"Bearing that in mind, Randall Akee, an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a collaborator of Professor Costello’s, argues that the supplements actually save money in the long run. He calculates that 5 to 10 years after age 19, the savings incurred by the Cherokee income supplements surpass the initial costs — the payments to parents while the children were minors. That’s a conservative estimate, he says, based on reduced criminality, a reduced need for psychiatric care and savings gained from not repeating grades."
That means, its not only a good idea, its free.
Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated. If you're a poor black person (or latino, or Cherokee, or whatever), and you're living in a land that's dominated by a group that's not like you, you are less likely to respect that money than if a) that money came from a source that was yours, and b) you knew that if that source believed that you were disrespecting that money, they would cut it off.
Both stipulations apply here. Giving a small band of Cherokee profits from one of their own casinos =/= giving poor blacks and latinos federal assistance. They aren't even close.
Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical that free money for the majority of the poor is actually a good idea.
Anything else, as I said in another thread, is half-measures.
"... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here."
"Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical... "
I'm all in favor of repeating the experiment in whatever populations, ideally the general one on a large enough sample size to tease out demographic information. I don't want to seem like I'm implying something here, so I will instead say overtly that I find the way you've singled out certain populations for skepticism with regards to whether they should be helped disturbing.
And while we're on the subject of statistics, I may as well go ahead and ask about yours: where did you get that figure from? Because I found something much different:
According to this, only about 25% of people living in poverty were white, and that includes the somewhat dubious category 'white, not hispanic.' (It's near the bottom, Table B)
That also includes white retirees, which inflates the figure as you're taking the number of retirees from a large category and sticking them into a smaller category, which means they will be over-represented in the smaller category.
And that's not even mentioning the rate of poverty or welfare participation, which is where the common perception that blacks and latinos abuse the welfare system comes from in the first place. It's much higher than it is or other races. When you dig into the data, it usually turns out that stereotypes exist for a reason, and this appears to be no exception.
Table B in the link you posted shows 31,650* white people in poverty out of a US total of 46,180. That's 68.5%.
* all numbers in thousands
The whole argument is ridiculous, of course:
> If you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comprised predominately of minorities and cross your fingers that it is a success.
When did we have the double-blind controlled study showing that the mortgage interest tax deduction wouldn’t be abused by the upper middle class "en masse" as a tax-protected store of wealth, contributing to a wildly over-inflated housing market?
Perhaps you can point me to the literature showing that carried interest being taxed as capital gains wouldn’t lead to wealthy fund managers being able to claim zero “income”?
Budget policy in the US (or anywhere, really) isn’t set by enlightened scientists who carefully consider the sociological and economic consequences. Voters and politicians are swayed by pundits and lobbyists, not by scientific studies. Get the right people to endorse an idea with the right (specious but superficially convincing) talking points and you too can help set public policy.
It doesn't matter. Voters don't hate the upper-middle-class, and they don't hate fund managers enough to vote differently. And sure, it would be nice if the electorate were less racist (and I'd support efforts to change that), but in the here and now we want to introduce positive policies, and we have to do that with the electorate we have rather than the electorate we wish we had.
It would not only be morally correct, it would provide great ammunition for fighting against those who would be against it.
But that's not going to happen, because despite the rhetoric of the left, no one knows whether it would work or not, and a failure would be catastrophic for the left politically.
So we'll trudge on, doing the same shit, implementing the same policies not to fix actual problems, but to appease our consciences and to feel like we've won some kind of political victory against that evil other side.
The whole game is a farce.
At any rate, the rest of my points stand. Now that you've pointed out my mistake, maybe you'd like to follow up with a quick 1-2 punch and knock the moron out of the ring, eh? Come on, it should be easy, right?!
You'll find blacks and latinos are overrepresented in all negative socioeconomic indicators. But I'm sure that they're all deliberately choosing to have die younger and spend more time in prison.
I'm actually fairly offended that people are equating dividends from a tribal business with welfare. It is a bit insulting.
Based on the last presidential election I'm not so sure you need to convince white voters about anything:
Alternatively, rather than attempting to convince them, we could educate them.
I can't be sure what you intended to say here, but the message it sounds to me like you are implying sounds quite racist to me.
