A Plan to Replace the Welfare State

[SEVERUSMAX]

Fascinating compromise! Bring back the Imperial dole! Actually, something similar was proposed by, of all people, Huey P. Long, in his "Share The Wealth" platform. Not precise enough for me.

Not to be too picky, Roxanne. I like a lot of your ideas. Just not this one.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Shang: If everyone knows that everyone has 10K per year, the merchants and sellers of goods know that everyone has 10K per year. This seems likely to increase inflation, as many people suddenly have more money to spend without producing any more goods or services.

This is not correct. You describe "demand pull" inflation. Prices are determined by the dynamic of competition within the context of supply and demand. The plan places no more money in circulation than there would be anyway. It shifts some the money from government functionaries to individuals, that's all.

Shang: This problem seems likely to be exacerbated by the fact that this program would not address the root causes of poverty. Poverty may itself involve the lack of money, but the cause of poverty is not the lack of people giving one free money. The causes of poverty are lack of skills, lack of means of production, lack of marketable products, or similar systemic problems that prevent people from participating in the economy as a whole. Giving them 10K per year will not solve those problems; it may keep food on their tables, but in the old "give man a fish / teach him to fish" metaphor, it's giving the fish.

You identify the problem that the welfare state was intended to fix. We now know that it cannot do this. Worse, by taking responsibility away from individuals and communities and sending it "downtown" it undermines "civil society," that network of private institutions, community associations, schools and religious organizations, families and friends and coworkers, and all their voluntary, from-the-heart interactions. "The chief defect of the welfare state is not that it is ineffectual in making good on its promises (though it is), nor even that it often exacerbates the very problems it is supposed to solve (though it does). The welfare state is pernicious ultimately because it drains too much of the life from life."

Shang: While recognizing the theory that underlies Mr. Murray's assumptions about the eventual resolution of social problems - i.e., the community will band together and apply their newly-given wealth to those problems and solve them - it seems unlikely that people who lack all of the things needed to participate successfully in the marketplace will somehow solve that problem themselves armed only with a quite modest yearly stipend. Surely people who have the knowledge, skills, and opportunities to succeed must concentrate on supplying others with those things and not simply with cash if they are to succeed. Cash is easily gotten rid of; I could burn through 10K in a week if I chose to. Skills, knowledge, and marketable talents are not so easily squandered, and they do more real good in the long run than cash handouts. They encourage the practice of virtue, including the connection of one's labor to one's reward.

Yes, and? You have described very well the reason the welfare state cannot achieve the mission we have given it. Civil society is much more capable of solving such problems, especially if it is supercharged by the money the plan distributes, the leverage provided by knowing the individual who needs help also gets that money ("expectations and demands can be required that are hard to make of a person who has no income stream"), and importantly, the knowledge that it is now up to us to make it happen.

The institutions of civil society are hugely more effective at addressing the problems, in part because they are subject to a variation on "market discipline." Unlike a government program that goes on forever even though it does nobody any good except the bureaucrats that run it, an ineffective voluntary organization will lose its support. No one wants to throw their money away, so the funds flow to where they are used effectively. Adam Smith's invisible hand and Hayek's disbursed knowledge do the work of ensuring that the distribution is as efficient as possible – no central control is needed.

Earl: Where is the $10,000 coming from? The people, right? So you're taking money, only to give it back in equal measures? I'm not a fan of wealth redistribution for the sake of it as it goes against market principles, but I can understand the use when there are people who really need it. Giving everyone $10,000 is just shuffling money around for the sake of it and it's inefficient.

We take the money right now, and give it back in ways that are inefficient. Here's the difference: "Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults. Make the grant large enough so that the poor won't be poor, everyone will have enough for a comfortable retirement, and everyone will be able to afford health care."

Importantly, the money goes to everyone, and with it comes the responsibility to deal with the social problems we have handed over to the bureaucrats downtown. "Institutions and individuals alike thrive to the extent that they have important jobs to do and know that the responsibility to do them is on their heads. For decades, the welfare state has said to us, 'We'll take care of that.' " That pattern would end. It would be up to us

Would some people just pocket the money and turn their back on problems, even knowing that it is now up to us? Of course. "The nation can afford lots of free riders." But why do you assume all or most people would do so? Would you pocket the whole amount? Isn't it more likely that knowing that the responsibility to deal with specific problems in your community is on your shoulders, and you and your neighbors have been given the means to carry that weight, you would contribute a decent amount?

Liar: "But people (will behave as atomistic individuals). Even if you shut your eyes to the idea, they will still be. In generation after generation. You'd not only have to reshape a society to get rid of that. You'd have to reprogram a species. Best of luck."

Are you that way? Are you saying that you would pocket the entire $10k and not contribute one dime, even knowing that if you and your neighbors don't pick up the ball of dealing with painful problems in your community they will just fester? When some of your neighbors ask you to kick in to help a down-on-their luck family, for a rehab center for the homeless in your community, or some other genuine need, will you just shrug and say, "Sorry"? By the way, they know that you get the $10k also.

I think your answer will be, "Yes, I will help." Why then do you assume that most others will not? Are you uniquely virtuous? Isn’t it much more likely that tens of millions would contribute all or most of their stipend, and almost everyone would contribute some? We are talking about $2 trillion being handed back here!

Amicus: I suggest Roxanne Appleby may be having a mid-life crisis.

Nah, the crisis has been underway ever since I came of age, looked around at the present state of affairs in the culture and society, and was not impressed. I'm not the sort to shrug and ignore it, I want to take out a wrench and try to fix it. I've been wrenching ever since.

 

[zeb1094]

Fascinating compromise! Bring back the Imperial dole! Actually, something similar was proposed by, of all people, Huey P. Long, in his "Share The Wealth" platform. Not precise enough for me.

