Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

using existing legal and physical infrastructure?

The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts.

We should be lowering our tax burden by simplifying our social safety nets. Unemployment compensation is less expensive than means tested programs.

I propose UI be funded through general taxes on corporations in order to engender an employment ethic to complement any work ethic in modern times. Such reductions in red tape could pay for themselves.

Simply increasing the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets and that form of capitalism, should be analogous to a "rising tide lifting all boats".

 

Still looking for the easy to do solutions Daniel? I could accept simplifying our social safety nets, but I am not sure you are correct about UI being less expensive than means tested programs. I do believe the "means testing" tends to eliminate the dignity of life for those who have to prove they do not have the means. As a Rehabilitation Counselor during my internship for an Ed.S in Psychology/Counseling I attended many a "means test" interview with my disabled clients (mental and physical disabilities). The questions they ask, the insinuations made by the Human Resources people, the very process by which benefits are determined is demeaning and dehumanizing.

The one issue you propose with which I totally disagree is the manner of financing. Taxes on Corporations is a loser idea from the start. We should be more interested in increasing the personal income taxes from the highest paid individuals who get the income from the corporations than from the corporations themselves. Why? Because studies of tax incidence suggest that in addition to many corporate taxes being passed on to the consumer, mobile capital may and many times be moved outside of our tax jurisdiction thus reducing jobs and costing our country's revenues to decrease.

Before we move on in the discussion about "how to" reduce poverty it is important that one understand tax incidence if corporate taxation is to be considered.

Our economy generates prosperity, but it also disproportionately distributes that prosperity. As in the other thread, the question becomes, "how do we distribute" that prosperity more fairly.

I have come to the conclusion over the years that most of our society wants to work, wants to earn its own way in life. There is, and will continue to be a segment of the population who are malingerers, who don't want to work, won't work, and insist they be cared for by the rest of society. I propose that we support them only to the extent of basic survival, a condition beyond which should they want more they have to work for it. I do not believe this segment of society is very large and in my future posts I will tend not to include them in my discussion. IOW I will tend to discuss the poor and that segment of society which is less wealthy than the rest but through no fault of their own. In my opinion those are the parameters we should consider.

Of course then we should make every effort to determine what kind of programs can be created to compress the wage scales from bottom up instead of from top down. By that I mean, the rich have a disproportionate share of the wealth, and what we need to do is elevate the bottom 2 quintiles of wage earners and integrate them into the 2nd and 3rd quintiles such that every one below the top quintile has a means to accomplish a dignified and comfortable standard of living. Of course this will be contrary to the statement by Christ at Bethany, "the poor will always be with us," and we will be trying to even the playing field of life for the least wealthy. This does not mean bringing down the wealthy, but rather getting the funding to help the less wealthy through taxation of the wealth.

 

I think that the very first thing we should do is find a practical way to extend health care to everyone. ACA as amended over time may do that, or we could look to a different solution.

Medical Care for All

In my opinion the best way to extend our fine medical care system to those who have no coverage other than emergency room services is to automatically issue medicaid cards to everyone without current insurance.

Depending on the profitability of their employer, the employer should be billed for medicaid. If the individual earns enough to pay for his own, or part of his own coverage his employer should withhold the premiums from the individuals pay check.

For those without jobs medicaid should be extended without premium until the individual becomes employed or can otherwise afford to pay the premiums.

Those who have refused company provided health care to get more cash in their checks should automatically be enrolled in medicaid and the cash they are now receiving withheld and used to pay medicaid premiums. Likely they will jump at the chance to take company provided health care in lieu of medicaid.

County health units should be expanded to care within their capability all persons on medicaid, by creating outpatient clinics in conjunction with any Hill-Burton hospital in the area.

In my opinion the costs of this will be less than the ACA, and most important, will not depreciate the care those with care now receive.

 

What a brain-dead idea.

Impose a tax. Make domestic producers' stuff cost more. Give foreign producers a price edge.

Ever heard of competition?

All this brain-dead idea will do is multiply the number of unemployed.

 

There are good common sense Ideas about taxation which will in fact keep jobs in the US and still improve our prosperity.

 

There is no poverty in the United States. Have you actually seen any? If you find some, tell us about it. There's millions of Americans who claim they're in poverty. But look at them: All of them have two new or late-year cars, nice homes, every electronic divice on the market, have health coverage (Medicare), and some even have second homes at the beach or in the mountains.

And the "poor," homeless and hungry who don't have these things have no one but themselves to blame, because they use all their government entitlements to buy drugs, booze and Twinkies.

Granted, there are some children who are not well fed due to Shaniqua and Deshaun's irresponsibility.

Sir, your mission if you decide to accept it, is to find some poverty.