I DO care about poor Cherokee -- and poor humans in general. I have little reason to believe that any particular racial group would behave differently. You seem to be implying that blacks or latinos have a "different subculture" particularly in how they "treat money". I have no idea why you would believe this and unless there is good evidence to support it I would speculate it is probably just prejudice. I say that because, historically, essentially every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue.
You also seem to be suggesting that there's a psychological difference between money received as federal assistance and money received from "one of their own casinos" because of considering it "theirs". That's an interesting claim. If true, then perhaps it suggests that a stipend program, if one were to be set up, would best be presented as if it were an earned entitlement or payout -- rather like we do with Social Security.
You should re-phrase that to point at racist claims. There are quite a few differences between the races. Bone density is one example.
> There are quite a few differences between the races. Bone density is one example.
(I want to avoid claiming that it's the racist claims that were proven untrue. For one thing, it begs the question: if they turn out to be true then I guess it wasn't racist after all.)
It can be overstated; you've overstated it. In contrast to the careful research described in the article, you've just made a bunch of stuff up. Your rush to assume race as the dominant factor is another example.
Every other country which has accepted middle eastern immigrants in the last decade are experiencing the same problems.
If a population does not respect your system, they will abuse it, period.
If you can get over yourself for a second, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why.
Generally, if you're going to make racist statements, at least try to back them up with some data and/or source.
That is changing as a direct result of increasing immigration, and welfare reform is on the horizon across Europe, not just in Sweden.
Instead of asking them a loaded question in order to receive the answer that you want to receive, why not try asking them an unloaded question? Something like: do immigrants treat the welfare system differently than do native Swedes? Obvious answer is obvious.
But you've already said enough to refute your own argument: the immigration problem. It's a problem, is it not? And it's a problem because those people respect the system less than Swedes do, thus necessitating reform. It's not a major problem because the Swedes are proud of their system which has worked so well, with so little abuse, until just recently, and they're certain that they can figure this problem out as well before it gets too bad. But it is a problem nonetheless because, well, I'll just let you go back and read my original assertion.
How the fuck is it that a forum of supposedly intelligent people have such a massive problem with basic fucking logic?
Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
You people suck at this.
You indicated how a) this was a special case and that other types of people wouldn't behave similarly and that b) because other types of people wouldn't behave similarly this type of social policy shouldn't be enacted.
Yes? What did I miss?
Additionally, it is telling that you consider me to be plural. As if I am speaking on behalf of some sort of group that is "other" to you. Methinks, perhaps, you've caught the identity politics meme. You and I, we are not on separate teams, in different groups, or of a different type.
I believe the South African example is a closer approximation to what a society would look like with a basic guaranteed income.
Please note the variance in the sources (even communist party :D ), so not really a biased picture. Everyone knows the grant system is being abused on a massive scale. Also the amount of people on the grant system exploded from 80 000 people receiving grants in 1998 until today's 12 000 000 people. And South Africa is not exactly a rich country...
As for my taxpayer statement, you only pay taxes if you earn above a certain amount. But it is a sliding scale system, so about 2 300 000 people are responsible for 93% of all the collected taxes, supporting 12 000 000 people. Not sustainable.
An in depth explanation:
The fact is, the 1st attempt worked stupendously well at alleviating a critical problem. Further study will likely cause real delay and suffering, and is an excuse for inaction indefinitely.
Why did the parents of these poor kids do a terrible job of parenting before the stipend? They were drunk half of the time (literally 10-12 hours per day). They drank mostly because they felt sorry for themselves. Why? they felt disadvantaged and envious, they were basically pouting. Why? because their lives were not like those they saw on television. Also because they had "learned" by watching television that they were poor and worthless and could never get a leg up in the white country they lived in. Once they started getting money and buying more worthless crap from Walmart, they felt like they were keeping up with the Jones' thus they felt less sorry for themselves and drank less. The rest is self explanatory...
This is the truth, Self pity is the biggest enemy of the minority. Nothing does more to promote this than The visual media. How do I know this is true? because my wife was one of the children in this story. She and her family told it to me long before I read it here today.
Politicians who seek to exploit racial groups by scapegoating them and promulgating stereotypes do a pretty good job too.
I've found in most of my interactions with people, including the very poor, the feeling of control, the feeling of being able to shape your destiny, is what differentiates those who remain poor from those who work their way out of it. It differentiates those who spiral into depression or addiction from those who don't.
Alcoholism, self-pity, and/or ridiculous amounts of television watching are a problem, but seem to be a symptom more than a cause.