Not to be too picky, Roxanne. I like a lot of your ideas. Just not this one.

What I would like to know is why I, a productive citizen, should support those who aren't. Why does the government rob me of my hard earned money and pass it out to those who won't work? I have no problem with helping those who can't work. It's the people who sit around on their fat asses collecting a welfare check, food stamps, etc. and are clearly able bodied enough to work for a living who are basically stealing what I earn. I have no problem with medicare and no problem with certain uses of medicaid. It the lazy, fleas and ticks, on society that I have a problem with. It's the welfare receipient driving the brand new Lexus I have a problem with.

So goes this 10K dole, take from the haves and give it to the have nots(won't work). So the 29k of taxes on my income that the IRS steals from me is going to come back to me as 10k which the IRS will then take their cut agian so it wouldn't be 10k, more like 8K.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

An alternative history

Forward

Everyone knows the story of how back in 1933, when FDR was on the brink of launching a raft of government programs to transfer responsibility for addressing social problems from individuals and communities to the state, he asked a young boy standing in front of the White House what he would do. It was one of those "PR moments" the president loved, and the boy was little Charlie Murray. Unexpectedly, Charlie said to the president, "Why don't you divvy up all the money your New Deal would spend and just send it to every American over the age of 21?"

At that moment a bolt of lightning struck FDR's wheelchair. Secret Service agents ran to his side, but amazingly he was unharmed. There was new light in his eye, though. "Get me back to the oval office – I need to rewrite all those bills we were going to send up tomorrow."


Chapter 1

As Rob was heading out to the rehab center Collie stuck her head out the door and called, "Rob, can you swing by the drug store and pick up my pain prescription?" Rob waved and nodded. He was going right by there anyway.

Collie sat back at her computer in the kitchen, and for a moment had a horrible thought: What if she could not afford those pills? She shrugged, because of course her insurance took care of it, with a modest co-pay that gave her an incentive to shop around, but wasn't a real burden. Like everyone else she had been required to shell out $3,000 of her annual 'plan money' since the age of 21 for a health insurance policy that would cover her for life, and any kids she had until they got their own plan money at 21. Most people her age didn't come close to spending $3,000 a year on health care, but the money in their policies accumulated over the years to cover the expenses they would incur later in life.

Cloudy came in and poured a cup of coffee. "How's the new novel going?" she asked.

"So-so. I've been stuck on the 'Marsha' character, but I thought of a way to deal with her last night that I think will work."

"Good for you. Thanks for watching the kidlet today, by the way."

"No problem, I'll be here anyway. How's the new gig?"

"It's alright, but the pay is shit. I'd be up a creek if we hadn't decided to all get this house together."

The "house" was actually an triplex apartment building. Because of the guaranteed income stream the plan provided the writers had been able to swing a mortgage. The plan money didn't cover the payments, of course – the group needed a good amount of outside income to make the payments - but having a guaranteed income stream made it easier for the mortgage company to say "yes." They had borrowed enough to add the cozy common kitchen area that had become the focus of their social life together.

Collie and Rob shared one of the two-bedroom units. Cloudy and her kid had another. The third was occupied by Roxanne and Geronimo. Roxanne came into the kitchen.

"Hey, Rox. Geronimo get off in time?" Cloudy asked. Geronimo had a high-level job at an insurance company, and had to travel a lot. Roxanne had taken him to airport before dawn.

"Yeah, no problem. Rob left already? I wanted to give him Geronimo's check." Because Geronimo had a high income, he and Roxanne contributed half their plan money to Rob's shelter project. The rest of their plan money went to other projects. When you made a good income it was hard to say "no" when a neighbor asked you to kick in for a project like Rob's. Everyone could see it was really changing people's lives.

Colly had another horrible thought: What if the people Rob was helping had to depend on some government agency, with all the efficiency of the post office and soul of the IRS, instead of on individuals who really care, supported by plan money? She shuddered. It would be a disaster.

There was a knock at the door. It was Liar. "Rob gone already?" he asked. "Give him this for me, would you?" He handed Roxanne a check.

She raised an eyebrow and said, "Mr. 'atomistic individual' comes through again?"

Liar shrugged. "What are ya gonna do? When Rob describes a project that's really gonna make a difference, looks at you with those sad puppy dog eyes, and knows damn well I get $10-k a year like everyone else, it would take a stronger man than me to say no. It's only fifty bucks – business has been mediocre for the last month at the coffee shop – but it's starting to pick up now, so maybe I can do a hundred next quarter."

Roxanne took the check and gave Liar a peck on the cheek. "You’re a peach, Liar. I'm pulling your leg. I knew you were full of it with that 'atomistic' stuff. And – I know the power of Rob's 'puppy dog' eyes."

Amicus had come in right after Liar, and he too handed Roxanne a check. "Socialist blood money – take it away!" They all laughed. "At least it's not being wasted – Rob is doing good things. Even though it's all paid for with money sucked from the veins of real producers!"

Colly said she had to get to work on the novel. Liar was giving Cloudy a ride to her new job.

Roxanne poured a cup of coffee and headed back to her own computer. She had a deadline to meet on a column. It was a satire about a country where the people had transferred all the responsibility to take care of the less fortunate to the government. Roxanne had thought it would be easy to write, but she kept seeing new implications not just for the people in need, but for all the rest who felt they did not have to get involved because "the government will take of it." Rather than a humorous satire it was turning into a nightmare scenario of social breakdown and unmet needs.

 

[Liar]

Are you that way? Are you saying that you would pocket the entire $10k and not contribute one dime, even knowing that if you and your neighbors don't pick up the ball of dealing with painful problems in your community they will just fester? When some of your neighbors ask you to kick in to help a down-on-their luck family, for a rehab center for the homeless in your community, or some other genuine need, will you just shrug and say, "Sorry"? By the way, they know that you get the $10k also.

