Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Welfare Reform Proposal

TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 7:33:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
1. Scrap all existing welfare programs except the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) programs.

2. Implement a conditional Universal Basic Income -- all unemployed adult citizens receive a $10,000 annual hand-out, contingent upon completing a set amount of community service and/or job-hunting hours.

3. Establish a Federal Infrastructure Repair Program (FIRP) -- negotiate deals with construction firms to train & hire low-skilled unemployed people in a nation-wide effort at repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

4. Incrementally increase the Minimum Wage to $12.00 and cut the Corporate Tax in half.

-

According to some really rough estimates I made (i.e. take them with a grain of salt), Step 1 would save $350 billion, Step 2 would cost $180 billion, Step 3 would cost $160 billion, and Step 4 would cost $170 billion. So a total annual deficit of $160 billion, but that's not accounting for (1) reduced welfare dependency due to UBI conditionality, (2) reduced EITC/CTC spending following the wage hike, and (3) any increases in tax revenue from the economic benefits of a wage hike + tax cut.

Thoughts?
#TrumpTriumph2016
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.
Grizzly-Jones
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 7:36:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

For those loopholes to be gone, we need a simpler tax code. Cutting the corporate tax rate would also give an incentive to companies to stay.
Grizzly-Jones
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 7:37:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:33:09 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
1. Scrap all existing welfare programs except the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) programs.

+1

2. Implement a conditional Universal Basic Income -- all unemployed adult citizens receive a $10,000 annual hand-out, contingent upon completing a set amount of community service and/or job-hunting hours.

+1

3. Establish a Federal Infrastructure Repair Program (FIRP) -- negotiate deals with construction firms to train & hire low-skilled unemployed people in a nation-wide effort at repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

+1

4. Incrementally increase the Minimum Wage to $12.00 and cut the Corporate Tax in half.

I wouldn't increase the minimum wage. But I would cut the corporation tax rate to 22%
-

According to some really rough estimates I made (i.e. take them with a grain of salt), Step 1 would save $350 billion, Step 2 would cost $180 billion, Step 3 would cost $160 billion, and Step 4 would cost $170 billion. So a total annual deficit of $160 billion, but that's not accounting for (1) reduced welfare dependency due to UBI conditionality, (2) reduced EITC/CTC spending following the wage hike, and (3) any increases in tax revenue from the economic benefits of a wage hike + tax cut.

Thoughts?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 7:44:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:33:09 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
1. Scrap all existing welfare programs except the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) programs.

2. Implement a conditional Universal Basic Income -- all unemployed adult citizens receive a $10,000 annual hand-out, contingent upon completing a set amount of community service and/or job-hunting hours.

3. Establish a Federal Infrastructure Repair Program (FIRP) -- negotiate deals with construction firms to train & hire low-skilled unemployed people in a nation-wide effort at repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

4. Incrementally increase the Minimum Wage to $12.00 and cut the Corporate Tax in half.

-

According to some really rough estimates I made (i.e. take them with a grain of salt), Step 1 would save $350 billion, Step 2 would cost $180 billion, Step 3 would cost $160 billion, and Step 4 would cost $170 billion. So a total annual deficit of $160 billion, but that's not accounting for (1) reduced welfare dependency due to UBI conditionality, (2) reduced EITC/CTC spending following the wage hike, and (3) any increases in tax revenue from the economic benefits of a wage hike + tax cut.

Thoughts?

UBI should logically make Minimum wage obsolete, which only benefits established, experienced, protected classes and hurts unprotected inexperienced workers entering the job market. We already have enough barriers to entry in the free market, Minimum wage should not be yet another one of them. UBI is enough on its own.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:19:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

A big agree on this one.
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.
#TrumpTriumph2016
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:27:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

I meant abolish the corporate tax, lol
#TrumpTriumph2016
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:46:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:27:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

I meant abolish the corporate tax, lol

That's even worst. More money being made on the corporate end will not translate into more jobs, just some people getting richer.
Grizzly-Jones
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:48:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

No evidence for that
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:48:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:46:31 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:27:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:

I meant abolish the corporate tax, lol

That's even worst. More money being made on the corporate end will not translate into more jobs, just some people getting richer.

