Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by JimBowie1958, May 25, 2017.
Solving simple poverty should be the goal of a social safety net under our form of capitalism.
There is nothing simple about poverty. Thus, the answer to "solving" it - is not simple.
There will never be a "solution" for poverty, in the same sense that people die everyday of lung cancer voluntarily.
Solving for a simple poverty of money solves simple poverty for those for whom, solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.
We already have means tested welfare for the rest.
Regardless of how convoluted you want to phrase it, no decent society is going to accept giving large numbers of people something for nothing. Supporting their laziness and refusal to contribute to that society.
A society that is decent enough to care about poverty, is also decent enough to not accept that people should receive money for doing nothing indefinitely
Yes it would be a replacement for welfare as everyone is guaranteed a minimum income so there is no need for welfare. It would pay more than Social Security, so it would also replace SocSec.
These programs are so inefficient it would make more sense to just give money directly to all Americans rather than continuing these programs.
But sense there is no means test it is not welfare. You dont get more if you are 'poor'. People would get more than the poverty level, in theory, so there wont be any poor people.
No matter, any plan regardless of how well it is disguised, if it includes paying money to people who do nothing to earn it - will never work. Ever. Never has and never will. Ever. ....Ever.
The elitist intellectuals love to sit around and think of grand ways to organize society...it doesn't work that way.
Edit:...for "sit around and think of grand ways to reorganize society"....read...reword and rephrase failed methods that have fantastically failed in the past simply because they can't get around to accepting reality.
Abolish capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. No Person should be getting it for free.
Why do you care what others do or don't do for their money? Jealous.
I read that Jeff Bezos, who started Amazon and is one of the richest persons in the world, also is in favor of a "basic" income for all. I think that's because globalism has knocked out the ability of America to provide jobs for people who aren't very smart. Bangladesh and such have taken menial manufacturing jobs; the black market jobs such as prostitution and drug trading are a net negative for society. It's an interesting point and comes up in scifi --- people on "basic" because there is no way the world can employ them. Gibson shows such a society in Count Zero, and James S.A. Corey in The Expanse scifi novels show much of overpopulated Earth on basic income, no jobs. It's so far shown as a bad thing: these people know they are a throwaway population.
Your touching on another topic there, and one that will become increasingly difficult to deal with - excess population. With outsourcing/technology it takes less people to provide the needs and wants of the population, so what do you do with the "uneeded".
Fascinating topic. There have been several threads here over the years on this.
Separate names with a comma.