I think your answer will be, "Yes, I will help." Why then do you assume that most others will not? Are you uniquely virtuous? Isn’t it much more likely that tens of millions would contribute all or most of their stipend, and almost everyone would contribute some? We are talking about $2 trillion being handed back here!

First of all, What do I have to do with this? I am not every person. Niether are you. You might happily give away all resources that you and yours don't instantly need. If so, I applaud you for it. But if that was human nature, the world would look much different than it does, and the need for wealth distribution politics whould never have arisen in the first place.

Does all wealthy people give away all the the excess resources they don't need? No. Then why do you suddenly expect everyone to do that? People will go with circles of nearness and the same individual-family-network-community-society scale of priorities that we've done since we fell out of the trees. Or possiblty since we came out of the water.

If it is the well being and security of your children, versus the well being of someone else's children, which would you choose?


ps Cute lil' tale there.

 

[TheEarl]

Roxanne - you're missing my point. Which is understandable, cause it's one that amicus makes 100s of times over.

Why give money to the government? At all?

The free-market is the most efficient method of allocating resources as it reacts to changes and acts without the need for perfect knowledge. Any (and I do mean any) interference in the free market creates inefficiencies. Subsidies, taxes, rebates, your plan. They all create inefficiencies which waste resources and make everyone worse off.

So, why do we do it? Well, the free market may be efficient, but it's not fair. People die through lack of health-care and children go uneducated because their parents couldn't afford to send them to school. So we tax and we meddle. It creates inefficiencies, but reduces inequities.

The only time when interfering in the market is worthwhile is when something outrageously unfair will happen otherwise. Every other occasion, it creates so much waste that it's just not worth it.

What your plan suggests is the the government takes money from people in taxation in order to give it back to them, not in order to correct a specific inequity, but to everyone, regardless. That's a heck of a lot of interference, with no specific purpose. It's not solving a particular inequity and it's wasting a hell of a lot of resources.

In effect, all you're doing is taking money out of the system, wasting some of it and then putting the money back in, without changing anything in the world. It goes against all economic theory.

The Earl

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't wish to be tedious on this topic, so I shall stick to what seems to me to be the inherent contradiction that's troubling me:

. The plan places no more money in circulation than there would be anyway.

Civil society is much more capable of solving such problems, especially if it is supercharged by the money the plan distributes ..

Either there's more money or there isn't. If there is more money, that will have an effect on the economy. If there isn't, there is no "supercharging." Either way, in the sub-economy of "people who would have an extra 10K under this plan" - that is, the range of goods, services, products, and providers specifically affected by the changes - you've got problems.

Murray's point keeps seeming to come back to responsibility and teaching people to be independent. I still don't see how handing them free money does these things. It teaches dependency and a lack of interest in developing skills. Murray seems to envision a world in which every person's reaction to an extra 10K is, "What noble and wonderful thing can I do with it?" In reality, there are going to be very large numbers of people who say "Wow, I don't even have to get out of bed this morning!"

I think Liar has the right of it. We can imagine all we like that humans will work together and seek out the best for themselves and everyone. In reality, humans cannot even reliably be expected to make the best choices for themselves. One needs look no further than some of the chief health problems plaguing our society - obesity, alcoholism, and drug abuse - to recognize that humans engage in any number of short-sighted, self-destructive choices.

Can the "welfare state" - and I use this term in discussing Murray with a great deal of skepticism, because I find it very difficult to accept that simply giving people free money isn't a welfare state as well - fix those things? No, it can't. Neither can handing out free money. In fact, nothing humans can do will "fix" the problem that some humans will make bad, short-sighted choices and suffer for them. We can establish programs to help those with energy and discipline to better themselves. We can create safety nets for those who fail and try to keep them alive despite themselves. We can do all we can to aid those whose health impairs them despite their own best efforts. We cannot, however, liberate people from their own poor decision-making, and handing them an extra 10K per year only exacerbates the problem by giving them more money to make poor decisions with. People who make good decisions want health care, job skills, child care, education and all of those things that the dreaded welfare state attempts to support; people who make poor decisions won't be happy with them, but they won't be happy once they've blown their 10K on a car whose payments they can't keep up or a garage full of cut-price beer either. At least providing services rather than money allows those supplying the money some role in the decision-making process, which I think entirely fair. When someone else is bankrolling my lifestyle, I do cede that person some of my independence, and on the whole, a capitalistic society does reward strong drive and good decision-making. That would mean that letting the people supplying the money make some of the calls on how it's spent would put more of the decisions in the hands of people who seem able to make good ones.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Murray's point keeps seeming to come back to responsibility and teaching people to be independent. I still don't see how handing them free money does these things. It teaches dependency and a lack of interest in developing skills. Murray seems to envision a world in which every person's reaction to an extra 10K is, "What noble and wonderful thing can I do with it?" In reality, there are going to be very large numbers of people who say "Wow, I don't even have to get out of bed this morning!"
Shanglan

I was thinking... down payment on my bmw.

10k is exactly the difference between a 325CI and a 330CI.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[zeb1094]

Forward

Everyone knows the story of how back in 1933, when FDR was on the brink of launching a raft of government programs to transfer responsibility for addressing social problems from individuals and communities to the state, he asked a young boy standing in front of the White House what he would do. It was one of those "PR moments" the president loved, and the boy was little Charlie Murray. Unexpectedly, Charlie said to the president, "Why don't you divvy up all the money your New Deal would spend and just send it to every American over the age of 21?"

I you would really like a plan similar to that...click the America link in my Sig! There is on the horizon a plan that would give every family, individual, citizen a chunk of change every single month and due away with income taxes! Take a look!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't wish to be tedious on this topic, so I shall stick to what seems to me to be the inherent contradiction that's troubling me:





Either there's more money or there isn't. If there is more money, that will have an effect on the economy. If there isn't, there is no "supercharging." Either way, in the sub-economy of "people who would have an extra 10K under this plan" - that is, the range of goods, services, products, and providers specifically affected by the changes - you've got problems.