The empirical literature would beg to differ. Supply-side benefits exist.
Check out the sources Pro provides under C1 in this debate: http://www.debate.org...
#TrumpTriumph2016
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:50:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:44:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

UBI should logically make Minimum wage obsolete, which only benefits established, experienced, protected classes and hurts unprotected inexperienced workers entering the job market. We already have enough barriers to entry in the free market, Minimum wage should not be yet another one of them. UBI is enough on its own.

This particular UBI proposal only applies to unemployed individuals. I guess it's a bit of a misnomer.

I think relying too heavily on the government to subsidize workers' incomes is dangerous -- it incentivizes the employers to reduce wages and shift the financial burden over to the government.

Also, the corporate tax cut ensures that the minimum wage hike won't pose a significant barrier to entry.
#TrumpTriumph2016
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:52:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:48:52 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

No evidence for that

A little bit of common sense. Without the min wage who ever will work for the least will be employed and will have a domino effect upward.
Grizzly-Jones
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:53:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:52:06 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:48:52 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

No evidence for that

A little bit of common sense. Without the min wage who ever will work for the least will be employed and will have a domino effect upward.

That's because most people don't work on a minimum wage, and businesses are not going to pay anything less, because of competition.

The whole point of minimum wage jobs is for experience, it's not a living wage. That's why Mcdonalds hires high school/ college kids.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:58:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:48:54 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:46:31 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:27:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:

I meant abolish the corporate tax, lol

That's even worst. More money being made on the corporate end will not translate into more jobs, just some people getting richer.

The empirical literature would beg to differ. Supply-side benefits exist.
Check out the sources Pro provides under C1 in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

I'm not saying cutting corporate taxes would be a bad thing. Actually I'm in favor of reducing corporate taxes providing all loopholes are closed. By eliminating all corporate tax, the whole tax structure is placed on the individual tax payer. Corporations enjoy the benefits of the governments on the same level, if not more than the individual, should they not pay their fare share.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:02:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:53:58 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:52:06 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:48:52 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

No evidence for that

A little bit of common sense. Without the min wage who ever will work for the least will be employed and will have a domino effect upward.

That's because most people don't work on a minimum wage, and businesses are not going to pay anything less, because of competition.

The whole point of minimum wage jobs is for experience, it's not a living wage. That's why Mcdonalds hires high school/ college kids.

I certainly agree that minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage, it's entry level. But, I believe lacking a minimum would have a domino effect
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:06:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:58:51 PM, Peepette wrote:

I'm not saying cutting corporate taxes would be a bad thing. Actually I'm in favor of reducing corporate taxes providing all loopholes are closed. By eliminating all corporate tax, the whole tax structure is placed on the individual tax payer. Corporations enjoy the benefits of the governments on the same level, if not more than the individual, should they not pay their fare share.

Corporations cannot "enjoy" anything -- they are not people. Recognizing them as such is what has allowed our government to become a corporatist machine. Corporations are composed of people, and the people at the top of those corporations should be the ones who are held responsible for "paying their fair share."
#TrumpTriumph2016
Grizzly-Jones
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:13:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 9:02:16 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:53:58 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:52:06 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:48:52 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

No evidence for that

A little bit of common sense. Without the min wage who ever will work for the least will be employed and will have a domino effect upward.

That's because most people don't work on a minimum wage, and businesses are not going to pay anything less, because of competition.

The whole point of minimum wage jobs is for experience, it's not a living wage. That's why Mcdonalds hires high school/ college kids.