The question is this. Why are people in the US wealthier then they have ever been, yet they act poorer and more depressed than ever? Comparing quality of life access to education and health care and relative wealth, "poor" people today would be considered in the middle (or even upper middle) class during the first third of 19th century. They ARE considered upper class compared to the majority of the people in the world today. Why they are they the laziest and have far more self pity then the fore mentioned groups?
The answer is that they FEEL disadvantaged and lacking opportunity relative to what they perceive as "everybody else". They FEEL helpless and hopeless. But this is really an illusion. This perception is formed mostly by watching visual media (television, movies, news ETC).
See really the stipend is a bailout of sorts. Something causes them to pity themselves (the false reality of media), and the money causes them to feel better about themselves. More aligned with that illusion.
What i am saying is - rather than a bailout, I wonder if just eliminating what caused the problem in the first place would be even better. I know that this is a fantasy because you can't just tell people to stop watching television.
The television thing is really just a symptom of a larger problem though. The main problem is the loss of Christianity and family. Even atheists cannot disagree with the fact that every legitimate study ever done about those with a strong belief in God concludes that they are harder working, far less depressed, commit far less crime, and stick with their spouses more ETC. (the same types of thing that this stipend seemed to help with). Take that away and of course there will be a big difference in crime, employment, divorce rate ETC. and how that affects future generations (the kids).
So many people I met were very happy having a huge extended family, close ties with neighbours, and some scrappy shop that was just an extension of their home. Happier than most of the affluent managerial class I interact with on a daily basis nowadays. And yet they had televisions on, 24/7, that broadcasted this wealth. It affected them, and many were lured to a life they hoped would be better, but clearly it wasn't the decisive factor in their level of happiness.
I'm still very much trying to figure out how this works, but my deeply conservative Christian background often seems to provide answers, however uncomfortable that realization makes me at times.
They discuss and question the validity of the very deeply held belief that if you "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
While its very hard to argue with this logic, and it seems so true and obvious, it also implicitly assumes that the poor are poor due to lack of education, rather than due to lack of money.
I can't defend GiveDirectly or stand by any claims made on either side, but apparently the results they're achieving is some evidence that the poor really do just need some seed funding to launch from, much like startup companies need inital funding in order to launch.
One thing I'm sure of, whether you're poor or trying to start a company is that its very hard to start your virtuous growth cycle without a little money.
Generalizing; those that are against wealth redistribution aren't going to be convinced otherwise based on the decrease in mental illness amongst the poor or higher grades in school. The numbers around the cost of someone spending a year or more incarcerated is well known. The cost of a transfer is well known. IF you can show "You really want to ensure that a family of 4 has this much coming into the household to ensure it doesn't cost you much more later" then you could go a long way to bringing new supporters into the fray.
A pretty large group, however, are people who think that poverty-fighting schemes would be good in principle, but they are skeptical whether such schemes work in practice. A common criticism is that what seems like a good idea ends up backfiring, is abused, produces dependency, etc. Many economists are in that group, of people who would support a poverty-reduction scheme if they thought it worked and didn't cause larger problems. I see that as the class of objections that these studies are looking to corroborate or refute.
And AFAICT, the US tax code is at least half decent about recognizing charitable giving -- that is, letting people distribute their money that way or other ways -- as a legitimate offset to a personal tax burden.
Possible it could be better.
It looks to me like we don't see a lot of personal stipend style charitable giving, though.
(There's a significant presumption in the phrase "my money", but that conversation usually goes about as well as threading the proverbial camel through the eye of a needle, probably for much the same reasons.)
Actually, most people don't like it because they've seen how the government "redistributes" their money and most of the time it's wasted.
This is why religious institutions tend to get so much in donations. People trust their church more than their government.
"Gitmo detainees also have a soccer field funded by American taxpayers. Don't worry, it only cost $750,000 to build."
"The federal government pays pensions of deceased employees, costing $120 million. According to the Huffington Post: "One man, whose father died in 1971, continued to receive payments until 2008 when he himself died, costing the government $515,000, according to the report."
"According to Senator Coburn's 2012 "Wastebook," in 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) implemented a plan "to improve the economic competitiveness of Morocco" costing $27 million"
"$516,000 of your money was spent to make a video game providing taxpayers with the opportunity to relive prom."
