Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Its possible. However granting every household a handout that would place them the at the poverty line would take 20something% of taxable personal income, give or take. I've calculated that before, but I don't have any references handy.

Seriously? The personal poverty line is only 11k (lower, I think, the more people you have in the family - I guess it's assumed your sharing resources) and honestly, if everybody's getting this we probably won't need to give everyone that much (less people desperate enough to pull off 80 hour workweeks means more jobs, and the ability to survive on partial employment and the power to negotiate more pay for it). I'd argue that having it at, say, half the poverty line would be more than enough to bring almost everyone past the poverty line (and give freedom and flexibility to those who remain, allowing them opportunity to live within their means)

Edit: Sorry for double post, I was absolutely sure someone was gonna ninja me again.

[Nadaka]

I'd have probably have to dig up some numbers and do it all over again, but there are something like 90 million households in the US with an average household size of 3ish. The poverty level varies by size of household. And I do not recall if my figure for total personal income was just wages or included all forms of income. I believe the number I used was about $20k per household but its kinda sketchy based on foggy memory.

[kaijyuu]

(I think if someone wants to tighten the belt in other areas to push more of the money into starting a business, they should be allowed to).

Hrm, fair point.

I was only really advocating limiting what you can spend this stuff on out of precedent (IE, food stamps). Whatever benefit that might have could very well be outweighed by all the bureaucratic nonsense that would be required though (which would of course increase costs and potentially inhibit valid uses, such as business starting), so I'm not very adamant about it.

(if anyone has more to say I do suggest moving to a different thread, as we've derailed quite far off elections by this point )

[Descan]

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

If it was like, 50% or something, so if you make a hundred dollars, you get 150, then I can see it working.

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)


E: Note, I would PREFER if everyone got the flat 100, whether they worked for another 100, 1 000, or 1 000 000, but at least this way is more palatable and can lead to a flat 100.

[GlyphGryph]

On the other hand. 20% doesn't sound all that terrible, especially when you consider that's probably going to be a progressive number rather than a flat number.

Costs
311,591,917 (pop) x 11,000 (poverty line) = 3,427,511,087,000
Roughly 3.43 trillion dollars

Requires
$27,334 (average per capita income) x 311,591,917 (pop) = 8,517,053,459,278
Roughly 8.52 trillion dollars.

That's actually roughly 40% of income. Of course, this means that the average person pays, into the system, a net amount of nothing, since they will both pay and receive 11k, while the richest will be paying (almost) the full 20%.

It looks like you'd be paying out a lot of money at first glance, but unless your uberwealthy, most of it would be coming back to you - and if you're uberwealthy, a 20% tax rate doesn't seem too bad.

[mainiac]

US progressive politicians are frigid towards the idea of reforming welfare because they got burned on welfare reforms in the mid 90s.  Welfare reform was supposed to be a bi-partisan way to get rid of freeloaders without hurting the needy.  But the problem is that freeloaders are few and far between, so it mostly just amounted to a system to make the poor jump through more humiliating hoops.  The conservatives have if anything grown less inclined to help the poor since then.  So another welfare reform is impossible, conservatives just want to slash, progressives feel once bitten twice shy.

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

There's a solution to that, you phase out the benefits gradually so that the benefits disappear more slowly then your earnings increase.  It is most notable in the Earned Income Tax Credit although that does have a little of the perverse incentive you noted.  Progressive want to reform the EIC to eliminate more of this perverse incentive and conservatives, predictably, want to increase the perverse incentive in order to get rid of the lucky duckies not paying income taxes.

[Descan]

I've always wanted something like that.

Of course, I usually go a step further and said that an internet connection is basically a requirement for modern life at this point.

Not many people agree with me on that last bit, but honestly? Free, easy information, everywhere wants you to apply online, and so many people communicate mostly or entirely online...


E: Mainiac, uh... That sounds... pretty much exactly what my latter half of my post was talking about?

[mainiac]

Yes it was now that you mention it.  Still, good to mention the real world example I guess.

[Descan]

True.

[PTTG??]

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

If it was like, 50% or something, so if you make a hundred dollars, you get 150, then I can see it working.

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)


E: Note, I would PREFER if everyone got the flat 100, whether they worked for another 100, 1 000, or 1 000 000, but at least this way is more palatable and can lead to a flat 100.

Hoooold on there, that's too simple of an example. Yes, if you could get $100 an hour for not working OR $100 an hour for working, then you would not work. But that assumes that those are the only options. What if your choices were $100 a year for not working or $20,000 a year, with the possibility of making more over time, for working?

[kaijyuu]

The thing is, it's not a dichotomy, but rather a sliding scale. There's a point between that $100 of welfare and $20,000 of work where additional work = little to no benefit. Outside of hypothetical land and back to reality land, that zone where additional work gives negligible payback isn't exactly inconsequential, and probably the biggest reason anyone on welfare would stay on welfare.

[Frumple]

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

If it was like, 50% or something, so if you make a hundred dollars, you get 150, then I can see it working.

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)


E: Note, I would PREFER if everyone got the flat 100, whether they worked for another 100, 1 000, or 1 000 000, but at least this way is more palatable and can lead to a flat 100.

Hoooold on there, that's too simple of an example. Yes, if you could get $100 an hour for not working OR $100 an hour for working, then you would not work. But that assumes that those are the only options. What if your choices were $100 a year for not working or $20,000 a year, with the possibility of making more over time, for working?

I'm... pretty sure you messed up the numbers there. Living a year on a hundred bucks is pretty much impossible. You'd have to be supplementing it with home-grown stuff, and you could factor in the cash value of the crop and time investment in that to come out at a number much higher. You'd also be homeless, more likely than not. Unless you owned land or a house and, again, that'd throw the numbers way off.

And... not everyone would not work just because they would be making the same if they were working. There's these things called boredom and socialization, both of which work tends to fulfill in some ways. You get independently wealthy (Though maybe not hyper-rich folks... retired people, lottery winners that don't bankrupt themselves, stuff like that. I've interacted with a fair number of 'em.) folks doing work just to have something to do. It takes a pretty specific personality type (and no, 'lazy' isn't it) to be particularly sessile for long periods. Most humans get antsy if they're not active in some way.

E: Though yeah, they might not be quite so motivated to shove nearly half their waking life up some corp's ass as the eight-hour work day thing entails.

[RedKing]

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)

[Descan]

Thank you, MagentaRoyalty.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Magenta isn't a synonym for red. Magenta isn't even really real.