I certainly agree that minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage, it's entry level. But, I believe lacking a minimum would have a domino effect

With a UBI, it wouldn't be needed.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:13:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 9:06:24 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:58:51 PM, Peepette wrote:

I'm not saying cutting corporate taxes would be a bad thing. Actually I'm in favor of reducing corporate taxes providing all loopholes are closed. By eliminating all corporate tax, the whole tax structure is placed on the individual tax payer. Corporations enjoy the benefits of the governments on the same level, if not more than the individual, should they not pay their fare share.

Corporations cannot "enjoy" anything -- they are not people. Recognizing them as such is what has allowed our government to become a corporatist machine. Corporations are composed of people, and the people at the top of those corporations should be the ones who are held responsible for "paying their fair share."

Corporations enjoy trade pacts that are made with other countries. They enjoy the protection off the US military here and abroad. According to Citizens United corporations ARE people. If you eliminate corporate tax from what end will you make up the loss? Maybe a much higher income tax rate of those who run these corporations? Not likely to happen at all, especially with the ability to hide assets overseas which is currently being done for tax avoidance. it's not a realistic premise.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:19:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 9:13:05 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 9:02:16 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:53:58 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:52:06 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:48:52 PM, Grizzly-Jones wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:26:08 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:22:02 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:34:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Cutting the corporate tax that drastically is acceptable if and only if all of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying it are closed. All of them.

The main point of the corporate tax cut is to help fund the minimum wage hike and increase employment rates in general. Ideally, I'd abolish it entirely, but that would cause too much of a loss in revenue.

Abolishing the minimum wage would drive wages even further down.

No evidence for that

A little bit of common sense. Without the min wage who ever will work for the least will be employed and will have a domino effect upward.

That's because most people don't work on a minimum wage, and businesses are not going to pay anything less, because of competition.

The whole point of minimum wage jobs is for experience, it's not a living wage. That's why Mcdonalds hires high school/ college kids.

I certainly agree that minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage, it's entry level. But, I believe lacking a minimum would have a domino effect

With a UBI, it wouldn't be needed.

That UBI would need to be on a scale based on cost of living in a particular state. You would not last 3-6 months in NY on 10K or anywhere in the New England States or California. And this is assuming that there's no minimum wage. If an adult is making less than 10K the government will pay out the difference? Sounds expensive to me.
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:27:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 9:13:32 PM, Peepette wrote:

Corporations enjoy trade pacts that are made with other countries. They enjoy the protection off the US military here and abroad. According to Citizens United corporations ARE people.

I am aware that corporations are treated as people under the legal status quo -- that needs to change. We should eliminate all vestiges of corporate personhood; that includes corporate taxation, corporate campaign contributions, corporate welfare... all of it.

If you eliminate corporate tax from what end will you make up the loss? Maybe a much higher income tax rate of those who run these corporations? Not likely to happen at all, especially with the ability to hide assets overseas which is currently being done for tax avoidance. it's not a realistic premise.

We would make up the loss with spending cuts in other areas (primarily the defense budget), and perhaps small increases in top bracket income tax rates. Considering that the corporate tax only brings in 11% of federal revenue, it shouldn't be too difficult.

Also, do us both a favor and don't get me started on income tax reform, lol...
#TrumpTriumph2016
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:44:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 9:27:16 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 9:13:32 PM, Peepette wrote:

Corporations enjoy trade pacts that are made with other countries. They enjoy the protection off the US military here and abroad. According to Citizens United corporations ARE people.

I am aware that corporations are treated as people under the legal status quo -- that needs to change. We should eliminate all vestiges of corporate personhood; that includes corporate taxation, corporate campaign contributions, corporate welfare... all of it.

Nice idea but it will never happen. We are already an oligarchy under corporate influence. If we free them from taxation they should also loose ALL representation. Therefor no corporate lobbyists, pacs and the like; also loss in government influence or benefit from trade deals and military protection when conflicts arise in countries they do business in. If this was a deal that was placed in front of me as a large corporation, I'd think twice.