Seriously, unless you have truly minimal savings rate like the dirt poor, when you pay taxes you are doing one of two things: building infrastructure or boosting the economy. Surely your taxes COULD be better spent, some government expenditures have higher economic multipliers than others, but wasted? You don't understand economics.
Please provide a citation for this claim, I have not seen any evidence either way.
Sometimes there's not a germane statistic and you might just have to go off of your own lived experience.
Charitable giving for health, education, and human services accounts for only 33% of all charitable giving in the U.S. How much of that goes to programs designed to address poverty is debatable.
Who actually do quite a bit of good with it:
"We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church."
"Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work."
Considering they put out close to 4 billion every year in charity, it's hard to argue they don't help the impoverished.
I'm not sure where I said religious charities don't help people. They most certainly help members of their respective congregations. But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.
Since we're focusing on catholics, what good is done by denying all of your employee's spouses insurance coverage, just so you don't have to extend the benefit to people in same sex marriages? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03...
>>>>> They most certainly help members of their respective congregations.
You missed this part of the article:
"In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States,"
I'm pretty sure NONE of that is going directly back to congregation members. It's charity, which means it's earmarked for other people who need it more than the church does. I spare you the biblical quotes, but that's why they do it, it's part of their religion and belief system.
>>> But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.
>>> Since we're focusing on catholics, what good is done by denying all of your employee's spouses insurance coverage, just so you don't have to extend the benefit to people in same sex marriages? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03....
I'm not going to take your bait troll, but nice try.
I'm not trolling. I think religous charities do a lot of good, but I think they also can do a lot of harm. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that private charity will solve everything when the majority of that charity goes to religious Charities who have a track record of oppressing those with different beliefs.
For what its worth, not supporting is not always the same as opposing. Religious charities have stepped in in many cases well before any government agency has and they usually offer their help without "clauses" and "rules" that come with other forms of assistance.
'My source counts charities as religious if they identify their cause as being for "Religious Activities" or "Religious Media and Broadcasting"' A small fraction of that would be the 400 million dollars spent lobbying by religious groups every year, you know lobbying to restrict women's rights and against same sex marriage.
After browsing the PDF, it seems to not account for many things. No idea why you think it is 'well refuted'. E.g. It does not account for higher taxes, which are funneled to help the poor. It also seems to count everything binary, either you helped or you did not. No mention is given as to how much time/money you actually donated - and to whom.
Additionally, weighing all three things (giving money/helping strangers/volunteering time) the same is rather odd. The us is #10 at giving money. And this does not even include taxes! Way to fight poverty.
If it weren't for the dubious 'helping a stranger' the US would not be anywhere.
There's no way that you can assess a how well a society helps its poor simply by looking at one metric (like charitable giving) alone. It's just silly, on the face of it.
Can you provide some sort of proof of causation for your theory?
(The other thing I've wondered about is how much of the US's charitable donations are simply tax fraud).
'The taxable income of the donor is reduced by 300 USD. If the donor's income was in the 35% income tax bracket both before and after the deduction, the donor's tax liability (amount of taxes owed to the government) is reduced by 105 USD.'
GMI is typically means-tested, which can mess up incentives.
On a more meta-level, though, people's political opinions influence their interpretation of statistics, so even if you did prove this ROI, cognitive disonance will fight you extremely hardly. Instead of trying to convince people who are against any form of wealth distribution, it's 1% as difficult to convice the people on the fence (of whom there are also 10x more) , those who are ok with some distribution, that this is a pretty effective replacement/complement for current services.
The outcomes, from my perspective, were "not so bad".
From my perspective, the question can be broken down to two points or serial steps:
1) Do people have the resources to take care of and improve themselves?
2) Do they use and apply those resources well?
Without 1), you can't have 2). And research appears to be showing that, given 1), people and extant systems are or can actually be pretty good at getting 2) right.
Otherwise, it seems to come down to poverty as the reason and excuse for perpetuating poverty. (AKA they -- or/and we -- aren't capable of any better. (And in some cases, don't appear to want any better -- "my, me, mine".))
I, for one, am not willing to accept and settle for such a perspective and approach.
I'm not exactly pro-union as they tend to outlive their usefulness, but in the absence of something similar, the average employee basically gave up their bargaining rights probably decades ago and since then the people at the top who know how to bargain are getting ahead faster than anyone else.
