An idea for sustainable welfare

a reply to: Aazadan

You make the simple mistake of assuming that anybody or any body is better at planning and executing a life other than their own.

Also, let's start using the word independence instead of welfare for the sake of clarity.

originally posted by: greencmp
You make the simple mistake of assuming that anybody or any body is better at planning and executing a life other than their own.

Considering that most people aren't very good at planning their own lives, it seems reasonable that someone would be decent at it.

The OP talks about savings and investment. You used to be able to put money in the bank and get a return on it.

There are some very authoritarian answers to welfare, none of them appetizing. The problem is welfare changes life preferences. The Denmark study on unemployment benefits should have sealed that case.

The easiest thing we should be all be able to agree on is elimination of income taxes on low incomes. The next easiest thing is to start as a culture is to understand the responsibility of being an adult especially when one has sex, Once a child is conceived the time for the parents to be selfish is over. This goes back to the changes in dating preferences and the use of the pill and abortion.
I say easiest but they are difficult. There are more fixes but they are likely immoral, unconstitutional and just wrong

originally posted by: jellyrev
The OP talks about savings and investment.

Sort of. The main point, though I have yet to figure out all the details, is that in all the various welfare programs in the US right now, we just give money. Not only do we have rules on that money that prevent saving, but money itself depreciates. This means that if you give someone a handout today, they're still going to need a handout in the future because their financial situation is always deteriorating.

Instead, if we gave out assets that either appreciate or produce revenue, the value of past handouts appreciates over time. I used stocks as my example, but there are others. One example I like to use is the fast food order kiosks. I think those things are an absolutely fantastic invention. What if the people who are losing their jobs to those machines, when they inevitably become unemployed, became the owners of those machines? In turn, being given assets that produce revenue, rather than just the revenue.

Another example is the Square. It's a simple but effective device. Basically, it gives you a payment processing system anywhere. They charge exorbitant rates for the things with CC swipes, but that's how they make their money. What if there was instead, collective ownership over payment processing (leaving competition in place, meaning shares in payment processor companies/devices rather than government control), and the revenue collected from processing payments could support those who either can't, won't, don't, or shouldn't work. Bitcoin has something similar built into it's structure, where in 50 years someone can earn an income simply from processing transactions.

Basically, welfare should distribute assets rather than money because assets appreciate and that means that eventually a person will have enough assets to not need additional assistance.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

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.

Thanks to ATS, I've learned just how many people there are in the world that actually fantasize over the idea of living in a Charles Dickens novel.

How unfortunate for those of you born in 21st century first world nations.

It must be painfully torturous having to live in this modern nightmare of social safety nets, labour standards, equality, basic human rights... day, after day, after torturous day.

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.

And very much an analog to give them Capital (so they can grow their own weath) rather then welfare income as the OP proposed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

And who is going to judge - those you 'can' not vs those who 'will' not. You, religious leaders, psychologists, bankers? Is it to be based on physical attributes, mental or emotional ones, or how about intelligence?

You can judge another's potential or capability - you can only try to lessen their suffering.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

And who is going to judge - those you 'can' not vs those who 'will' not. You, religious leaders, psychologists, bankers? Is it to be based on physical attributes, mental or emotional ones, or how about intelligence?

You can judge another's potential or capability - you can only try to lessen their suffering.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Thanks to ATS, I've learned just how many people there are in the world that actually fantasize over the idea of living in a Charles Dickens novel.

A lot of people love the idea of an ultra competitive society that's Darwinian.

To which all I'll say is I suggest you look at the chicken. They're fat, flightless, and slow but also delicious. There's nearly 3x more chickens on Earth than Humans. When humanity achieves space colonies, you can almost guarantee the chicken will be one of our first companions into space and if it came down to it, humans would readily sacrifice themselves in battle in order to hoard more chickens (and we have done so in the past).

By all measures, the chicken is as successful as humans if not more so. All Darwin cares about is surviving long enough to reproduce. The chicken has us beat. That's why you can't use Darwin as the arbiter of what is good and just.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
You make the simple mistake of assuming that anybody or any body is better at planning and executing a life other than their own.

Considering that most people aren't very good at planning their own lives, it seems reasonable that someone would be decent at it.

Precisely the attitude I would expect. Not accusing, just acknowledging the necessity of that outlook in order to condemn individual liberty.

I would suggest exploring the myriad caveats associated with such a position as well as any benefits before dismissing my admonishment.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
You make the simple mistake of assuming that anybody or any body is better at planning and executing a life other than their own.

Considering that most people aren't very good at planning their own lives, it seems reasonable that someone would be decent at it.