If you eliminate corporate tax from what end will you make up the loss? Maybe a much higher income tax rate of those who run these corporations? Not likely to happen at all, especially with the ability to hide assets overseas which is currently being done for tax avoidance. it's not a realistic premise.

We would make up the loss with spending cuts in other areas (primarily the defense budget), and perhaps small increases in top bracket income tax rates. Considering that the corporate tax only brings in 11% of federal revenue, it shouldn't be too difficult.

Top brackets have enjoyed a relatively low tax rate for some time. I see a lot of money flying into sheltered overseas accounts if their rate goes up; counterproductive.

Also, do us both a favor and don't get me started on income tax reform, lol...

Yep, I'll stay away from that discussion as well.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:40:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Corporate Welfare Reform

1. No more military protection of corporate property. Corporations can protect their own property.
2. No more patent protection. Corporations can protect information through trade secrets and sue people responsible for leaking them.
3. No more limited liability. The owners of a corporation should be held personally liable for any of their actions taken through the corporation. If an ordinary individual dumps toxic waste in a river, that individual is fully responsible for damages. If that same individual forms a "corporation" first by rearranging his property in a way that the government likes, and then as CEO he orders himself to dump toxic waste in a river, he's protected by "limited liability".

Corporations are the biggest recipients of welfare. Welfare is not just "cash handouts".
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:01:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:50:03 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:44:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

UBI should logically make Minimum wage obsolete, which only benefits established, experienced, protected classes and hurts unprotected inexperienced workers entering the job market. We already have enough barriers to entry in the free market, Minimum wage should not be yet another one of them. UBI is enough on its own.

This particular UBI proposal only applies to unemployed individuals. I guess it's a bit of a misnomer.

I think relying too heavily on the government to subsidize workers' incomes is dangerous -- it incentivizes the employers to reduce wages and shift the financial burden over to the government.

Also, the corporate tax cut ensures that the minimum wage hike won't pose a significant barrier to entry.

But the government should be subsidizing entry workers, not ones that already have the skill set to secure minimum wage type jobs and be shielded from replacement by entry level workers due to their high mandated salary. People with prison records or teens or high school dropouts have their employment choices severely limited because of the Federal ban on low paying jobs. They cant make the baseline cut for a minimum wage job, and that means certain unemployment for these people along with other social drains. Many of these people just need to get their toe in the door, yet instead, well-intentioned politicians are slamming the door in their faces by outlawing the kinds of jobs that they could qualify for and use to move up the work ranks so that they can actually compete with people at the 8 dollar an hour job.

Minimum wage amounts to exclusionary job security for a select few.
Workers need options and choices, not barriers to entry.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:02:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Responsible people work all their lives to have no mortgage on their house. With no mortgage one can live off peanuts practically. Not only does the govt pay peoples rent they pay for a litany of other things on top of that. And they are still poor. You can't help the willfully dependent. Your plan is nothing more than an endless reliance and dependence on govt. No one will want to loose that free ten grand a year for some paltry amount of community service that will of course be forged and made up. The only way to help the poor is to not help them after a period of time. It is obvious that generational welfare is killing peoples souls and destroying lives.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:41:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 10:40:59 PM, user13579 wrote:
Corporate Welfare Reform

1. No more military protection of corporate property. Corporations can protect their own property.
2. No more patent protection. Corporations can protect information through trade secrets and sue people responsible for leaking them.
3. No more limited liability. The owners of a corporation should be held personally liable for any of their actions taken through the corporation. If an ordinary individual dumps toxic waste in a river, that individual is fully responsible for damages. If that same individual forms a "corporation" first by rearranging his property in a way that the government likes, and then as CEO he orders himself to dump toxic waste in a river, he's protected by "limited liability".

Corporations are the biggest recipients of welfare. Welfare is not just "cash handouts".