Murray's point keeps seeming to come back to responsibility and teaching people to be independent. I still don't see how handing them free money does these things. It teaches dependency and a lack of interest in developing skills. Murray seems to envision a world in which every person's reaction to an extra 10K is, "What noble and wonderful thing can I do with it?" In reality, there are going to be very large numbers of people who say "Wow, I don't even have to get out of bed this morning!"

I think Liar has the right of it. We can imagine all we like that humans will work together and seek out the best for themselves and everyone. In reality, humans cannot even reliably be expected to make the best choices for themselves. One needs look no further than some of the chief health problems plaguing our society - obesity, alcoholism, and drug abuse - to recognize that humans engage in any number of short-sighted, self-destructive choices.

Can the "welfare state" - and I use this term in discussing Murray with a great deal of skepticism, because I find it very difficult to accept that simply giving people free money isn't a welfare state as well - fix those things? No, it can't. Neither can handing out free money. In fact, nothing humans can do will "fix" the problem that some humans will make bad, short-sighted choices and suffer for them. We can establish programs to help those with energy and discipline to better themselves. We can create safety nets for those who fail and try to keep them alive despite themselves. We can do all we can to aid those whose health impairs them despite their own best efforts. We cannot, however, liberate people from their own poor decision-making, and handing them an extra 10K per year only exacerbates the problem by giving them more money to make poor decisions with. People who make good decisions want health care, job skills, child care, education and all of those things that the dreaded welfare state attempts to support; people who make poor decisions won't be happy with them, but they won't be happy once they've blown their 10K on a car whose payments they can't keep up or a garage full of cut-price beer either. At least providing services rather than money allows those supplying the money some role in the decision-making process, which I think entirely fair. When someone else is bankrolling my lifestyle, I do cede that person some of my independence, and on the whole, a capitalistic society does reward strong drive and good decision-making. That would mean that letting the people supplying the money make some of the calls on how it's spent would put more of the decisions in the hands of people who seem able to make good ones.

Shanglan

In an earlier article Murray described the distinction you make between the poor and the "underclass."

"(The poor displaced by Katrina) are rightly the objects of an outpouring of help from around the country, but their troubles are relatively easy to resolve. Tell the man where a job is, and he will take it. Tell the mother where a school is, and she will get her children into it. Other images show us the face of the hard problem: those of the looters and thugs, and those of inert women doing nothing to help themselves or their children. They are the underclass.

" . . . versions of every program . . . have been tried before and evaluated. We already know that the programs are mismatched with the characteristics of the underclass. Job training? Unemployment in the underclass is not caused by lack of jobs or of job skills, but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. A homesteading act? The lack of home ownership is not caused by the inability to save money from meager earnings, but because the concept of thrift is alien. You name it, we've tried it. It doesn't work with the underclass."

The best chance to get at those dysfunctionalities is through one-on-one transactions that happen through the institutions of civil society, that network of private institutions, community associations, schools and religious organizations, families and friends and coworkers, and all their voluntary, from-the-heart interactions.

Supercharging civil society through the plan does not guarantee that these problems will be solved, but it improves the chances. Especially when it is given a powerful new tool: "A person who asks for help because he has frittered away his monthly check will find people and organizations who will help (America has a history of producing such people and organizations in abundance), but that help can come with expectations and demands that are hard to make of a person who has no income stream."

There will always be some small fraction of humanity who by their own intransigence and bad choices will place themselves in the gutter, no matter what we do.

If you compare the plan with utopia it will fall short. If you compare it the creaking, unsustainable welfare state with its long history of failures, the contrast makes it look almost like utopia though.

Don't miss my little allegory above, which I think got lost overlooked in criss-crossing posts.

Hey, you guys and gals are writers. You have imaginations. You have hearts and souls. Why don't you apply those imaginations here? Why do you have this dark cynicism about the unwillingness of humans to want to help if they can? I'm sure every one of you would become models in your own communities of how this system could work if it were implemented. Why do you think you are so unique in that? You are not unique: Most people love to help, and want to where they can.

Sure there would be free riders and deadbeats - so what? Most people would kick in, some a lot, some a little. El Sol jokes about a BMW payment, as if he would pocket the entire stipend and not lift a finger, knowing that if he and many others did not kick in the result would be real suffering in our own communities, and if we did contribute, the outcomes would be infinitely superior to the current system, because the work would be done by individuals who genuinely care, rather than bureaucrats earning a paycheck and a pension. Of course he would kick in, as would every person here, and he would feel good about doing it.

Who can be really so in love with the current welfare state as to be unwilling to apply their imagination to thinking about an alternative?

 

[3113]

I'm not a fan of wealth redistribution for the sake of it as it goes against market principles, but I can understand the use when there are people who really need it. Giving everyone $10,000 is just shuffling money around for the sake of it and it's inefficient.

Reminds me of the Monty Python skit with the "Lupins" one of my all time favorites. That's where "Dennis Moore" the 18th century thief, steals flowers to give to the poor--the poor finally get pissed off and demand he steal money for them. He does--stealing from the rich to give to the poor...until the poor are rich and the rich are poor and he's no longer stealing from the rich.

"This redistribution of the wealth is tricker than I thought!" he remarks, when this is pointed out to him.

Indeed. It is. Just a tad.

 

[3113]

Murray seems to envision a world in which every person's reaction to an extra 10K is, "What noble and wonderful thing can I do with it?" In reality, there are going to be very large numbers of people who say "Wow, I don't even have to get out of bed this morning!"