Plantation owners used to think they were decent at planning the lives of their slaves and you could make the argument that life on a plantation was a form of sustainable welfare. Sure there were some very cruel plantation owners, but many knew that their slaves worked better when adequately seen to, and would even go so far as to hire cheap day laborers to carry out temporary, dangerous tasks rather than risk their own prime slaves.

Oh, wait, was that not the better life planning you were talking about?

originally posted by: greencmp
Precisely the attitude I would expect. Not accusing, just acknowledging the necessity of that outlook in order to condemn individual liberty.

I would suggest exploring the myriad caveats associated with such a position as well as any benefits before dismissing my admonishment.

I'm aware of them already. Here's the thing though, if you allow for 100% liberty, you also recognize that a lot people are going to make bad choices. Sometimes those choices will just result in less than ideal circumstances, but in other cases it's disasterous. Almost no one is capable of making an optimal choice, and few people are capable of making good choices. The majority of success people see, is where they fail upwards and succeed despite making choices that otherwise suggest they should fail, simply because some percent of people are going to randomly succeed no matter what.

The thing is though, if you don't allow people to make bad choices, then fewer need assistance in life. I realize that comes across as authoritarian, and that's because it is, but if you don't want to financially support peoples poor decisions, that means preventing those poor decisions in the first place. Freedom isn't free, either society needs to prevent poor decisions, or tax more to pay for them.

My suggestion in the OP is to give people something more valuable than money, which is actual assets. But that also comes alongside the idea that were removing the free market from those sectors.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Plantation owners used to think they were decent at planning the lives of their slaves and you could make the argument that life on a plantation was a form of sustainable welfare. Sure there were some very cruel plantation owners, but many knew that their slaves worked better when adequately seen to, and would even go so far as to hire cheap day laborers to carry out temporary, dangerous tasks rather than risk their own prime slaves.

Oh, wait, was that not the better life planning you were talking about?

And what do you think of corporations who provide for retirements and health care today? It gives the business additional leverage to keep a person in a job. That's certainly planning out peoples lives. Have you ever seen someone forced to work a job they hate, for an immoral business, just because they needed to maintain health coverage for a sick child? I have, it's not a pleasant thing.

The issue with your scenario is that plantation owners were not benevolent, they were looking out for their own self interest, not that of the people under their control. They were using the logic that what's good for them, is good for everyone else. Government on the other hand is actually capable of being benevolent... it isn't always (largely because those who most need help, find themselves with the least representation), but it can be.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Government on the other hand is actually capable of being benevolent...

So your premise is that private business is *never* capable of benevolence?

a reply to: Aazadan

"The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbour and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work." -Friedrich Hayek

And no, government is not capable of benevolence.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So your premise is that private business is *never* capable of benevolence?

Competition prevents benevolence because it's purely detrimental to the person giving it out. If industries compete, it means they need to streamline and ultimately eliminate any charity. Any sort of benevolence is merely coincidental to it also being the best course of action for that company.

The owners of a business might wish to be benevolent, but the economics of the situation don't allow for that. If you short your own company money in order to help others, someone else will take advantage of it. As a result, benevolence is only possible when profit isn't an outcome.

a reply to: Aazadan

You are confusing altruism and benevolence.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Funny, you reference a fiction novel to my opinion, yet you're the one espousing the fictional ""m owed because I exist" fantasy model.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Aazadan

You are confusing altruism and benevolence.

No I'm not. Look at the concept of a benevolent dictator, they routinely give lavish gifts away to the people and work on their behalf.

As I said though, there is no room for kindness in the private sector. Any that there is, is merely a side effect of that being the most profitable route. Competition removes generosity from the equation.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Aazadan

You are confusing altruism and benevolence.

No I'm not. Look at the concept of a benevolent dictator, they routinely give lavish gifts away to the people and work on their behalf.

So the example you come up with is a dictator... nice.

As I said though, there is no room for kindness in the private sector. Any that there is, is merely a side effect of that being the most profitable route. Competition removes generosity from the equation.

You have obviously convinced yourself to the point there is no reason to debate otherwise.

Suffice it to say, you are wrong. And we'll leave it at that.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So the example you come up with is a dictator... nice.

Benevolent dictators are probably the ideal form of government. The problem is in getting and keeping one, power tends to corrupt people. Democracy is more of an ugly compromise.

None of that has to do with welfare though, and my opening premise that rather than giving people cash, we should be giving them assets. What ultimately determines a persons wealth in life, and ultimately their financial needs isn't how much money they have, it's how fast they can generate more money. Giving people assets that produce revenue, will ultimately get them off of assistance. Giving them nothing other than money, does nothing to change the rate at which they can produce more money, which keeps them on assistance.