Would you support a Generous Dole?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you have trouble making ends meet, you first get rid of the nonessentials.

Perhaps you do, perhaps you do. But how do you determine what is and isn't essential? Is buying anything other than the cheapest sort of mass produced food frivolous? Trip to the seaside with the kids?

[k-onmmunist]

No (sane)

Instead, I propose we reinforce the values that first carved this great country out of a wilderness.  Among them...

* Self-reliance
* Hard work
* Personal restraint and discipline
* A sense of responsibility

You know the old saying, Opebo.  Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.  (Or, he starves...and he deserves to starve, if he is too lazy and self-absorbed to work.)

I believe in self-reliance and individualism too, but you can't be truly individual if you can't get a job.

[Magic 8-Ball]

This, pretty much.  It should be used solely to help them make ends meet and help out with the bare necessities.

You know that the idea of an objective subsistence level is a myth, right? There is simply no way that you can determine what is needed to make ends meet or to work out what is an isn't a 'bare necessity'.

On a national level, yes, but one could do all sorts of analyses on the state and local level re the cost of living.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?
[/quote]

Why what?  Why it's wrong for people (regardless of class, I should add) to live beyond their means? 

If you have trouble making ends meet, you first get rid of the nonessentials.

Perhaps you do, perhaps you do. But how do you determine what is and isn't essential?

You start with the things that you have, but don't require. 

Of course, there are those who don't have much to start with and to whom this entire scenario doesn't apply.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't call that frivolous, no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On a national level, yes, but one could do all sorts of analyses on the state and local level re the cost of living.

Attempts at that have been done since the late 19th century. And all of them were, and are, ultimately useless. There is simply no way of determining an 'objective' level of subsistence.

This is one reason (of many) why official poverty statistics in the U.S are an absolute joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is there something obviously wrong with that scenario?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you determine that, exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you determine which people "don't have much to start with", exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But surely if the point is to live as frugally as possible (which is what you have argued) then surely it is?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

[Vepres]

On a national level, yes, but one could do all sorts of analyses on the state and local level re the cost of living.

Attempts at that have been done since the late 19th century. And all of them were, and are, ultimately useless. There is simply no way of determining an 'objective' level of subsistence.

This is one reason (of many) why official poverty statistics in the U.S are an absolute joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is there something obviously wrong with that scenario?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you determine that, exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you determine which people "don't have much to start with", exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But surely if the point is to live as frugally as possible (which is what you have argued) then surely it is?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

Al, a sad truth is that the cheapest food tends to be less healthy, so I would prioritize healthiness over being "frugal".

As I said earlier, should a family where both parents work, one in two jobs, barely making ends meet, buy a Wii and a number of games for their kids, which probably cost at least $200 which could have gone to pay off the bills. It's to stuff like that that I believe Magic 8-Ball is referring.

[Franzl]

No, not in the way opebo means.

If I understand correctly, this "generous dole" would be paid to everyone automatically irrespective of other circumstances.

I support a lot of things to help the poor, healthcare and education primarily....but I'm not a big fan of simply giving people money who don't need it.

The "generous dole" is just a good way to increase unemployment and decrease productivity.

[JSojourner]

No (sane)

Instead, I propose we reinforce the values that first carved this great country out of a wilderness.  Among them...

* Self-reliance
* Hard work
* Personal restraint and discipline
* A sense of responsibility

You know the old saying, Opebo.  Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.  (Or, he starves...and he deserves to starve, if he is too lazy and self-absorbed to work.)

I believe in self-reliance and individualism too, but you can't be truly individual if you can't get a job.

KTC would probably say that failing to get a job is your fault or my fault.  If we were just willing to work for a dollar an hour, we would eventually climb the ladder of success.

LOL -- I dunno if he'd really go that far, but I have heard people like Hannity and Limbaugh say exactly that in their arguments against the minimum wage.

[Magic 8-Ball]

On a national level, yes, but one could do all sorts of analyses on the state and local level re the cost of living.

Attempts at that have been done since the late 19th century. And all of them were, and are, ultimately useless. There is simply no way of determining an 'objective' level of subsistence.

This is one reason (of many) why official poverty statistics in the U.S are an absolute joke.

Are you saying that indices like cost of living and consumer price are inherently useless or just in the case of determining welfare?

Either way, what's the solution, then?  A 90% flat tax on everyone, followed by a countrywide, opebo-friendly dole of fifty thousand dollars?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is there something obviously wrong with that scenario?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you determine that, exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you determine which people "don't have much to start with", exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But surely if the point is to live as frugally as possible (which is what you have argued) then surely it is?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?
[/quote]

I know you have a point in asking questions to which you already know the answers, I'm just not entirely sure what it is.

[memphis]

For the disabled and elderly, sure. If you're young and healthy, get a job. For the same reason, I support abolishing all inheritances.

[Franzl]

For the disabled and elderly, sure. If you're young and healthy, get a job. For the same reason, I support abolishing all inheritances.

How do you "abolish inheritances"?

[opebo]

Let us say by generous we mean in the $1,200-1,500/month range, made up of a combination of rent-subsidy, 'food stamps', and a some cash.

where did you get the 1,200-1,500 number from?

Personal sensibility - it is about what I live on in terms of ordinary expenses.  (of course I would need that per week to live this well in the USA).

[memphis]

For the disabled and elderly, sure. If you're young and healthy, get a job. For the same reason, I support abolishing all inheritances.

How do you "abolish inheritances"?

Institute a 100% estate tax.

[Franzl]

For the disabled and elderly, sure. If you're young and healthy, get a job. For the same reason, I support abolishing all inheritances.

How do you "abolish inheritances"?