Whew. I thought I was missing something crucial. I was sure there had to be more to it than that. I mean, if having money is all it takes to transform a person into a charitable philanthopist...why do billionares hord their money? They've got more money than they could possibly use in several lifetimes, yet they buy islands and houses and other stuff with it...rather than sharing it.

And does this $10K come in one lump sum...or do people get an exta $1K a month? And isn't it creating more bureaucracy to give out this money?

Hmmmm....I see another way for people to steal funds....I mean, if folk were willing to cheat victims of 9/11 and Katrina, they'd have no scruples with this!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't wish to be tedious on this topic, so I shall stick to what seems to me to be the inherent contradiction that's troubling me:





Either there's more money or there isn't. If there is more money, that will have an effect on the economy. If there isn't, there is no "supercharging." Either way, in the sub-economy of "people who would have an extra 10K under this plan" - that is, the range of goods, services, products, and providers specifically affected by the changes - you've got problems.

Murray's point keeps seeming to come back to responsibility and teaching people to be independent. I still don't see how handing them free money does these things. It teaches dependency and a lack of interest in developing skills. Murray seems to envision a world in which every person's reaction to an extra 10K is, "What noble and wonderful thing can I do with it?" In reality, there are going to be very large numbers of people who say "Wow, I don't even have to get out of bed this morning!"

I think Liar has the right of it. We can imagine all we like that humans will work together and seek out the best for themselves and everyone. In reality, humans cannot even reliably be expected to make the best choices for themselves. One needs look no further than some of the chief health problems plaguing our society - obesity, alcoholism, and drug abuse - to recognize that humans engage in any number of short-sighted, self-destructive choices.

Can the "welfare state" - and I use this term in discussing Murray with a great deal of skepticism, because I find it very difficult to accept that simply giving people free money isn't a welfare state as well - fix those things? No, it can't. Neither can handing out free money. In fact, nothing humans can do will "fix" the problem that some humans will make bad, short-sighted choices and suffer for them. We can establish programs to help those with energy and discipline to better themselves. We can create safety nets for those who fail and try to keep them alive despite themselves. We can do all we can to aid those whose health impairs them despite their own best efforts. We cannot, however, liberate people from their own poor decision-making, and handing them an extra 10K per year only exacerbates the problem by giving them more money to make poor decisions with. People who make good decisions want health care, job skills, child care, education and all of those things that the dreaded welfare state attempts to support; people who make poor decisions won't be happy with them, but they won't be happy once they've blown their 10K on a car whose payments they can't keep up or a garage full of cut-price beer either. At least providing services rather than money allows those supplying the money some role in the decision-making process, which I think entirely fair. When someone else is bankrolling my lifestyle, I do cede that person some of my independence, and on the whole, a capitalistic society does reward strong drive and good decision-making. That would mean that letting the people supplying the money make some of the calls on how it's spent would put more of the decisions in the hands of people who seem able to make good ones.

Shanglan

I tend to believe shang has the right of it. Murray's plan seems to me to be based on the same kind of iealistic wishful thinking that bought us to this point to begin with. Responsibility dosen't come with 10K free gratis. It comes from formal education and informal observation. Handing 10K to someone who is used to living hand to mouth will produce in him the kind of binge spending he does whenever he gets a saw buck, but on a grander scale. Once it's gone, hell be right back to living on the lean.

From my perspective, a lot of people who need help will get shafted because even if you are frugal, you can't live on ten K a year in some locals. The vast majority will spend that ten K like it's going out of style on whatever suits their fancy.

The underlying asumption, that people would be altruistic and responsible with the money, is belied by the fact people aren't either with the money they have by and large. It seems to make the a priori assumption people are basically responsible and careful spenders. I see nothing to support that assumption.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Whew. I thought I was missing something crucial. I was sure there had to be more to it than that. I mean, if having money is all it takes to transform a person into a charitable philanthopist...why do billionares hord their money? They've got more money than they could possibly use in several lifetimes, yet they buy islands and houses and other stuff with it...rather than sharing it.

And does this $10K come in one lump sum...or do people get an exta $1K a month? And isn't it creating more bureaucracy to give out this money?

Hmmmm....I see another way for people to steal funds....I mean, if folk were willing to cheat victims of 9/11 and Katrina, they'd have no scruples with this!

It's not exactly evil to want to spend some of your own money on yourself. Of course, some of the stuff they buy seems wasteful and pointless, but, hey, that's their money and their business. I try not to judge other people's expenditures or what they do with their own bodies, money, property, etc. That's their business.

That being said, this scheme looks far more extreme than anything that I ever expected from Roxanne or Murray. It's kind of radical. But I understand the reasoning. It's an attempt at simplifying things. However, it lacks the element of earning it.

I would suggest a year or two of military service, after which everyone gets a small amount for them to invest as capital. It's not a stipend, but a one-time thing. If they blow it, that's their problem.

 

[3113]

It's not exactly evil to want to spend some of your own money on yourself. Of course, some of the stuff they buy seems wasteful and pointless, but, hey, that's their money and their business. I try not to judge other people's expenditures or what they do with their own bodies, money, property, etc. That's their business.

Oh, no certainly. In a capitalist society people are allowed to do whatever they like (more or less) with the money they earn. And it's not at all evil to spend your own money on yourself.

The problem is that in our society the people at the top earn a great deal more than they usually deserve and the people at the bottom earn a great deal less than they usually deserve. That top-heaviness is where I run into a problem. And if I was going to redistribute the wealth, it would be in that way, in trying to work out what is a fair wage top-to-bottom.

The hard working employee at the bottom shouldn't be juggling bills and wondering if he can pay the rent because his wage is unfairly low while the boss, rich thanks to that employee's hard work and his own bloated paycheck, is enjoying caviar on his yacht.

Bill Gates has every right to be as wealthy as his ideas and hard work can make him...but not at the expense of the employees that work equally hard to make those ideas work. If Microsoft pays and treats his employees fairly, then I've no problem with Bill having tons of money--though I think outrageous amounts are still...outrageous.

