Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Fix Poverty: Write Every Family a Basic Income Check
newsweek ^ | Dec. 14, 2014 | Betsy Isaacson

Posted on 12/15/2014 12:08:35 PM PST by PROCON

In the United States—as in all of the world’s wealthier nations—ending poverty is not a matter of resources. Many economists, including Timothy Smeeding of the University of Wisconsin (and former director of the Institute for Research on Poverty) have argued that every developed nation has the financial wherewithal to eradicate poverty. In large part this is because post-industrial productivity has reached the point where to suggest a deficit in resources is laughably disingenuous. And despite the occasional political grandstanding against welfare, there is no policy, ideology or political party that is on the books as pro-starvation, pro-homelessness, pro-death or anti-dignity.

Yet, poverty continues to exist. In the U.S., for example, almost 15 percent of citizens (and almost 20 percent of children) live in poverty. Of those, slightly under 2 percent live on less than $2 per person per day.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: clowardpiven; miltonfriedman; minimumwage; negativeincometax; obamarecession; obamataxhikes; poverty; ubi; universalbasicincome
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-149 next last
To: Tax-chick

That is always true, everywhere, just as it is always true that some will handle money wisely and some will not. The wise can become ignorant or have bad fortune and the ignorant can learn but generally speaking the wise remain wise and the ignorant remain ignorant.


81 posted on 12/15/2014 1:17:23 PM PST by TigersEye (ISIS is the tip of the spear. The spear is Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
... generally speaking the wise remain wise and the ignorant remain ignorant.

"Generally speaking" is pretty vague. If I correctly recall Thomas Sowell's discussion of this point, the shift out of the lowest-20% income group and the shift out of the highest-20% income group over a 10-year period is pretty significant, in the 25% range. These aren't all the same people trading places, of course.

The less ossified a society's economic opportunities are, the more likely it is that a person's income will reflect his most recent displays of wisdom or foolishness.

82 posted on 12/15/2014 1:20:45 PM PST by Tax-chick (R.I.P., Dad, 11/25/14. Thanks for the lawyers, guns, and money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

” I would be in favor of this approach if it meant replacing all the current gov’t programs and firing all the case workers and bureaucrats.”

DITTO DITTO DITTO


83 posted on 12/15/2014 1:20:58 PM PST by Persevero (Come on 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

We have had this discussion before. I assure you. Please Google the Brookings institution papers of the Fair Tax. It might be informative.

Only food grown for use on the farm shall not be taxed. Only other items produced for family consumption by families(knitten clothes, firewood, etc,) shall not be taxed. Used houses shall not be taxed but if the seller buys a new house, it will be taxesd at the going rate.

In 1999, Brookings, calculated that based on these provisions the initial tax rate would have to be 23%. The problem is, with such high taxes on consumption, we get less of it, and consequently, less production and the attendent problem of less personal income. In short order the tax rate would have to be at about 50%. There was no talk of exempting classes of so-called essential items or food types.

As for your ascertion that the personal exemption is a BIG, well, for those who work it certainly lowers the effective tax rate of the first several thousand dollars in income. But one does not “earn” income from it, unless of course one can take a child “earned” income credit. They are not the same thing as a BIG or “prebate”.


84 posted on 12/15/2014 1:23:15 PM PST by Omniscient Certitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

And giving many of the irresponsible blow it on drugs, TVs, alcohol, cigarettes and gambling will come back crying for more, supervised charity like SNAP benefits you can only use for food and Section 8 for housing is not always bad.


85 posted on 12/15/2014 1:23:30 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

“Nope, that doesn’t ring a bell.”

Google Nixon and guaranteed income.


86 posted on 12/15/2014 1:28:43 PM PST by DugwayDuke (Principles without power aren't worth spit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

Nixon was pretty liberal


87 posted on 12/15/2014 1:30:00 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

government is not a charity


88 posted on 12/15/2014 1:32:13 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

“If welfare were only a private (church based) enterprise, it would work to get people from learned helplessness and addiction toward productive citizenry.”

Plus, when you have to ask a real person for help, and not a government stooge, people are ashamed and would rather avoid it if they can. That motivates them more to work hard and avoid being put in that situation.


89 posted on 12/15/2014 1:33:28 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

“there is no policy, ideology or political party that is on the books as pro-starvation, pro-homelessness, pro-death or anti-dignity”

Guess I don’t fit anywhere!!!

Make your own way in this world or quit taking up space on this planet, lie down in the street and croak!


90 posted on 12/15/2014 1:34:18 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sappy

Good point.


91 posted on 12/15/2014 1:34:53 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

It might surprise a lot of people around here that both Milton Friedman and Charles Murray have endorsed a basic income plan.


92 posted on 12/15/2014 1:39:16 PM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
“Poverty” is defined as a percentage of income below the average. Therefore, it is impossible to eliminate “poverty,” because there will always be 20% that are at the bottom of income distribution.

We have a Winner!

There are two tails on a bell curve. In this case, poverty is on one, incredibly wealthy occupies the other.

93 posted on 12/15/2014 1:40:01 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

EXACTLY.


94 posted on 12/15/2014 1:40:12 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Boner and McTurtle funded Amnesty and 0bamaCare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

It’s dangerous when some brings an understanding of statistics to the conversation....


95 posted on 12/15/2014 1:41:20 PM PST by nascarnation (Impeach, Convict, Deport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Stop posting real satire dammit.


96 posted on 12/15/2014 1:45:55 PM PST by right way right (America will reject the suck of Socialist Freedumb, one way or another.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Well, you could define “poverty” as a lack of certain material goods. This would at least offer the opportunity of reducing it.

When poverty is “lowest 20% of household income,” you’re always going to have a poverty rate of 20%.


97 posted on 12/15/2014 1:46:16 PM PST by Tax-chick (R.I.P., Dad, 11/25/14. Thanks for the lawyers, guns, and money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
"Generally speaking" is pretty vague.

Such is the nature of a generality. The point is there will always be poor and rich (and those in between) and poverty can't be eliminated by redistributing wealth by force. Pointing out that the players in the play change roles doesn't alter the storyline of the play.

98 posted on 12/15/2014 1:46:58 PM PST by TigersEye (ISIS is the tip of the spear. The spear is Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

But the Alaska oil revenue is wealth generated through the production of resources within the State: it is the State’s share of oil company created wealth, split amongst the citizens, and not simply ‘redistributed’ from one citizen to another.


99 posted on 12/15/2014 1:47:39 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Pointing out that the players in the play change roles doesn't alter the storyline of the play.

A lot depends on what play you think you're in.

But that said, I agree with you.

100 posted on 12/15/2014 1:48:30 PM PST by Tax-chick (R.I.P., Dad, 11/25/14. Thanks for the lawyers, guns, and money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-149 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson