An idea for sustainable welfare

I apologize that this isn't as complete as my other manifesto's in this forum but I wanted to write and get it out, perhaps that will inspire more thoughts.

First of all, I'm operating from two basic premises:
#1. It's in societies interest to provide a form of welfare to the citizens who are down on their luck.
#2. Handing out money from the treasury is unsustainable.

So with that out of the way, lets look at what makes a person wealthy. A person becomes wealthy, not by the amount of money they posses, but rather by how fast they can obtain more money. What separates the rich from the poor in this world is what people purchase. The wealthy purchase an item that fills a need, but is also an asset they can either resell later, or generate revenue from. The poor purchase whatever they can afford that day.

So I propose we take advantage of technology. Rather than give people say $750/month in welfare, we give them $750/month worth of shares in machinery that can produce revenues. For example, companies that run fast food kiosks, or Square, or ATM's, or money transferring services. Most of these shares will be sold, but not all. What doesn't get sold, ends up producing more revenue over time, and ultimately lifts a person out of poverty and by lifting people out of poverty, we limit their time getting help.

Lets put more numbers to this. A reasonable dividend return is 7% annually. Lets say we give each person needing welfare $1000/month in stocks returning 7%, and $250 of that is mandated to a fund for them to give them the assets to eventually get off welfare. Selling the assets would also allow the government to break even.

I outlined this on a small spreadsheet down to 20 years.

After 18 years of such a program (birth to adulthood) of $250/month, at a modest 7% dividend $54,000 would have been given which would create a nest egg of $105,566 per person. Sell $54,000 instantly to repay the investment and you now have a nest egg per person of $51,000 in savings. And here is where you can use this number to sustain welfare. Divide this number in two. Give half to the person (which should cover 2 years college tuition, or an associates with money to spare at a CC), and put the other half in a general fund. Continue to grow that general fund.

In a population of 3,000,000 18 year olds (each year could support itself), about 10% will need welfare. About 10% of homes will need actual assistance at some point (assuming the economy is in good shape). That 10% number which is $1000/month for 300,000 people becomes doable at $300,000,000 per year in dividends which happens at about 22 years (including inflation). So 22+18=40.

Essentially, this means, that for anyone aged 40 or above, it should be possible to create a revenue neutral system of welfare for the bottom 10% of households. Which would in turn help people who struggle to raise families, or keep alive the dream of retirement.

It could apply to younger people too (or to more 40 year olds) with a higher rate of return, 7% is a modest/safe number.

Greetings-

So this is a "Spitball Session" where any ideas are presented and discussed?

You ever fly from the East coast to the West coast or versa-visa? You know all that 'fly-over land'? Where You look out the window and there isn't anything for hours on end?

Visualize all that being built. Roads, businesses, homes, etc. The folks who are on "Public Assistance" get the first picks on homes and jobs, where they actually BUILD their futures. They'd be building THEIR roads, THEIR homes, THEIR businesses. Where they'd actually have some skin in the game.

Or We can continue to go fruitlessly down the path We've already traveled...

When Trump gets in, he'll reverse all the damage to the economy.

And then he'll bring back all the Company's to America so actual

Americans have real jobs, with real products really made in the USA.

a reply to: Aazadan

One problem.

The Rich are rich because they have more money than the average Joe Blow.

If Joe Blow had the same amount of money, or near as much money as the Rich, the Rich wouldn't consider themselves rich. They don't want Joe Blow to have any money. That is the whole of it. They want us poor.

Second. If Joe Blow has more money, businesses will just jack up the prices on everything to make Joe Blow pay more and have less.

If the idea of welfare is to get people off of it as soon as possible, why would we need it to be sustainable? That sort of implies it is a permanent condition.

The way to make welfare sustainable is to give people a reason to get off of welfare.
I have a relative that is 24 yrs old and has 5 kids.
All different dads.
None of them are supporting their kids.
She is on every imaginable benefit program.
Subsidized housing, w.i.c., food stamps, Medicaid.
Why should she get off welfare?

a reply to: Aazadan

A quick reply to begin - your premise of 'capital infusion' rather then welfare is a good one and is being developed somewhere and I'll going to look for more... as I have read about it before.

However, your 'moderate' return of 7% is inflated and based on the excesses of 'private capital' manipulation - not on actual returns and the 'assumption' that such imaginary returns will be consistent over the generations is laughable. Then you haven't considered "Who will control the funds" ?

Excellent topic of discussion.....

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The way to make welfare sustainable is to give people a reason to get off of welfare.
I have a relative that is 24 yrs old and has 5 kids.
All different dads.
None of them are supporting their kids.
She is on every imaginable benefit program.
Subsidized housing, w.i.c., food stamps, Medicaid.
Why should she get off welfare?

I've got some pretty radical ideas on solving this one, but they're not considered politically correct.

The problem lies with the person. You can't control people and their behavior.

There are a certain percentage of people who just have no self control and can't handle money or responsibility. No amount of welfare will ever fix that.

Quit rewarding bad behavior and understand that you will get more of what you subsidize. Keep subsidizing poverty and guess what... you get more poverty and an even bigger problem of having 3rd and 4th generations of people who have never known anything but welfare.

Bring back personal responsibility in society and understand that some people are just going to live in poverty no matter what you do.

