Simplify Welfare: Finland gets it!
I can get behind this simplification to the Welfare System. Simple. Also should ditch minimum wage.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
It is philosophically odious, however. And...a bit amusing.
Jan
Er, umm.. Don't you mean Billion in place of Million on the dollar figures? In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion.That would mean approx. $100 billion left to run the rest of government.
Regards,
O.A.
Jan, half joking
Following this step, the producer will need to increase the wholesale price of his goods/services to keep his income where it was before this change and the gov't will have to stop him through price controls. But for the producers that have to buy out of country raw resources, the gov't can't fix those prices.
This is a guaranteed spiraling breakdown of the country's financial system. This worse than socialism--it's fascism.
It's a more naked way of showing the gov't taking your money and handing it to someone else, easier to dial up and down than an aid agency.
If Finland would simply:
1. Cancel all student debt
2. Offer free college to all
3. Pay a $15 minimum wage to campus workers
They could fix everything!
Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
(Yes, please read carefully;^)
I believe Milton Friedman once proposed such a plan.
Regards,
O.A.
It could, at least theoretically, be revenue neutral but it will probably cost more. There is a philosophical advantage to it being a universal stipend to it being something you have to declare yourself incapable of taking care of yourself to get.
Of course the whole idea of taking money from productive people and giving it to non-productive one is not the kind of thing that Objectivists are likely to be happy with. I would like it less if I hadn't been thinking about how we deal with a future in which all the goods we need can be made by only a fraction of the workforce.
The fiction is that such an injection of cash would stimulate the economy, but that's delusional, sort of like Nancy Pelosi's claim that every welfare dollar spent somehow generates $1.75. The first screaming would come from the "living wage" crowd, who would point out that the program would be unacceptable unless it equaled $15/hr ($30,000 annual).
We aren't yet in the Star Trek world, where all necessary labor is provided by automated systems and robots, and people only work if they want to. I'm not so sure such a world would be a good thing, or the beginning of our species' extinction. My mind keeps returning to "Forbidden Planet," and the fate of the Krell.
I don't like the idea of taking money from production to provide an income for the idle but when we reach a world where there simply isn't something productive for a significant portion of our population to do we will have to deal with this.
My hope is that market forces provide an incentive for people to use the new technologies in creative ways to create imagined value. My hope is that it's like someone saying the printing press would leave scribes with nothing to do.
I am not sure my hopes will come true. There's the chance that technology will increase the income gap partly by creating amazing new wealth for the few who can use the technology, e.g. top teachers who replace the need for as many local teachers, and people will respond prematurely with socialism.
I also think what Dr. Zarkov said could happen, where the technology creates a race of super robot who can think creatively as humans do. As he says, it's a whirlpool of possibilities at that point.
The IRS exists for two reasons. Citizen Control and Citizen harassment. They serve no other useful purpose.
No matter what level the percentage is all it takes is that percent taken off the top like any sales tax and transmitted by the employer to the government..But no they have to play games and ensure a population that lives in fear. At least the producing portion of the population. The looters and moochers could care less.
I don't agree with giving out the checks but making Right To Life an up front deduction on any income makes eminent sense. What right does government have to take that which we depend on merely to survive? Answer? No right. Then why isn't it an uip front deduction right after income? I don't mind if its adjusted to local costs of living. But as a giveaway like the unearned Earned Income Deduction. Hell no unless it applies to everyone.
Many citizens oppose giving significant aid to the poor, but "reform the [insert product or service name] system" sounds better. It leads to the creation of agencies that are hard to shut down.
I agree with the ideas in this article.
I can't see that as a sound investment anymore if the system is under control of the current government.
At this point almost anything qualifies as better based on trust alone... We went from the gold standard to the credit standard to the faith standard to the fear standard. And there it sits.
My positive thought here (not to take away from the accurate comment from sjatkins) is that such a simple system would reduce the waste in the government system distributing welfare. Milton Friedman showed that the government wastes 60-70% of the funding it gets internally. The concept is a little like a flat fat tax with a zero crossing and negative at some point.
As I've posted before, I prefer the flat-rate/negative tax with a rule that you may not vote in any election if at any time since the prior election you were a net negative contributor.
Of course no welfare is better, but I don't see that as presently sale able to the lemmings with the Warren-esque oligarchian moochers at the helm of the media.
And of course it is ethically repugnant UNLESS once can voluntary opt-in, opt-out.
All of that said I believe we can get to a place technologically where we can meet all the needs and many of the desires of everyone on earth with a small fraction of productive capacity. But we will never ever get there by robbing the productive of working capital.
In other words - cut all welfare, let everyone fend for themselves, and then there'll be massive escalations in crime.
I met a white Rhodesian once (escaped before Mugabe's takeover), and he had a few words to say about the extreme laissez-faire welfare-free environment of Rhodesia. Everyone with more than a couple of dimes to their name had to carry guns and live in constant fear of violence, burglary, rapes, carjackings, abuse. Is that what we want?
She also added: "Actually the socialists did two things correctly: 1) They outlawed frivolous lawsuits and: 2) They enslaved the professors and made education free for as long as you want to peruse an education. OTHER THAN THAT, socialism doesn't work!"
My guess: Real teachers (professors) desire to teach without the constant interference of politics.
As Newt Gingrich (strangely) stated: "Teaching is a missionary calling".
My guess is that enslavement culled the herd of non-teaching professors.
I hear people say that education in Europe is so much better than in America and I struggle to understand how free education is worth anymore than the price paid. I have no experience so I am left to wonder if it is really true. :)
At this juncture in time, information is basically free for all c/o the internet.
We are seeing into a new dimension of education that Europe is already dipping its toe into. My guess is that eventually thought (education) will not come with a price tag but rather with a vetting process. If you can read, process and think and then articulate your conclusions you will achieve "status/respect/compensation"...?
