she likely is not in good enougb health to work, and of course wasn't eligible for SS disability when her cancer showed up, since she was still at home with the youngest child. Edited by Heigh Ho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

But one still has to figure out what to do with those who can't manage money. Do we close our eyes and let them starve and live on the streets when they spend their money on something else? Perhaps we're ok with that for adult (only perhaps), but what about their kids?

 

I guess this is where I am not sure I am following you. Like I said, here as far as I know welfare is paid directly in cash (well, bank deposit). So how would it be different in this case? I mean most people would hopefully keep working so they just would have more money than now. And others who rely on this money alone/for the most part would be in the same position as now when receiving welfare (though possibly for a different amount/with less restrictions etc.). So I don't understand why you think there would be more of a problem than now (I am not disagreeing with you here but just think I am missing part of your argument and that's why I can't follow your train of thought)?

 

As to your question: As far as I know this isn't a major concern overall. Sure, some people on welfare are bad at managing money but there is still other assistance available (like food pantries). And of course where kids are concerned and they go hungry etc. there is CPS etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

But one still has to figure out what to do with those who can't manage money. Do we close our eyes and let them starve and live on the streets when they spend their money on something else? Perhaps we're ok with that for adult (only perhaps), but what about their kids?

 

I guess this is where I am not sure I am following you. Like I said, here as far as I know welfare is paid directly in cash (well, bank deposit). So how would it be different in this case? I mean most people would hopefully keep working so they just would have more money than now. And others who rely on this money alone/for the most part would be in the same position as now when receiving welfare (though possibly for a different amount/with less restrictions etc.). So I don't understand why you think there would be more of a problem than now (I am not disagreeing with you here but just think I am missing part of your argument and that's why I can't follow your train of thought)?

 

As to your question: As far as I know this isn't a major concern overall. Sure, some people on welfare are bad at managing money but there is still other assistance available (like food pantries). And of course where kids are concerned and they go hungry etc. there is CPS etc.

Children of people on disability have their own funds and there is oversight to see that its not misused. We are still seeing poor choices..mainly acquisition of toys such as motorcycles,snowmobiles, and four wheelers and top ofthe line smart phones by older teens that decided to play heartily while the money is available, rather than buckle down and get the studying and job training done. At least they will have something to sell when they age out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general gist for those who stay home is that the other partner is earning enough for both of them - and paying taxes for both too.

 

And the single working mom is also pitching in for those who don't earn a paycheck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children of people on disability have their own funds and there is oversight to see that its not misused. We are still seeing poor choices..mainly acquisition of toys such as motorcycles,snowmobiles, and four wheelers and top ofthe line smart phones by older teens that decided to play heartily while the money is available, rather than buckle down and get the studying and job training done. At least they will have something to sell when they age out.

Huh, I still don't quite get it (again, I am not debating here, just looking for information as I am apparently missing something). What do you mean with "oversight"? Or maybe the easier question is how does it differ from how it is handled where I am living:

 

If you can't find a job or your job pays less than necessary for living, you get benefits. In order to get these benefits certain conditions have to be met (i.e. you have to be available to take basically any job they offer you). The benefits are basically calculated per household and are paid to the person in charge of the household (so in the case of a single mother she would get the money for herself and any minor children living there). They are deposited into a bank account and can be withdrawn like any balance in cash to be used as one sees fit. Obviously, there will be consequences if rent is not paid or children are not fed (i.e. CPS or whatever). There are some additional benefits that are not in cash (I believe there is a coupon for "extra education" for kids and you have easier access to food pantries etc.).

 

So is this really different in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that paying taxes is a responsibility. It is a responsibility for all able people. I used to actually call it a privilege ... until it got to the point of being a ~50% marginal tax rate when almost all the rest of my income was going for student loans. Then it did feel like a burden, I'm not gonna lie.

 

I feel that for those whose earnings justify paying little or no income tax, some contribution of services should be expected. I saw the comments above about having to choose between volunteering and working for pay, but in my experience, people who work full-time (or more) tend to volunteer a fair amount of time as well. So I don't think it's ridiculous or punitive to expect part-time workers, unemployed people, and students to contribute services in lieu of paying taxes.

I have a hard time understanding the hang up on everyone paying federal income taxes for their entire adult life. All taxes need to be looked at together before you conclude that a significant share of people are not paying taxes. You also need to look over the lifetime of taxpayers.

 

And then at minimum, you likely have to remove the very elderly, infirm, and disabled from any sort of volunteer requirement. And what about the student going to school full time and working full time? And then add in the cost and bureaucracy of administering such a program.I suppose we could institute some sort of token minimum federal income tax if it would make people feel better about everyone contributing for their entire adult life.

 

I know that when my husband went back to school for an advanced degree, and I was working full-time and homeschooling, we did not pay federal income taxes for four years. But we paid state, property, and payroll taxes. I would estimate between work and school, we were both easily putting in 80+ hour weeks, so I'm not sure where we would have fit in required volunteer hours. But now that we are paying state, federal, and payroll taxes at a significantly higher rate than before the career change and likely will for the rest of our lives, I think our four years of not paying will be way more than made up for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

But one still has to figure out what to do with those who can't manage money. Do we close our eyes and let them starve and live on the streets when they spend their money on something else? Perhaps we're ok with that for adult (only perhaps), but what about their kids?