 

Means testing must always be more expensive than simply applying for a form of minimum wage, whenever a civil Person and market participant in our economy needs to contribute to the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets but doesn't have gainful employment.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not solve simple poverty and engender a secular and temporal and capital moral of, if you can't claim to be in (official) poverty, why not find some market friendly solutions with the capital available.

 

I subscribe to the version of supply side economics that claims; supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

Do we really need our elected representatives to have to enact more red tape, for anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that can be applied to on an at-will basis, if a person doesn't have a job.

 

If a person is not producing why should he/she get a minimum wage like somebody who is working?

 

Okay some baseline information for my post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

Now I'm going to make the case in the United States those in what everyone would consider real poverty as in Extreme Poverty is pretty low. Homeless and those in rural areas who are poor might fall into that. But most would fall into Relative Poverty which is more socio-economic in nature but not necessarily a sore ridden starving diseased skeleton of a human in fact most have access to food, medical care, can stay clean, may have some sort of housing and if not can usually have some sort of protection from the environment and so forth. Example a homeless man might have a tent or other protection even if not a home or live in a vehicle.

So which poverty no one here would argue starving cold American sick who is destitute needs help but what about those better off I'm poor and likely in Relative Poverty by choice but I'm not in Extreme Poverty. I will get by regardless of other factors if I was homeless I would be in our local soup kitchens to eat for example if needed.

 

We should just put all of our poor population on boats and send them to Europe.

 

Opportunity to produce seems to be the big factor you're ignoring.

 

That's racist!

 

I believe that the biggest step in eliminating what poverty there is is to furnish everyone medical care.

Social programs are the solution to "official" poverty, with better catching of those who slip through the cracks.

 

The "Right" needs the poor, ignorant and downtrodden, to do the work for those who'd rather be RICH than truly productive.

I say, let them secede from the sane "Union".

 

The reason unemployment works is because it is generally limited in duration and payout based upon your income. People with no income basis (i.e. the welfare folks) have no basis for payment, not to mention that it is an insurance program paid for mostly by employers.

Beyond that, the reason it will not happen is because the democrats are weak in the states and will not consent to something not controlled by the Washington elite.

 

You could do what they did in Ancient Athens give half a days wages for an average worker at the time so under this model that could be $3.15 x 20 hours a week so they would get $252.00 a month and add in Medicaid let the private charity system or counties/cities take care of the rest. For this you would give people on government support from the Federal government $8.40 a day. No section eight, no food stamps or SSI it would all roll in but families and/or those deemed disabled would get more help the paperwork would be easier but even then modest support more say double what others get per person.

So you would not have to work but would get a flat check and whatever your community or state or charity provides.

 

1st off, you have no idea what "a rising tide lifts all boats" means or how to apply it.

Here's the problem with what you propose: most people, I think even you (once you think about it), would reject it. There are many means-tested programs separate from ui. Would you accept getting rid of all non-medical forms of welfare other than unemployment? Meaning that mothers and their babies would have as much support as a single unemployed male? Of course not.

 

You may be missing the point about supply side economics; why would someone want to work for the minimum wage if they don't have to.

- - - Updated - - -

In the US, we have poverty guidelines and those weights and measures for our political economy.

 

I believe we should be promoting the general welfare of our republic.

 

Simply increasing the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets and that form of capitalism, should be analogous to a "rising tide lifting all boats".

ITS CALLED INFLATION.....PUMPING up the money supply.....and lifts nothing but prices.

 

Why do you believe a social program such as medical care is more market friendly than ameliorating for a poverty of money under our form of capitalism?

Simply being able to apply for unemployment compensation, simply to compensate for being unemployed; could solve that form of simple poverty in our republic.

Why do you believe Individuals pursuing their health care needs with that income, would be a bad thing for Any private sector?

 

I believe we need to upgrade our propaganda and rhetoric; the part about a rising tide lifting all boats.

Should civil Persons in our republic have any basis to complain how much the wealthiest make, if they are not in official poverty?

 

Well, it is pretty difficult to convince our elected representatives to merely bear true witness to our own laws for free, under Any form of Capitalism.

Here is the relevant doctrine:

Simply petitioning for recourse to our own laws should not be too much to ask for.

- - - Updated - - -

In my opinion, our civil obligation ends with official poverty. After all, what excuse could any civil Person in our republic have if they can not complain about being in poverty; for staying poor on an at-will basis.

 

Your straw man argument is interesting as a hypothetical scenario, however, I am not disagreeing that their is a place for means tested welfare for those for whom solving for a mere poverty of money may not be enough.

For the rest of us, solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation should be enough merely by clearing our poverty guidelines.

- - - Updated - - -

That myth has been debunked in modern economic times. Full employment of resources in money based markets can only lead to efficiency gains, eventually.