I don't know if a guaranteed income for the poor would help out a lot and I don't know how you would even pay for such a program. What I do know is in a consumer driven economy, more money is made by all if people are spending it, and the people at the top who get paid the most just don't spend enough to keep things moving up and to the right forever.
I do agree with the idea that somehow people lower on the economic ladder need to get paid more and that would benefit society as a whole. Heck, even Henry Ford seemed to understand that point. Somehow, that notion has been lost on modern society and I find that to be somewhat sad.
Teach him to fish, he and his family will eat fish the rest of his life.
Give a man a consistent supply of fish and maybe, instead of fishing all day to feed his family, he could go to trade school and learn to be an HVAC engineer, send his kids to MIT and retire at 55 to Naples Florida.
Although the tribes by and large fund education, medical expenses, and other stuff rather well, it still leaves a huge surplus of money they are forced to spend on community "reinvestment." And that's how you get the ridiculous Tulalip hotel, and there's tons of outrage at the tribe for this - when in reality the law is forcing them to spend it.
MONEY matters a lot, in all aspects of life: it makes people healthier (both physically and mentally), improves actual/usable creativity and intelligence, leads to better education and better social webs, ESPECIALLY when coupled with MORE FREE TIME (yes, it matters a lot that the Cherokee that got that money didn't have to spend more time working in order to get it).
Doing what you love matters, but until a certain wealth threshold, being better compensated for what you do (whether you like it or not) and having enough free time, matters more (an no, people that get more by working more don't get all the benefits of that "more" they get, it also matters to "get more by giving less").
After all, isn't this almost exactly what food stamps are? Technically not a stipend, but they're pretty readily converted to cash on the secondary market.
It is a hugely successful program with a very low percentage of exploitation (i.e using the money for drugs, or contributing to unemployment rate). It has been constantly tweaked for the last 20 years.
You don't need to look at obscure tribal examples within America, you can just look at Australia (a very similar society to the U.S) to see this is a good policy with extremely positive outcomes for society.*
* I'll caveat this with, if you can afford it. Australia is in a super good position with regards to it's GDP/Capita and has been for the last 20-30 years, so it's difficult to say whether this is sustainable in the (even) longer term, or in countries without the same advantages.
You need to look at all the data you can reasonably get. There are a lot of similarities between the US and Australia, but there are certainly differences. The more unrelated tests of the idea we get, the more confident we can be that our conclusions generalize.
Lots of reasons for this of course and I don't know how services could ever be made as accessible to remote communities as they are in our cities. But I think it shows that the availability of a "stipend" clearly isn't enough.
Since the tribe is paying a dividend from a successful business to the owners of the business and Australia is transferring money from tax payers to "poor, unemployed, students, single parents, etc.", I do not see how they are equivalent in the first place.
The tribal members are being paid for something they own.
But you're also wrong about Australia being "a very similar society to the US". Maybe at one time, but Australia has some very authoritarian laws these days - from gun control to internet filters, etc..
You really want to argue that healthcare isn't 'free'?
Gun control isn't 'authoritarian' it's sensible. Only with a screwed up U.S agg-prop point of view could you construe it as 'authoritarian', there is no mention of guns as a "right" in any of Australia's (or almost every other country in the worlds) constitution or case law... So could you justify how you came to your point of view?
There are no active internet filters in australia... Though there is talk of them, and some ISPs filter stuff... Do I need to remind you about Wikileaks getting it's Amazon servers shutdown... Even if there was a filter in Australia, it would be 'closer' to the US not further in similarities.
It's been a while since I've seen that. Thanks for the belly-laugh.
Here http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm when other authoritarian regimes have confiscated guns.
Not only that, but crime went up in Australia. Obviously the criminals didn't turn in their guns.
Australia also makes it mandatory to vote. Any kind of forced action like that is very authoritarian.
Gun crime reduced dramatically, though when categorised as violent crime, the reduction was smaller and overall the crime rate has decreased year on year... so I don't know what you are referring to.
Mandatory voting is 'authoritarian'... are you kidding me? It stops 'vested interest' or disenfranchisement of portions of your population, and moves closer to real 'universal suffrage', I can see there is valid criticism in arguing it impinges personal freedom, but authoritarian again just seems you are pushing some odd right wing agenda here.
Compared the the U.S, Australia sits well and truly to the left, but the similarities I was referring too, was about the make up of the populations, Australia is a good test case (for the U.S) for assessing policy outcomes, especially when Australia has implemented said policy and has strong correlative outcomes.
