independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 24th Jan 2018 1:37am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Homelessness- Give them what they want?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 11/04/10 11:46pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

Homelessness- Give them what they want?

Homelessness

Cutting out the middle men

The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them

WHEN the workers in the City of London head home each evening, a hidden legion of homeless people shuffles out of the shadows to reclaim their territory. The Square Mile has more rough sleepers than any other London borough except Westminster: 338 were identified by Broadway, a charity, over the past year, most of whom had spent more than a year on the streets. Policymakers have long struggled to find ways to shift such people, some of whom take deluded pride in their chaotic circumstances, resist offers to come in from the cold and suffer from severe drug, drink or mental-health problems (sometimes all three).

Broadway tried a brave and novel approach: giving each homeless person hundreds of pounds to be spent as they wished. According to a new report on the project by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a think-tank, it worked—a success that might offer broader lessons for public-service reform and efficiency.

The charity targeted the longest-term rough sleepers in the City, who had been on the streets for between four and 45 years (no mean achievement when average life expectancy for the long-term homeless is 42). Instead of the usual offers of hostel places, they were simply asked what they needed to change their lives.

One asked for a new pair of trainers and a television; another for a caravan on a travellers’ site in Suffolk, which was duly bought for him. Of the 13 people who engaged with the scheme, 11 have moved off the streets. The outlay averaged £794 ($1,277) per person (on top of the project’s staff costs). None wanted their money spent on drink, drugs or bets. Several said they co-operated because they were offered control over their lives rather than being “bullied” into hostels. Howard Sinclair of Broadway explains: “We just said, ‘It’s your life and up to you to do what you want with it, but we are here to help if you want.’”

[EDITED FOR COMPLIANCE PT 1 OF 2]

[Edited 11/4/10 23:48pm]

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 11/04/10 11:47pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

This was only a small-scale pilot project—though its results have been echoed by others elsewhere in Britain—but it underlines the importance of risk-taking in the provision of public services. In this case, although finance directors (and many voters) might balk at buying the homeless caravans, the savings should outweigh the costs. Some estimates suggest the state spends £26,000 annually on each homeless person in health, police and prison bills.

The scheme also reinforces the view that handing control to the users of public services, even in unlikely circumstances, can yield better results. It is perhaps the most radical application yet of “personalised budgets”, increasingly used in Britain for the disabled and chronically ill. That is itself in keeping with an emerging international trend to use “conditional cash transfers” to solve intractable social problems.

Roland Fryer, a Harvard economist, has invested more than $6m to test the proposition that paying pupils can improve poor schools. The most successful method was the simplest, in which children in Dallas were rewarded for reading books. Similar schemes are proliferating in the developing world. In Malawi, the World Bank recently gave a trial to the idea of paying adolescent girls to stay in school. That worked, too. Researchers also found that rates of HIV infection were much lower among girls paid to stay in classrooms: one more lesson in the power of responsibility and self-control.

http://www.economist.com/node/17420321

Imagine that!

People given control of their lives improve their lives!

Three cheers for Britain!!!!!!!!!

Hopefully we can do that here too.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 11/05/10 5:04am

DarlingDiana

Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University did a study that found the cost of simply giving everyone in America enough money to bring them up above the poverty lined worked out to be a fraction of the cost of all the numerous government programs aimed at helping the poor.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 11/05/10 6:37am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University did a study that found the cost of simply giving everyone in America enough money to bring them up above the poverty lined worked out to be a fraction of the cost of all the numerous government programs aimed at helping the poor.

sure if it was a one shot deal, but the what happens a year down the road? if the tax payers support the people that are not supporting themselves (the reason why is not important for this argument) then why would any of the so called 'working poor' keep working? Then some of the people that are earning just over the poverty level would also see no point to working. The truth is the more needs the tax payer provides the less incentive there is for the recipient to work.


If I had the choice of working 40 hours and making just a hair over the poverty line or not working at all and getting the same money... why work?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 11/05/10 7:43am

DarlingDiana

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DarlingDiana said:

Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University did a study that found the cost of simply giving everyone in America enough money to bring them up above the poverty lined worked out to be a fraction of the cost of all the numerous government programs aimed at helping the poor.

sure if it was a one shot deal, but the what happens a year down the road? if the tax payers support the people that are not supporting themselves (the reason why is not important for this argument) then why would any of the so called 'working poor' keep working? Then some of the people that are earning just over the poverty level would also see no point to working. The truth is the more needs the tax payer provides the less incentive there is for the recipient to work.


If I had the choice of working 40 hours and making just a hair over the poverty line or not working at all and getting the same money... why work?

I think the point of the study was to show the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of current government programs aimed at helping the poor, not necessary to propose an alternative.

