Question to the left: How much is enough welfare?

a reply to: dug88

don't know, I live in the US...
if they have kids and are very low income, ya, they will get a small amount of money.
but, then there is food stamps, medicaid, wic, rental assistance, child care subsidies, transportation assistance, free phone service, and, I am sure that I am missing a few that they may also be eligible for depending on weather their are children in the picture and the ages of those children.
the fact that we have so many on these boards complaining that they can't afford their health insurance, which, has such things as deductibles that have to be met and co pays, which I don't believe medicaid does kind of tells me that the amount you are giving isn't close to what is true at least in the US. heck, we'd have a heck of alot bigger problem with homelessness if the amount was $540/mo since you'll be lucky to find a two bedroom apartment for less than that... and like I said, you wouldn't be getting any cash unless you had a minor child with you.

a reply to: DieGloke


People with limited means should be able to live with dignity just as the rich and middle classes do. More and more people in low-skilled jobs will be replaced by machines. We will need to face this soon.

Going down your list:

Housing - a private home or apartment with all of the necessities
Food - SNAP benefits that are enough for the entire family to buy healthy meals, if they so choose.
Healthcare - Full coverage for medical, dental and vision with small or zero co-pays
Education - Full tuition and housing costs for state schools

I would also add a universal basic income. Not sure how much it should be, but enough to afford some comforts and small luxuries.

I don't subscribe the the minimal shelter that you advocate. That's a recipe for civil unrest and crime. Instead, I would like to see American society become the more perfect union--for all of us--as described in the declaration. That includes the pursuit of hapiness. To pursue happiness, you ought not worry about living an impoverished life if you are dealt a bad hand.

As for paying for it? Reduce the military budget and increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

a reply to: DieGloke

people were also free to come and go from the work houses of old. heck they got hands on training even...
kids grew up and died in the danged places...

a reply to: icanteven

Given that there are far, far more people who don't have those things, even among the so-called people who live with dignity you describe, especially as you get into the idea of tuition, where is this money coming from?

Or are you advocating for a complete command economy?

a reply to: ketsuko


I'm not an economist, so I don't know the best approach to perfecting our union from an economic perspective.

In the system that I am adovcating, the middle class will be able to live a life with fewer risks. I don't buy into the garbage that people will become lazy all of the sudden once a full safety net and universal standard of living is put in place.

You're always going to have ambitious people. I would argue that you will see more American ambition under my system. Some people hold back from reaching their potential today because they will lose medicaid if they even attempt to work. That's ridiculous for a country as wealthy as ours.

A universal high standard of living would unlock an entreprenureal spirit the likes we have never seen.

a reply to: DieGloke

If you go far enough left you will find the people that want welfare for all while robots do all the work.

So this question really depends on who from the left you are asking.

The left arn't one big group that all have the same views.

a reply to: DieGloke

I pay into welfare or unemployment if I lose my job I don't want to life in a prison like area until I can get a job. I want my money I paid into and live off that for a few weeks while I relax and keep calm looking for a job in my own home!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dug88

don't know, I live in the US...
if they have kids and are very low income, ya, they will get a small amount of money.
but, then there is food stamps, medicaid, wic, rental assistance, child care subsidies, transportation assistance, free phone service, and, I am sure that I am missing a few that they may also be eligible for depending on weather their are children in the picture and the ages of those children.
the fact that we have so many on these boards complaining that they can't afford their health insurance, which, has such things as deductibles that have to be met and co pays, which I don't believe medicaid does kind of tells me that the amount you are giving isn't close to what is true at least in the US. heck, we'd have a heck of alot bigger problem with homelessness if the amount was $540/mo since you'll be lucky to find a two bedroom apartment for less than that... and like I said, you wouldn't be getting any cash unless you had a minor child with you.

Sorry you're right it's been raised recently to $631.42 for: Singles, couples, and two-parent families where one adult is aged 65 years or older.

The maximum allowed for 7 people with the same category is $1,143.06 which is still ridiculously low.

That is the maximum you can get for any size family.

BC Government income assistance rate table

These are the requirements you must meet.

BC income assistance requirements

a reply to: strongfp

not to mention....
what happens to your household furnishings while you are being housed in a barrick like setting? and, how much longer will it take before you can go out into a more normal style of living once you do find a job if you have to replace all those furnishings? even if you shop at the second hand store, it's probably gonna take a few full paychecks to refurnish your home.
on top of paying the security and rent to get that home, possibly a security for some of your utilities to be turn on, the extra cost that might be incurred by your new job... it's gonna cost more to help people get on their feet if they have to fall that low as to lose everything in order to get a little help.

a reply to: DieGloke

I'd focus on the root problem first, namely the pandering nature of the system. If you are on welfare, you shouldn't have a vote. That would eliminate the pandering from politicians and lead us to a more sensible, fair system. On the local level, if you're not a property owner, you shouldn't have a vote on property taxes, period. Clean up the filth in our political system, eliminate the quid-pro-quo, and you fix a lot of tangential problems, including welfare.

a reply to: DieGloke

Wow man your plan is horrible.

How about we come up with something a little less control-freak oriented and a little more "freedom-loving American"?

No mention so I’ll ask. Are there gardens for growing fresh vegetables and orchards for fruit? Are there classes for computer use or learning coding for advanced users? Is there a limited time stipend for those leaving to help get on their feet? Opportunities to join a work crew and gain experience in carpentry or masonry? How about a work shop for other skilled arts such as sewing or painting portraits? Perhaps they could go around rehabbing old schools into living quarters/this Bunk thing and then swap locations when a new school needs to be built?