Institute a 100% estate tax.

Yes, I understand that....and do you really think that would prevent people from passing assets from generation to generation?

[Torie]

For the disabled and elderly, sure. If you're young and healthy, get a job. For the same reason, I support abolishing all inheritances.

How do you "abolish inheritances"?

Institute a 100% estate tax.

Well, I guess than you have to decamp to Bermuda or somewhere to die, with your assets, and renouncing your citizenship. That would be the effect of that law, for those with substantial assets that they want to pass them on. Life insurance policies would be designed to insure against the risk of dying suddenly without time to decamp. Sure they would be very expensive, but well - necessary.

And that is exactly what I would do, particularly since I have a loved one, that may need assets doled out from a trust fund for life due to special circumstances. I will not allow any government to thwart that if I possibly can. Trust me.

Come to think of it, this would be a huge boon for the insurance industry, because with the right planning, insurance proceeds are not subject to the estate tax. And charities would love it too, unless the charitable deduction were repealed as well. In the end, the government would not get much revenue with such a plan; indeed it would get far less.

[true liberty]

no. and honestly that is dumb idea that will only hurt productivity and innovation in the long run, and cause a brain drain. we need to encourage people to work.

[John Dibble]

No, not the way opebo means it for certain - unemployment checks to help you from collapsing financially while you look for a new job are one thing, but "free money" that you can get without any requirements or expiration date is an absurd idea that is completely ignorant of basic reality.

For the disabled and elderly, sure. If you're young and healthy, get a job. For the same reason, I support abolishing all inheritances.

How do you "abolish inheritances"?

Institute a 100% estate tax.

You do understand that such a thing would actually be a negative for poor people too, right? If an elderly relative dies and leaves a poor family some money it makes their lives better, even if it isn't millions of dollars. Just a few thousand could help a family get out of debt, pay for basic necessities that they've had a hard time getting, or even let them send their kids to college when they'd otherwise be unable to do so. Your proposal of a 100% estate tax takes away all those opportunities.

Also, how does your proposal take into account small family businesses? If it's a true 100% tax, all those assets are seized by the government when the owner passes away. Are you telling us that you want to socialize all these businesses? Or does the government sell them to the highest bidder, in which case the children can't afford to pay because they got nothing from their parents and some stranger or even more likely a large corporation would buy it out to eliminate competition. What happens to all the people employed by these businesses in these cases?

No offense, but it seems to me you haven't really thought this through.

[opebo]

No, not the way opebo means it for certain - unemployment checks to help you from collapsing financially while you look for a new job are one thing, but "free money" that you can get without any requirements or expiration date is an absurd idea that is completely ignorant of basic reality.

No.  Providing precisely that to owners is the basis of our entire social structure, Dibble.

[Vepres]

No, not the way opebo means it for certain - unemployment checks to help you from collapsing financially while you look for a new job are one thing, but "free money" that you can get without any requirements or expiration date is an absurd idea that is completely ignorant of basic reality.

No.  Providing precisely that to owners is the basis of our entire social structure, Dibble.

I agree, and we should also all move to Neverland so we never have to grow up!

[Associate Justice PiT]

no. and honestly that is dumb idea that will only hurt productivity and innovation in the long run, and cause a brain drain. we need to encourage people to work.

     More or less. I don't see anything that I could consider positive that could come out of this proposal in the long-term.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No (sane)

Instead, I propose we reinforce the values that first carved this great country out of a wilderness.  Among them...

* Self-reliance
* Hard work
* Personal restraint and discipline
* A sense of responsibility

You know the old saying, Opebo.  Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.  (Or, he starves...and he deserves to starve, if he is too lazy and self-absorbed to work.)

I believe in self-reliance and individualism too, but you can't be truly individual if you can't get a job.

KTC would probably say that failing to get a job is your fault or my fault.  If we were just willing to work for a dollar an hour, we would eventually climb the ladder of success.

LOL -- I dunno if he'd really go that far, but I have heard people like Hannity and Limbaugh say exactly that in their arguments against the minimum wage.

Michele Bachmann has suggested that new employees should actually pay the employer to begin with because they're new and they could break things and such.

[Torie]

No (sane)

Instead, I propose we reinforce the values that first carved this great country out of a wilderness.  Among them...

* Self-reliance
* Hard work
* Personal restraint and discipline
* A sense of responsibility

You know the old saying, Opebo.  Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.  (Or, he starves...and he deserves to starve, if he is too lazy and self-absorbed to work.)

I believe in self-reliance and individualism too, but you can't be truly individual if you can't get a job.

KTC would probably say that failing to get a job is your fault or my fault.  If we were just willing to work for a dollar an hour, we would eventually climb the ladder of success.

LOL -- I dunno if he'd really go that far, but I have heard people like Hannity and Limbaugh say exactly that in their arguments against the minimum wage.

Michele Bachmann has suggested that new employees should actually pay the employer to begin with because they're new and they could break things and such.

They used to call such things apprenticeships. Now they call them internships.

[opebo]

no. and honestly that is dumb idea that will only hurt productivity and innovation in the long run, and cause a brain drain. we need to encourage people to work.

     More or less. I don't see anything that I could consider positive that could come out of this proposal in the long-term.

Higher wages, for one, Piti. 

The way you encourage people to work, guys, is through the threat of killing them.  As long as you're OK with that, and consider that an appealing society, that's fine.  But please have the good grace and awareness to admit it is slavery.

[Franzl]

Your mistake is assuming that employers would be able to pay the wages you would consider acceptable.

[opebo]

Your mistake is assuming that employers would be able to pay the wages you would consider acceptable.

Your mistake is you don't understand that the employers are merely clients of the State.