 

I guess this is where I am not sure I am following you. Like I said, here as far as I know welfare is paid directly in cash (well, bank deposit). So how would it be different in this case? I mean most people would hopefully keep working so they just would have more money than now. And others who rely on this money alone/for the most part would be in the same position as now when receiving welfare (though possibly for a different amount/with less restrictions etc.). So I don't understand why you think there would be more of a problem than now (I am not disagreeing with you here but just think I am missing part of your argument and that's why I can't follow your train of thought)?

 

As to your question: As far as I know this isn't a major concern overall. Sure, some people on welfare are bad at managing money but there is still other assistance available (like food pantries). And of course where kids are concerned and they go hungry etc. there is CPS etc.

 

In the US benefits are separated by need.  One gets SNAP for food, Section 8 for housing, WIC for pregnant women and young kids - that one is super specific on what can be bought - way too specific IMO, LIHEAP for fuel oil, etc.  If one ditches all of those - as minimum income would do - there's no way to enforce food or housing being purchased, etc.

 

Many people would be fine - less hassle, rent still gets paid - but there are those I know personally and via school who simply do not pay for their needs first with what income they have.  They often end up evicted or at food banks or high in debt or similar.  Would those who currently have to spend $$ in certain areas keep spending their money in those areas, or join the ranks of those who don't know how to manage money?

 

I don't know the answer.  I could see it being worth a trial to see what happens.

 

(And yes, there are those who cheat the system we have, but I'm not talking about those folks.)

 

And the single working mom is also pitching in for those who don't earn a paycheck.

 

True, but totally different than what we are talking about.  Anyone who works (any gender, any age) pays something even if SS or unemployment.  In family situations where only one partner works, it's assumed if the family can afford that, that worker is earning enough to cover for two of them.  That was the same in the 40s as it is now.

 

There is actually even a marriage "penalty" for some folks when they marry and end up paying more in taxes than if they'd remained single.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US benefits are separated by need.  One gets SNAP for food, Section 8 for housing, WIC for pregnant women and young kids - that one is super specific on what can be bought - way too specific IMO, LIHEAP for fuel oil, etc.  If one ditches all of those - as minimum income would do - there's no way to enforce food or housing being purchased, etc.

 

Many people would be fine - less hassle, rent still gets paid - but there are those I know personally and via school who simply do not pay for their needs first with what income they have.  They often end up evicted or at food banks or high in debt or similar.  Would those who currently have to spend $$ in certain areas keep spending their money in those areas, or join the ranks of those who don't know how to manage money?

 

I don't know the answer.  I could see it being worth a trial to see what happens.

 

(And yes, there are those who cheat the system we have, but I'm not talking about those folks.)

I see. Actually, I kind of thought that was how it is/what is meant. So in that case, we basically do have at least partly a trial here (as there is little oversight) and I don't think it is as bad as you think it might turn out (if we assume the populations are fairly similar). At least I don't think there are any/many homeless children here (with homeless children I mean a) not runaway teenagers and b) don't count kids in shelters/homes) and I don't think anyone is starving. As I said, there is additional help that is more specific (e.g. food pantries) and health insurance can't be avoided even if one tried. Maybe I am just not aware of the problems as we do live in a fairly nice suburban / rural area.

 

My impression is that most people do try to be somewhat responsible and if the money for example runs out halfway through the month food pantries etc. would keep you from going hungry I assume? Of course there are situations in which this will not work (e.g. drug abuse) but in those cases I think children often have been taken out of the family anyway?

 

The above is my definite impression but I am going to talk to a friend of mine who does work in that area so maybe I will know better soon.

 

Looking at your description it just seems awfully complicated (with all the different components). Also it is rather based on an assumption that people needing help are less able to manage their money/have to be watched closely. Now, I am not saying that is always incorrect but still it seems a bit humiliating, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at your description it just seems awfully complicated (with all the different components). Also it is rather based on an assumption that people needing help are less able to manage their money/have to be watched closely. Now, I am not saying that is always incorrect but still it seems a bit humiliating, doesn't it?

 

That's kind of the point causing folks to wonder if there's a better way - or not.  Without trials, one never knows which way is best.  Ideally, I'd like to see everyone get the benefit of the doubt to begin with (unless specific situations suggest otherwise) and be shifted to a Plan B later if needed.

 

But seeing how much envy of the poor and their benefits is on this thread... I don't know if changing things would ever actually happen in the US.  Then too, I'll admit I know folks who truly would abuse it if they could - taking advantage of "free money" for wants, not needs, then expecting charity for their needs.  I just don't know what percentage of the population those folks are.  Plan A, then Plan B if needed seems to be the best solution to suit both IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children of people on disability have their own funds and there is oversight to see that its not misused. We are still seeing poor choices..mainly acquisition of toys such as motorcycles,snowmobiles, and four wheelers and top ofthe line smart phones by older teens that decided to play heartily while the money is available, rather than buckle down and get the studying and job training done. At least they will have something to sell when they age out.

 

What kind of oversite? I have never heard of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...