Funny how all of FDR’s alphabet soup agencies and programs were supposed to retire but only the CCC did, which put people to work.

a reply to: DieGloke

For joblessness I would provide no money instead:

A Bunk is a government run hostel/ Barracks with clean but communal living arrangements like showers and toilets.
3 basic meals a day that gives the needed nutrients and calories. Food designed for cost effectiveness not taste.
If your on hard drugs you don't get in unless in rehab.
If you steal or commit acts of violence/sexual assault you get kicked out and left to starve, provided the police don't get you first.
Must have contraceptives injections until you leave.

I could live with this... though I think we could do better. But we can sure do better now as well. So six of one, half a dozen of another, eh? Thanks for offering an alternative though. I much appreciate that!

But I would also ask an honest question of you and those on the right: How much corporate welfare is enough???

Especially when one considers that the taxpayers are essentially being double-taxed, because corporations pay their taxes from the consumers' hard-earned dollars... which have already been taxed on the individual level.

My answer is simple: Any and all corporate welfare is too damn much. And if we fixed the corporatism and crony capitalism running rampant, we would go a loooooong way towards fixing the problems that lead to people needing welfare to begin with.

a reply to: icanteven

Like I outlined before - the system is set up to trap you on it so you become dependent.

I am not in favor of a system that provides everything you need. People should be encouraged to provide for themselves. No one owes you anything in life, but a system that provides what you need encourages you think you are owed just that.

You certainly seem to think so.

And I ask again ... if everyone is owed a basic income to sustain them, where does that money come from? Who is making it?

What of value is being produced to sustain that?

a reply to: DieGloke

I hope you or your family doesn't get hit with a catastrophic medical bill and be forced into poverty. Alzheimer's can do that...

But you could learn a lesson in reality.

Why does it have to be the left, OP?

I think everyone, except the most Libertarian amongst us are okay with welfare to a degree.

What is welfare? Generally it's just assistance to those who need it and can't afford to take care of themselves. Like a Vet who's had both legs blown off and suffering some mental impairment. Does she deserve welfare? The single mother with 3 kids who's husband died in a hit and run. Does she deserve any welfare? The 6 year old kid who's parents both passed away. Does he deserve any welfare? The Iron Worker who was downsized. Looking for a job but unable to find any one who'll hire a 60 year old. Does he deserve any welfare?

Sure it get's taken too far and people do scam it but a majority of people who get assistance need it.

Would you want your grandmother to be put in a "Bunk house" with communal showers?

Some of this argument isn't about free stuff, it's about what I want my taxes to go to.

a reply to: ketsuko

Let's assume everyone gets just enough for food, shelter, medical attention and basic entertainment.

Let's see what this looks like.

1. Free housing would be apartment style living.

2. Free food would consist of maybe 100 basic items. Enough to eat well but not enough to be eating steak and lobster on the regular.

3. Basic home entertainment. Tv, internet, cell phones.

4. Full access to a single payer medical system.

Why would anyone work?

1. Many of us would prefer to own a house in the suburbs with a little space from our neighbors and a little more room to stretch out.

2. Most of us like to go out to eat and let someone else do the cooking and cleaning on occasion, if not everyday for those who have such means.

3. A man could spend unlimited amounts of money on entertainment and most would pursue at least some forms of entertainment outside of the basic.

4. Personally I am for a 2 tierd medical program social/private like the educational system. Anyone who believes the social medical program is insufficient for their needs would be entiled to see private practitioners who would cater to the working and upper classes.

Capitalism and being humane can coexist

Consumerism and the desire for the next shinny object is almost a plague in this world. Do you think that desire suddenly goes away because we ensure everone has at least the basics?

It's absurd to think that giving the factionless enough to live a humane life would end capitalism.

The majority as they do today would continue to work to improve their quality of life. The only noticeable change would be the absence of the homeless on our street corners.

Many of us our driven by our desires to carve out a decent lifestly for ouselves and families. Many of us our driven into the humanitarian fields and set out to help others.

While a few of our brothers and sisters, for psychological reasons that we are only in the beggining of understanding, seem to lack either of these basic characteristics. If we really do see ourselves as brothers and sisters isn't time we start acting like it and taking care of the factionless?

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: ketsuko


I'm not an economist, so I don't know the best approach to perfecting our union from an economic perspective.

In the system that I am adovcating, the middle class will be able to live a life with fewer risks. I don't buy into the garbage that people will become lazy all of the sudden once a full safety net and universal standard of living is put in place.

You're always going to have ambitious people. I would argue that you will see more American ambition under my system. Some people hold back from reaching their potential today because they will lose medicaid if they even attempt to work. That's ridiculous for a country as wealthy as ours.

A universal high standard of living would unlock an entreprenureal spirit the likes we have never seen.

OUR COUNTRY isn't wealthy.....about 33,000 families are......

the top 3 billionaires have as much in assets as the bottom 50% of the entire nation of 320 million people........www.forbes.com... b333cf8.....and those 3 just got their taxes cut by millions in December 2017....

the only thing we are number 1# in, is jailing our own people.......

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: icanteven

Like I outlined before - the system is set up to trap you on it so you become dependent.

I am not in favor of a system that provides everything you need. People should be encouraged to provide for themselves. No one owes you anything in life, but a system that provides what you need encourages you think you are owed just that.

You certainly seem to think so.

And I ask again ... if everyone is owed a basic income to sustain them, where does that money come from? Who is making it?

What of value is being produced to sustain that?

Your vision for a better world is uninteresting and downright sad. If anything, you are advocating for social Darwinism. Well, I guess you would throw a crumb of a bed in a shelter to the needy.

Is that all there is? Is that about as far as you think we can progress society?

I hold a different view. Society has improved for millions over the past century. There is still a lot more we can do to make the world a better place for its inhabitants, starting with the United States.