Stop proposing to take more of my ( and everyone else's ) property at gunpoint for "noble" programs. I have a calculator and can figure out that I pay around 45-47% of my income towards one tax or another and still have people saying "Gimme gimme."

Here is an overview from Wikipedia of "Asset-Based Welfare". Interesting an idea originated by

Thomas Paine, an American Revolutionary, and Antoine-Nicolas Condorcet, French philosopher,

en.wikipedia.org...

Asset-based welfare is concerned about the assets held by individuals rather than their basic income. Will Paxton argues that asset-based welfare concentrates on the stock of capital that one holds and not just the basic income. Stock of capital is the actual measure of well being. Asset-based policies can be directly compared to income policies. Although income policies are necessary as they allow the poor to maintain a livable standard of living, they are considered to be more of a alleviative measure of poverty, whereas, asset-based welfare is considered to be a preventive measure of poverty.

Asset-based welfare requires that assets in the economy should be redistributed such that the inequality in the ownership of assets between the rich and the poor is narrowed. It is necessary to solve this issue of inequality in distribution of assets as this lays ground for inequality in all other aspects.[2] The first asset-based welfare policy was the child trust fund introduced in Britain. Another example is the saving gateway.

a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

And how would Jesus respond?

You espousing the gosple of athetist Ayn Rand and all ... best change your signature quote....

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

And how would Jesus respond?

You espousing the gosple of athetist Ayn Rand and all ... best change your signature quote....

A passage from 2nd Thessalonians comes to mind...

"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Not that one should use beliefs in invisible sky daddies as a basis for public policy or anything...

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

And how would Jesus respond?

You espousing the gosple of athetist Ayn Rand and all ... best change your signature quote....

A passage from 2nd Thessalonians comes to mind...

"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Not that one should use beliefs in invisible sky daddies as a basis for public policy or anything...

I was asking about Jesus not Paul. Paul, IMO, was not a Christian but an opportunist kind like Ms. Rand so you are consistent.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

And how would Jesus respond?

You espousing the gosple of athetist Ayn Rand and all ... best change your signature quote....

Don't mix matters of the state with religious underpinnings.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

And how would Jesus respond?

You espousing the gosple of athetist Ayn Rand and all ... best change your signature quote....

A passage from 2nd Thessalonians comes to mind...

"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Not that one should use beliefs in invisible sky daddies as a basis for public policy or anything...

Something like: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat everyday" - obviously paraphrased, but in the same vein as your reference to the bible.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

And how would Jesus respond?

You espousing the gosple of athetist Ayn Rand and all ... best change your signature quote....

Don't mix matters of the state with religious underpinnings.

You should've been there when they were minting coins with the inscription "In God We Trust". Or when they drafted the Pledge of Allegiance. Or....heck, I could go on, but the point has been made.

I do agree with axiom of not mixing the affairs of the state with religion, though

I can sum it up easily in a non-religious way...

A person is only entitled to whatever property they own or earn.

If another party chooses to play nice and voluntarily share, that's 100% up to them, and the person receiving the gift has no say so.

I do not support taking private property by force in order to provide for "welfare" or "the greater good."

Except in rare cases involving genuine disability, I don't support sustained welfare in any way. I am only responsible for myself and my "tribe" if you will. Nobody should be responsible for my survival but me.

Government's only legitimate function is to protect the rights of natural individuals and provide for the common defense.

a reply to: JimNasium

There's a couple problems i see with this.

The first is that rural and semi rural communities just aren't practical. It costs too much to build and maintain low population density infrastructure. The future is moving everyone into cities and having empty space between them.

The second is that you have to ask who is going to build it. It's not engineers and tradesmen that are hurting for work. You can't just move people out and expect them to build their own community if they don't have the skills to do it, and that's saying nothing of the organizational skills.

a reply to: Encryptor

This is at best a temporary fix. Our country and economy are built on competition. You can't just use the state to remove the people that are out competing you, markets are more clever than that and they'll find a way back in.

originally posted by: ketsuko
If the idea of welfare is to get people off of it as soon as possible, why would we need it to be sustainable? That sort of implies it is a permanent condition.

That's because it is. The number of jobs we have are fewer than the number of people needing work. Sustainable income past a certain age allows for people to drop out of the workforce sooner which reduces the number of workers and opens up jobs for others.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

This would be revenue neutral in theory because the money given is fully repaid over time. It could even be revenue positive as the money that gets invested is getting invested in the private sector which means more businesses can be started up through that money.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

The only sustainable welfare is the welfare that is self-earned, PERIOD. There is no sustainability to expecting our nation's workers and earners to pay the way for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

Private enterprise is unsustainable. Competition eventually makes all professions worth nothing.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
Something like: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat everyday" - obviously paraphrased, but in the same vein as your reference to the bible.

Being a fisherman isn't very lucrative though. If you spend your whole day gathering food to eat, how are you ever going to develop the skills to do more than eat? Most people aren't interested in a subsistence lifestyle.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Marx certainly seemed to because the same principle is also found in Marxism ... for all the die-hard socialists like to ignore it.

It is our duty to help others where and how we can, but when someone is a complete parasite living entirely off of the charity of others and expecting it as though it were their due, we have no duty to that person. Understand, I am not talking about the person who cannot, but the one who will not.

There are far too many who could but make choices that lead them down a path of will not.