 

[Xelebes]

His ideas on the guaranteed income leading to different expectations as to responsibility are interesting, although I do wonder this. Everyone in America already has one free resource theoretically designed to provide liberty, responsibility, and the ability to advance in life: a free public education. We don't often see to actually expect people to have done much with it or to look at it in the way that Mr. Murray expects people to look at the 10K stipend. What will prevent the 10K stipend from being similarly swept under the rug?

I also do very much query where his "lines will cross." 10K is really a decent chunk of money; it's enough that one could eke it out working half time and never really have to do much of anything if one's expectations were low enough. If everyone has that option, who will be out earning the money to pay for the 10K each?

Shanglan

I would assume it would actually burden the economy a lot. If people put out half the work and made the same money, then demand would go up and supply would go down and we'd be worse off from a capitalist point of view. Preventing it from doing so will probably cause a lot of hassles in experiemntation with regulations and the sort and I think we would be back to the very same problem we are trying to fix - too much government.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, no certainly. In a capitalist society people are allowed to do whatever they like (more or less) with the money they earn. And it's not at all evil to spend your own money on yourself.

The problem is that in our society the people at the top earn a great deal more than they usually deserve and the people at the bottom earn a great deal less than they usually deserve. That top-heaviness is where I run into a problem. And if I was going to redistribute the wealth, it would be in that way, in trying to work out what is a fair wage top-to-bottom.

The hard working employee at the bottom shouldn't be juggling bills and wondering if he can pay the rent because his wage is unfairly low while the boss, rich thanks to that employee's hard work and his own bloated paycheck, is enjoying caviar on his yacht.

Bill Gates has every right to be as wealthy as his ideas and hard work can make him...but not at the expense of the employees that work equally hard to make those ideas work. If Microsoft pays and treats his employees fairly, then I've no problem with Bill having tons of money--though I think outrageous amounts are still...outrageous.

So are you suggesting that people who start companies not get to pocket a huge chunk of the profits? I can understand having shareholders cap the paychecks of CEOS at, say, half a million, but when people have new ideas and OWN most of their most companies, shouldn't they have more of a right to pocket it?

I guess I'm skeptical of redistributing the wealth in general. Income equality is not a major issue with me. Now, merit is. Equality and fairness are not synonyms, after all.

 

[3113]

So are you suggesting that people who start companies not get to pocket a huge chunk of the profits?

I didn't say that. I said that they need to pay the employees who make their companies a success a fair wage. It only makes sense. These are the people who are giving their time, life, energy, minds to making your company work. Yet bosses underpay them so that the company can make even MORE money and they, the bosses, can pocket even MORE profit. How much profit do they need to pocket? Why isn't a milion a year enough? Why cut out health care and under cut wages that people LIVE on, scrape by on...merely so the company can make an even larger profit next year and said owner can raise his own salary?

I mean let's be reasonable here. We're not talking about the boss with two employees and is it fair for that boss to pocket more than the employees. We're talking about guys who make OBSCENE amounts of money. I really don't think anyone needs to be obscenely wealthy. Can they be? Sure. Is it evil to be? I dunno. What's evil? It certainly starts to be evil if they're being obscenely wealthy at the expense of those who helped make them obscenely wealthy. Don't you think?

But let's take it one step further...do the children of the man who created the company deserve to pocket the profits? I mean kids like Paris Hilton...who did nothing to create the company and do nothing to maintain it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I was thinking... down payment on my bmw.

10k is exactly the difference between a 325CI and a 330CI.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Well, I was speaking earlier in general terms. Clearly, I would support federally mandated luxury ElSolmobiles. There are some moral imperatives that exist above economic pragmatism.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Well, I was speaking earlier in general terms. Clearly, I would support federally mandated luxury ElSolmobiles. There are some moral imperatives that exist above economic pragmatism.

Shanglan

Exactly... I mean hey, charity is all well & good, but a heated steering is DA' BOMB!!!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[rgraham666]

Considering how many of the very wealthy these days aren't capitalists at all, I get more than just a bit exercised when I see what they pay themselves.

And why do people always bitch about the government fucking with the free market when history, my reading of it anyway, shows that the business community will fuck with it just as much or more than most governments ever will?

I won't bother with my life story again. I don't like being on a disability, it really sucks. I want to be able to work again. But I'll never have a proper job. I'm damn near unhireable. Any job I get is not going to pay me much more than I get now.

I don't like the life I've been handed, but that's what it is and I'm going to have to get used to it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The modern U.S. Welfare state we know has it's origins in the Great Depression. That worldwide economic downturn showed everyone, once and for all, that the desire to work, to make yourself better, to earn your own way, were not always enough. And most people voted Hoover out of office not because he caused the depression, but because he seemed to lack any plan for ending it or helping those who were being crushed by it.

FDR's new deal had some really scoicalistic overtones, but they were not the gist of it. The programs people appreciated most were those like the CCC, the TVA or other programs that provided them with jobs, rather than with hand outs. There was a very different Mentality back then.

The new mentality can be summed up in one word. Entitlement. For many there is no shame connected with living of government handouts now. they feel they are entitled to such handouts. And that's where you reach the practical impasse. One political group shares that opinion, the less fortuneate are entitled to aid. One group does not.

Eliminating some of the programs would be wildly counter productive. the elderly, who don't have private pensions from their working days, need help. And franly, most have earned that help by paying into the system for years. The disabled also need help, and by and large, most deserve it. Unless we choose to follow Nazi Germany's example in eugenics, it's simply not right to tell those who cannot work that they have to work or starve.

The programs that drive conservativesw to distraction are those that simply throw money at the problem. Giving money to people when they haven't put into the system and seem content not to.