You seem to have derailed the thread some-what with your propaganda and pro-gun agenda, which I have sadly fallen for.
My original point stands.
Can I still vote invalid?
What ist the punishment for not voting?
Punishment for not voting is usually a fine. Though encouraging people not to vote or to post invalid votes (i.e. subversion), can carry jail terms of up to 12 months (from memory).
* you need emergency care and make your own way to a public hospital
* you're prepared to wait for a non-essential treatment
* you see a bulk-billing general practitioner
* you earn enough such that the cost of medical insurance (plus out of pocket expenses if you do need treatment, making this calculation tricky) is less than the dollar value of the additional 1.0 to 1.5% tax you would otherwise pay as a Medicare Levy Surcharge. (Ballpark figure is >$120k individual or >$200k as a family)
For the poor, (i.e those that earn < 28k in Australia)... they pay no tax. Thus Healthcare for them, is in every sense of the word: free.
For those that earn > 28k, they pay tax, which a portion of goes to healthcare. So from 28k to probably (random guess) about 70-100k, healthcare is heavily subsidised. For 100k - 200k healthcare costs probably about as much as it would if they just paid for it themselves (given the wealthier tend to be healthier). The 200k+ they are probably paying more for it than they use.
But those who need it most (i.e the poor/poorer) get it free/subsidised.
This is called a progressive tax system. If your care about the majority of your society (keeping in mind, in australia the mean wage is around the 50k mark), then it is without a doubt a better (utilitarian) solution.
I'd love to see block grants distributed to states for a competitive process of poverty reduction (or pick any another long term social cost) where such experimentation could become institutionalized and there'd be a lot more to talk about.
What we need here is science! We're in the stone ages stil.
Steve Jobs was supposedly given a few dollars in exchange for performing his schoolwork, by one of his teachers. Could that have had a positive effect on establishing a virtuous cycle of hard work for him?
There are a lot of kids who fall into the Mariana trench size cracks of 'in general'.
What happens when you distribute money: it dissipates and poverty for all results.
But don't take it from me, Comrades!
Go look in the inner cities. Go to the rural communities and find a trailer park. It's happening now. What has the result been?
Edit: NPR did a story on it, it isn't my assertion there is actual evidence that this happens; http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Because when a business skirts or even outright commits fraud against/tramples on regulations, HN tends to cheer about how the regulations had it coming. And what you are asserting happens is no different.
When there are no jobs in the area, you don't have an education, and you don't have enough money to move, what option do you have? There are places in Alabama where 3/4 if the population is on disability; this is not because they are disabled, but because they have no other choice.
Unsurprisingly, people who are not prohibited from improving their lives tend to live better.
You're talking about programs designed essentially to keep people alive and nothing more; to prolong life for its own sake. Minimum income is a way of ensuring that people can remove the stress and worry of being constantly broke and hungry so that they can focus on bettering their lives - going to school, choosing a good job, being able to afford a car, feeding their kids proper meals, and so on.
There is no comparison between the minimum subsistence that welfare provides and the programs that are being discussed here.
Other: The TANF program spent $33.3 billion in 2013. Maximum benefit for family of 3 in California is $702/month.
Housing: Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program spends somewhere around $17 billion per year to provide housing. The maximum voucher that can be received is $2,200/month.
Education: K-12 Public schools are free with free lunches for the poor. Depends on the neighborhood how good the education is.
Pell Grant: The program was appropriated ~$36 billion to award in 2011. Most recent maximum benefit per year was $5,645. Max number of years is six. 6 x $5,645 = $33,870.
In addition, to these benefits if a family does earn an income low enough to qualify for these benefits another benefit is not having to pay taxes. There is a 10% tax on the lowest bracket but it is returned in credits and deductions thus moving the effective tax rate to zero and if the W-4 is adjusted the taxes that will be taken out are almost nil.
If a family received half of the max for each of the items above they could for five years receive ~$1700/month plus Pell Grant money to go to college. After 5 years, TANF is no longer available.
So was the stipend in this story. 6k per year, then later 8k? who could live on this
For example, can you name three people you know who have applied for social security disability? How likely is it they'll qualify for it? How long does the process typically take? Who do they have to convince and how?
Obviously someone against these services will probably think it's too much. Welcome to politics
Turns out that when you incentivize something, you get more of it. Who knew?