Although I do believe a good alternative to the current welfare statement is some sort of guaranteed minimum income, in the form of a negative income tax, where a single flat tax rate for everybody (e.g. 25% across the board) is supplemented by a single fixed payment for everybody (e.g. $10,000 for everybody).

So you don't pay any taxes up until the point where 25% of your income is $10,000 (that would be $40,000). Under that you would instead recieve some government support ($10,000 - 25% of your income). So a person earning $20,000 gets an additional $5,000 in welfare support (25% of $20,000 is $5,000. They owe $5,000 but they get $10,000 from the government. That comes out to $5,000 the government owes them). So then obviously someone who doesn't have an income gets the full $10,000.

Above $40,000 you start paying taxes, but the $10,000 is still factored in which makes it somewhat progressive. E.g. someone earning $80,000 pays $10,000 in taxes (25% of $80,000 - $10,000) which is actually 12.5% of their income, whereas someone earning $200,000 pays $40,000 in taxes (25% of $200,000 - $10,000) which is actually 20% of their income.

So the tax code is simplified but still remains progressive and there's still a safety net for the poor. But both are low. The tax rate and the government handout. Which means it's still fairly fiscally conservative. The low tax rate encourages economic growth and the low government payment (max $10,000 a year) discourages people living off welfare. But it's enough to get them by while they find a job. Obviously, governement aid for people who can't work (e.g. disability benefits) remain.

Seems like a good comprimise between those who want low taxes and those who want government aid for the poor and lower income earners. This seems to strike that balance in my opinion. The government would save a lot of money in welfare, there would be more tax compliance, it's simple enough that they can cut the IRS (you don't need another bureaucracy to manage this). Seems to tick most of the boxes for me.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 11/05/10 8:17am

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DarlingDiana said:

Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University did a study that found the cost of simply giving everyone in America enough money to bring them up above the poverty lined worked out to be a fraction of the cost of all the numerous government programs aimed at helping the poor.

sure if it was a one shot deal, but the what happens a year down the road? if the tax payers support the people that are not supporting themselves (the reason why is not important for this argument) then why would any of the so called 'working poor' keep working? Then some of the people that are earning just over the poverty level would also see no point to working. The truth is the more needs the tax payer provides the less incentive there is for the recipient to work.


If I had the choice of working 40 hours and making just a hair over the poverty line or not working at all and getting the same money... why work?

But you can only speak for yourself. That is no empirical evidence of human behavior.

People who are wealthy work, when they have no need to do so to provide for their basic needs and luxury needs.

So it's fallacious to say that without incentive people would simply not work.

Why do CEO's deal with the stress everyday? Why don't they work a year, take their millions and sit on their butt all day?

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 11/05/10 8:18am

SUPRMAN

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sure if it was a one shot deal, but the what happens a year down the road? if the tax payers support the people that are not supporting themselves (the reason why is not important for this argument) then why would any of the so called 'working poor' keep working? Then some of the people that are earning just over the poverty level would also see no point to working. The truth is the more needs the tax payer provides the less incentive there is for the recipient to work.


If I had the choice of working 40 hours and making just a hair over the poverty line or not working at all and getting the same money... why work?

I think the point of the study was to show the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of current government programs aimed at helping the poor, not necessary to propose an alternative.

Although I do believe a good alternative to the current welfare statement is some sort of guaranteed minimum income, in the form of a negative income tax, where a single flat tax rate for everybody (e.g. 25% across the board) is supplemented by a single fixed payment for everybody (e.g. $10,000 for everybody).

So you don't pay any taxes up until the point where 25% of your income is $10,000 (that would be $40,000). Under that you would instead recieve some government support ($10,000 - 25% of your income). So a person earning $20,000 gets an additional $5,000 in welfare support (25% of $20,000 is $5,000. They owe $5,000 but they get $10,000 from the government. That comes out to $5,000 the government owes them). So then obviously someone who doesn't have an income gets the full $10,000.

Above $40,000 you start paying taxes, but the $10,000 is still factored in which makes it somewhat progressive. E.g. someone earning $80,000 pays $10,000 in taxes (25% of $80,000 - $10,000) which is actually 12.5% of their income, whereas someone earning $200,000 pays $40,000 in taxes (25% of $200,000 - $10,000) which is actually 20% of their income.

So the tax code is simplified but still remains progressive and there's still a safety net for the poor. But both are low. The tax rate and the government handout. Which means it's still fairly fiscally conservative. The low tax rate encourages economic growth and the low government payment (max $10,000 a year) discourages people living off welfare. But it's enough to get them by while they find a job. Obviously, governement aid for people who can't work (e.g. disability benefits) remain.

Seems like a good comprimise between those who want low taxes and those who want government aid for the poor and lower income earners. This seems to strike that balance in my opinion. The government would save a lot of money in welfare, there would be more tax compliance, it's simple enough that they can cut the IRS (you don't need another bureaucracy to manage this). Seems to tick most of the boxes for me.