The most practical approach, is to return welfare to what it was meant to be, a safety net. The last option for people who are down to their last option. One very practical way to do this is to put a "hard cap" on how long a person can draw benefits. It would not be unreasonable to limit pettioners to, say five years of benefits in toto across the years when they can legitimately be working 18 to say 55. Once they hit retirement age, or they suffer a dehabilitating injury, or some natural disaster, such as Katrina hits them, exception could be made, but exception would be limited. In this scenario, a person forced to draw benefits, would have a strong incentive to get off as quickly as possible. An incentive that originally wasn't neccessary because of the social stigma attached to being on the dole.

Those who preach responsibility, should be happy, as manageing your five total years of help should force people to only use the option when they need it, rather than when it seems easier than a McJob.

It would free millions of dollars to revamp the system to be more proactive. Increase monies for education, vocational training, and other programs that offfer a chance to get out of povverty rather than just perpetuating the recipient's helplesness.

It would never fly of course, because to liberals it's a huge step backwards from their goal of an enforced egletarian society. And the GOP would never support it, because it's still "paying people to sit on thier arses". It is however, a fairly practical and practiceable compromise between the extremes.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The modern U.S. Welfare state we know has it's origins in the Great Depression. That worldwide economic downturn showed everyone, once and for all, that the desire to work, to make yourself better, to earn your own way, were not always enough. And most people voted Hoover out of office not because he caused the depression, but because he seemed to lack any plan for ending it or helping those who were being crushed by it.

FDR's new deal had some really scoicalistic overtones, but they were not the gist of it. The programs people appreciated most were those like the CCC, the TVA or other programs that provided them with jobs, rather than with hand outs. There was a very different Mentality back then.

The new mentality can be summed up in one word. Entitlement. For many there is no shame connected with living of government handouts now. they feel they are entitled to such handouts. And that's where you reach the practical impasse. One political group shares that opinion, the less fortuneate are entitled to aid. One group does not.

Eliminating some of the programs would be wildly counter productive. the elderly, who don't have private pensions from their working days, need help. And franly, most have earned that help by paying into the system for years. The disabled also need help, and by and large, most deserve it. Unless we choose to follow Nazi Germany's example in eugenics, it's simply not right to tell those who cannot work that they have to work or starve.

The programs that drive conservativesw to distraction are those that simply throw money at the problem. Giving money to people when they haven't put into the system and seem content not to.

The most practical approach, is to return welfare to what it was meant to be, a safety net. The last option for people who are down to their last option. One very practical way to do this is to put a "hard cap" on how long a person can draw benefits. It would not be unreasonable to limit pettioners to, say five years of benefits in toto across the years when they can legitimately be working 18 to say 55. Once they hit retirement age, or they suffer a dehabilitating injury, or some natural disaster, such as Katrina hits them, exception could be made, but exception would be limited. In this scenario, a person forced to draw benefits, would have a strong incentive to get off as quickly as possible. An incentive that originally wasn't neccessary because of the social stigma attached to being on the dole.

Those who preach responsibility, should be happy, as manageing your five total years of help should force people to only use the option when they need it, rather than when it seems easier than a McJob.

It would free millions of dollars to revamp the system to be more proactive. Increase monies for education, vocational training, and other programs that offfer a chance to get out of povverty rather than just perpetuating the recipient's helplesness.

It would never fly of course, because to liberals it's a huge step backwards from their goal of an enforced egletarian society. And the GOP would never support it, because it's still "paying people to sit on thier arses". It is however, a fairly practical and practiceable compromise between the extremes.

Collie, most states already limit welfare to healthy individuals to a period that is less than five years, in many cases much less. In fact, the feds will not pay welfare for more than fours years, I think (but it might be five). That does not apply to the disabled. Some games are probably played with the definition of "disabled," but in the main that's the current status. Also, even with that welfare spending has not gone down because the money is instead already being spent on "increased education, vocational training, and other programs that offfer a chance to get out of poverty" as you put it. As I wrote above that works fine for people who are just poor, but not for the "underclass."

With regard to the elderly, and those who are approaching retirement, the notion that their benefits will be cut in any reform proposal is a strawman erected by defenders of the status quo. It ain't gonna happen, and two seconds of thinking about the political reality will confirm that.

There are many ways to reform Medicare and Social Security in ways that will make the next generation more wealthy and more free. Sadly, what is more likely to happen is some grand abortion of a Social Security/Medicare compromise that increases taxes, means-tests benefits for future retirees (turning the programs into welfare), and reduces health care choices and freedom.

It doesn't have to be that way. There are any number of reform proposals that inject market incentives into the health care system (like MSAs), and that give individuals a property right in their social security accuounts, preferably with the option to diversify those accounts into a limited selection of blue chip investments. The short term transition costs are not unsupportable, and are worth the expense not just because it will save money in the long run (although it will), or because young people will have richer pensions under such a system (althought they will), but because it will eliminate the angst of living with an unsustainable system and knowing that you are going to get screwed.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Collie, most states already limit welfare to healthy individuals to a period that is less than five years, in many cases much less. In fact, the feds will not pay welfare for more than fours years, I think (but it might be five). That does not apply to the disabled. Some games are probably played with the definition of "disabled," but in the main that's the current status. Also, even with that welfare spending has not gone down because the money is instead already being spent on "increased education, vocational training, and other programs that offfer a chance to get out of poverty" as you put it. As I wrote above that works fine for people who are just poor, but not for the "underclass."

With regard to the elderly, and those who are approaching retirement, the notion that their benefits will be cut in any reform proposal is a strawman erected by defenders of the status quo. It ain't gonna happen, and two seconds of thinking about the political reality will confirm that.

There are many ways to reform Medicare and Social Security in ways that will make the next generation more wealthy and more free. Sadly, what is more likely to happen is some grand abortion of a Social Security/Medicare compromise that increases taxes, means-tests benefits for future retirees (turning the programs into welfare), and reduces health care choices and freedom.