+1
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:51:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:02:25 AM, sadolite wrote:
Responsible people work all their lives to have no mortgage on their house. With no mortgage one can live off peanuts practically. Not only does the govt pay peoples rent they pay for a litany of other things on top of that. And they are still poor. You can't help the willfully dependent. Your plan is nothing more than an endless reliance and dependence on govt. No one will want to loose that free ten grand a year for some paltry amount of community service that will of course be forged and made up. The only way to help the poor is to not help them after a period of time. It is obvious that generational welfare is killing peoples souls and destroying lives.

There's no reason to assume that people will bypass the UBI requirements. Ideally, the task of engaging unemployed people in community service and job-hunting would be delegated to local non-profit groups -- many of them have excellent track records with motivating people, getting them involved, and giving them a renewed sense of purpose. Due to their locality, they are able to hold people accountable on an individual level and actively encourage them to get back into the workforce. Under those conditions, literally no one would willingly remain dependent upon the $10k hand-out; any sane person would prefer to work an actual job and earn a $20-40k salary (with the help of minimum wage & EITC). My plan vastly reduces welfare dependency in the long-run.
#TrumpTriumph2016
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:19:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:33:09 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
1. Scrap all existing welfare programs except the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) programs.

2. Implement a conditional Universal Basic Income -- all unemployed adult citizens receive a $10,000 annual hand-out, contingent upon completing a set amount of community service and/or job-hunting hours.

3. Establish a Federal Infrastructure Repair Program (FIRP) -- negotiate deals with construction firms to train & hire low-skilled unemployed people in a nation-wide effort at repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

4. Incrementally increase the Minimum Wage to $12.00 and cut the Corporate Tax in half.

-

According to some really rough estimates I made (i.e. take them with a grain of salt), Step 1 would save $350 billion, Step 2 would cost $180 billion, Step 3 would cost $160 billion, and Step 4 would cost $170 billion. So a total annual deficit of $160 billion, but that's not accounting for (1) reduced welfare dependency due to UBI conditionality, (2) reduced EITC/CTC spending following the wage hike, and (3) any increases in tax revenue from the economic benefits of a wage hike + tax cut.

Thoughts?

Well first in budget review of the fiscal 2011 year, the Senate Budget Committee found 83 overlapping, means-tested, federal welfare programs; totaling about $1.03 trillion. That is just the means-tested programs that overlapped each other. That being said, how many welfare programs do you think exist today, and what result do you expect from cutting all of them but 2; both would be wiped out with your UBI and $12 an hour minimum wage being summed.

Then your community service idea. We currently have 30 million people out of work. Do you really have groups with the capital to front to support 30 million free laborers? There's a lot of money required when accepting community service workers.

As for our infrastructure, we require $3.6 trillion to restore our infrastructure to minimum acceptable standards...and that's just the materials and equipment; gotta add on those massive State Employee contract wages and benefits packages.

What do you mean increasing the minimum wage would cost $170 billion? Cost who $170 billion?
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:51:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:19:32 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Well first in budget review of the fiscal 2011 year, the Senate Budget Committee found 83 overlapping, means-tested, federal welfare programs; totaling about $1.03 trillion. That is just the means-tested programs that overlapped each other. That being said, how many welfare programs do you think exist today, and what result do you expect from cutting all of them but 2; both would be wiped out with your UBI and $12 an hour minimum wage being summed.

I expect massive savings in welfare expenditures, which can be used to fund more effective endeavors like the UBI and FIRP.


Then your community service idea. We currently have 30 million people out of work. Do you really have groups with the capital to front to support 30 million free laborers? There's a lot of money required when accepting community service workers.

Sure. We already support 62.8 million: https://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov...


As for our infrastructure, we require $3.6 trillion to restore our infrastructure to minimum acceptable standards...and that's just the materials and equipment; gotta add on those massive State Employee contract wages and benefits packages.

I know it would be expensive. That's why scrapping all current welfare spending is Step 1 of the proposal.


What do you mean increasing the minimum wage would cost $170 billion? Cost who $170 billion?

That was referring to the corporate tax cut -- it causes the government to lose revenue.
#TrumpTriumph2016