There are companies that school districts contract with that specialize in selling referendums.
Check out http://www.schoolperceptions.com/Comm...
Last year our school put forth a referendum to the tune of $48 million, in a town of 4200 people. Fortunately it was defeated with 75% against. Then they hire this marketing company to survey voters and the results came out this week in the paper. The headline read "Survey results show Dodgeville School District voters would support $18-20 million referendum.
Somehow I would a. have trouble believing that survey and b. go looking for a new home. School budgets are routinely vote in by parents of children K-12 and voted against by everyone else.They are keyed to the attitude only while MY Johnny is in school. Add a few who think the school is there to entertain them on Friday nights with sports activities or is viewed as a baby sitting service... And how much did they pay School Perceptions to hoodwink the residents?
Nevertheless The best way to improve education is vote down the budgets and demand academic standards as the price for a yes vote. After all isn't that what the residents are supposed to be purchasing?
Failed systems = Zero funding. It's a carrot and a big mother stick in one package.
The 4200 is total population. Subtract children and the number is higher.
would still be in soup lines, etc. because of flaky spending. -- j
.
Are you being sarcastic? Do you think the only reason most people get paid is b/c of the wage laws, not because they're providing something that someone else wants?
That's hearsay. In anything remotely resembling objectivism. So instead of using subjective or non sourced information take a few minutes to do something like the following.....the objective way. That's what we deal with here.
In using the following sites I would not be eating at Mcdonald's on a locals wages but on my retirement i would consider living there. Currently I am expat in yet another country. Quick tip for medical if you have a plan in the USA and it's not Obamacare but military retirement consider DAN Divers Network air medevac at $70-$80 per year from anywhere in the world for any injury or illness not just dive accidents.
Msg at the end in Ukraine language please excuse any errors.
For example you could have cited, sourced knowledge making it first hand such as it is found at
http://www.ukraine.com/forums/moving/...
or gone to http://numbeo.com for up to date volunteered information
or http://ukrainianweek.com
or this one Prices for goods and services increased as the value of hryvnia, the local Ukrainian currency, dropped.
Hryvnia to US Dollars Costs of living in Ukraine increased since 2013.
17 September 2015 Ukrainian Rada approved a raise in the official minimum of the costs of living from 1176 to 1330 hryvnia/month, and the minimum salary from 1218 to 1378 hryvnia/month. The changes will be implemented from 1 December 2015.
Accordingly, the minimum hourly wages changed from 7.29 to 8.25 hryvnia ($0.33 to $0.38 per hour).
Official minimum costs of living for different categories of people (per month):
Children 0-5 years old: 1167 hryvnia ($53)
Children 6-17: 1455 hryvnia ($67)
Adults 18+: 1374 hryvnia ($63)
Disabled: 1074 hryvnia ($49)
However, experts say that the real costs of living in Ukraine is higher than even the newly modified official numbers.
Andrey Vigiringsky, the deputy director of the company “Public Audit”, stated that their calculations were made on the basis of the factual costs of living and inlfation, in order to match the standards of in 2013, reported, reported http://Finance.ua.
According to “Public Audit”, the minimum salary should be 2487 hryvnia/month, and pensions 1938 hryvnia/month. Economist Andrey Martynyuk agrees that the minimum salary should be at least 2,500 hryvnia/month. Kiev’s lawyer Stanislav Batrin believes that the costs of living should be raised to 7,000 hryvnia/month within 3 years.
According to UBS rating released in September 2015, Kiev is the cheapest capital in the world to live in. The report published by the bank states that a family needs $1237/month to get by in the Ukrainian capital, with the further $540 required to pay the rent. (Those numbers are substantially higher than what locals actually live on.) Kiev is also at the bottom of wage charts by UBS.
Local realtors say that the average price for renting a studio apartment in Kiev is around $230/month. Larger apartments will cost more. Regional prices for apartment rent are significantly lower.
http://elenasmodels.com some sort of dating site with economics added.
or any number of readily available information sources.
I used two not entirely at randomn.
The first one is from a similar couple in 2005. An examination shows the situation has changed but one site claims $50US a week. and gives current and corrected government figures including cost of living per child or adult.
Currently with the hyrvnia at 43.1 to the USD
With the increase of costs in the USA and and the devaluation of the worth of the US Dollar another site would be http://expatarrivals.com to compare and a lot of other information from weather to the least useful McDonalds. Medical being most important as most if not all health supply systems are worth zilch in other countries.
Numbeo provides comparison between target countries and a second third choice country. For example I live well in Mexico but have merchant marine friends in Ukraine. I can compare costs between known situations.
Dobryden Druzhyna Jetmec. Wait a minute..
Привіт пані JetMec . Ласка, щоб переглянути свій пост і сприяння шляхом надання коментар в точності або , можливо, інших джерел інформації. Використовуйте або мову. Дякую
Майклу
Is your claim that Ukraine could simply pass laws and make the average pay increase tenfold?
You don't think prices are affected by supply and demand? You think a benevolent gov't could take a place where the price of something is $0.75 and make that price $7.50 by passing a law? You think the same buyers and sellers would come together and buy/sell roughly the same amount at ten times the price because it's the law?
it will just go up, and up. Still, with the elimination
of red tape, it might go a little better for a while. But then some people will complain that people are
misusing the money and squandering it on pleasures, and trying to run back for more when
it runs out, and others will want investigations,
and then they'll get more and more red tape a-
gain; that's what I think will happen.
Are there cost controls on goods and services? Will merchants see this as an opportunity to raise prices?
Give your kid a generous monthly allowance. Tell them this is all the money they have for the month. See what happens...at least until they learn you mean it. Also, will you really mean it? Check out how often you find an "exception" and give the kid more money.