It doesn't have to be that way. There are any number of reform proposals that inject market incentives into the health care system (like MSAs), and that give individuals a property right in their social security accuounts, preferably with the option to diversify those accounts into a limited selection of blue chip investments. The short term transition costs are not unsupportable, and are worth the expense not just because it will save money in the long run (although it will), or because young people will have richer pensions under such a system (althought they will), but because it will eliminate the angst of living with an unsustainable system and knowing that you are going to get screwed.

I would have said, not too long ago, that cutting the benefits of military families would never happen. But it did. Your faith in our political leadership is admirable, but my cynic's nose detects the faint whiff of bullshit every time one of those mealy mouthed bastards speaks. There is no untouchable program or class. These guys make you long for a good honest whore. At least she is providing a service for the money she takes. They just peddle their influence and if the corporate dollars demand it, they'll gladly cut any program. They have no concience. So long as they can spin it and not lose votes, any program is for sale.

I don't see using the market as a praticle answer. Someone will get rich off it, but dollars to donughts it isn't the poor slob with his Social security tied up in stocks and bonds. He might see an increase in his benefit, he might see a huge decrease, that's the risk/reward of all investment. I don't see much security, in monies payouts that are subject to the rise and fall of the market. It's a good way to go if you have the money to risk, but if we are talking about the only income you have, it's not a whole lot different from taking the rent money to Vegas.

Frankly, if you are concerned about the system being unsupportable, make the sons of bitches who routinely looted it to pay for other things put the money back, with interest. Garnish their fucking salaries until it's all paid back. I bet you they would find the funds to repay it inside of a week. And if the money that's supposed to be there, the money that has been paid in, were there, drawing interest as it should, and untouchable by those cretins, there wouldn't be a problem with funding social security. That money is our investement. They had no right to loot the fund and they now have a responsibility to repay us. Wringing their hands, crying crocodile tears and loking for alternatives to just paying back what they supposedly only borrowed is BS.

As I said before, I expect a reasoned and rational governance. I'm not getting it. neither from the Dems nor from the GOP. What I get right now is the persistant feeling someone is pissing down my back and trying to tell me it's raining.

I'm not prepared to write off any reasoned approach to the problem of welfare and SS, but I will apply the same ctriteria I do to any other attempt at wholesale change. To date, no proposition holds up under scrutiny. A flat ten K ignores the fact ten K dosen't go very far in a metropolitan center. Murray's ideas on health insurance are counter to what I know of the insurance industry. If you institute it, you'll have old folks eating alpo, dying from simple colds and you'll have a lot of folks like me, starving or freezing or both.

Likewise, if you open people's Social security up to investment, what happens when the market lurches? And it will, that's one of the few givens in the market, trend is what you are betting on, but it will fluctuate, sometimes radically. What happens to the poor SOB who had half his pension in GM when they go so close to belly up the govt has to bail them out? It's very close to happening now, so you can't say it's an unrealistic question. Do you expect him to live on 3/4 of what he should have been getting until the market stabilizes? Is he doomed to a semi permanent reduction in benefit if Gm falls from 124$ a share to 66$ and stabilizes there while they resturcture and get out of recivership? That can take years. So poo rold bob, who worked 50 years, paid into social securtity all that time with the promise of a pension is now making life's tough choices. Like His nitro pills or raman noodles for this month? Either OR. And no help from the state cause we did away with the programs he once could have counted on? And what about the poor slob who put his money into Enron? A blue chipper by any estimation before the financial shenanigans were uncovered? He is in worse shape than old bob, because he has absloutely no hope of ever seeing it get back to the price he bought in at. Permanent reduction in benfit?

One thing these recent plans all share is a pie in the sky outlook. An unshakeable confidence in the market. Long about Decemnber 7, 1941, this country got a very good lesson in the cost of that kind of thinking. We planned for years based on what the Japanese WOULD do. Instead of planning for what the COULD do. And it cost us dearly. These plans all seemed to be based on what private investment would do to help, with no inclination to examine what they COULD do if things don't go according to plan. That's a very dangerous conciet on the part of those proposing these plans. You have to look at a worse case scenario and determine how your plan stands up to that, not a best case, nor even a worse probable case, but he worst possible case. What if two or three of the blue chips your seniors have been directed to invest in develope author anderson disease? If a persons investment portion is wiped out, did you mandate there is enough left in the safe side to allow him/her to live? If not, what contingency plan do you have to deal with it? Or is it simply poor old bitty, she's just SOL?

The ten K plan, I can lay to rest with the simple note that health insurance dosen't work the way he demands it work for his model to work. Insurance companies aren't charitable. They function on a bottom line and that bottom line precludes insuring people on whom you will most probably take a loss. So that leaves almost anyone with a pre existing condition uncovered. They also drop anyone who they can when that person defies the statistical norm a couple of years running. So they too are SOL. At the very least, they would increase premiums drastically above the median for a 21 year old with no preexisting helth concerns. No private company will willingly tote that load of hits to their bottom line. Unless governemnt mandates they have to, in which case, they will become unproifitable quickly. And then they will need government subsidies to remain solvent. At which point, you're right back to tax money being spent to give people insurance. except now, you have crippled an entiere industry in achieving comperable results to what you have now. That dosen't seem a very enticing plan.

 

[R. Richard]

Colly:
Back in the early 80s the federal government made a horrible mistake. They allowed certain state government agencies to opt out of Social Security. A few such agencies in Texas did just that.

The Texas retirees now have to make do with several times what SS pays. Oh yes, they have to also take a $50,000 life insurance policy instead of the SS burial benefit of $255. Then one last, crushing burden, they own their own retirement funds and have to decide what to do with them.

Poor Texans!

Google it up!