Jesus Christ on a Friday!

WOW!

clapping

I love it.

Great idea.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 11/05/10 10:44am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sure if it was a one shot deal, but the what happens a year down the road? if the tax payers support the people that are not supporting themselves (the reason why is not important for this argument) then why would any of the so called 'working poor' keep working? Then some of the people that are earning just over the poverty level would also see no point to working. The truth is the more needs the tax payer provides the less incentive there is for the recipient to work.


If I had the choice of working 40 hours and making just a hair over the poverty line or not working at all and getting the same money... why work?

But you can only speak for yourself. That is no empirical evidence of human behavior.

People who are wealthy work, when they have no need to do so to provide for their basic needs and luxury needs.

So it's fallacious to say that without incentive people would simply not work.

Why do CEO's deal with the stress everyday? Why don't they work a year, take their millions and sit on their butt all day?

money is addictive. that is the motive. if the money is free or at least an amount close to what they already make working then why work. even in your post to suggest that beyond getting ones needs met money is the motive.

But lets look at the man that makes a Billion a year. Say he has 2 options do nothing and get 750Million or work 90 hours a week 51 weeks a year and make a billion... do you really think he would not trade the stress for the $250 Million?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 11/05/10 10:49am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sure if it was a one shot deal, but the what happens a year down the road? if the tax payers support the people that are not supporting themselves (the reason why is not important for this argument) then why would any of the so called 'working poor' keep working? Then some of the people that are earning just over the poverty level would also see no point to working. The truth is the more needs the tax payer provides the less incentive there is for the recipient to work.


If I had the choice of working 40 hours and making just a hair over the poverty line or not working at all and getting the same money... why work?

I think the point of the study was to show the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of current government programs aimed at helping the poor, not necessary to propose an alternative.

Although I do believe a good alternative to the current welfare statement is some sort of guaranteed minimum income, in the form of a negative income tax, where a single flat tax rate for everybody (e.g. 25% across the board) is supplemented by a single fixed payment for everybody (e.g. $10,000 for everybody).

So you don't pay any taxes up until the point where 25% of your income is $10,000 (that would be $40,000). Under that you would instead recieve some government support ($10,000 - 25% of your income). So a person earning $20,000 gets an additional $5,000 in welfare support (25% of $20,000 is $5,000. They owe $5,000 but they get $10,000 from the government. That comes out to $5,000 the government owes them). So then obviously someone who doesn't have an income gets the full $10,000.

Above $40,000 you start paying taxes, but the $10,000 is still factored in which makes it somewhat progressive. E.g. someone earning $80,000 pays $10,000 in taxes (25% of $80,000 - $10,000) which is actually 12.5% of their income, whereas someone earning $200,000 pays $40,000 in taxes (25% of $200,000 - $10,000) which is actually 20% of their income.

So the tax code is simplified but still remains progressive and there's still a safety net for the poor. But both are low. The tax rate and the government handout. Which means it's still fairly fiscally conservative. The low tax rate encourages economic growth and the low government payment (max $10,000 a year) discourages people living off welfare. But it's enough to get them by while they find a job. Obviously, governement aid for people who can't work (e.g. disability benefits) remain.

Seems like a good comprimise between those who want low taxes and those who want government aid for the poor and lower income earners. This seems to strike that balance in my opinion. The government would save a lot of money in welfare, there would be more tax compliance, it's simple enough that they can cut the IRS (you don't need another bureaucracy to manage this). Seems to tick most of the boxes for me.

yeah I have thought of things like that too.

basically: if you are on assistance and you get a job you can make up too 100% of your assistance in income from your job and still get some assistance that would be an incentive as opposed to the current system a distinctive to work.

also loose up the asset and savings tests. it is sad that a family on assistance can not have a college savings account and keep their aide.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 11/05/10 11:56am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

thinking about this and i though of something. it would be cheaper to provide free abortions to any woman that wanted one. it would save the nation money in way of no tax deductions/exemptions/credits or, in the case of a person living in poverty, government assistance. (but they will not grow up to be tax payers so there is a possible loss 14 to 21 years down the line)

but the short term savings would be huge!

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 11/05/10 12:51pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

But you can only speak for yourself. That is no empirical evidence of human behavior.

People who are wealthy work, when they have no need to do so to provide for their basic needs and luxury needs.

So it's fallacious to say that without incentive people would simply not work.

Why do CEO's deal with the stress everyday? Why don't they work a year, take their millions and sit on their butt all day?

money is addictive. that is the motive. if the money is free or at least an amount close to what they already make working then why work. even in your post to suggest that beyond getting ones needs met money is the motive.

But lets look at the man that makes a Billion a year. Say he has 2 options do nothing and get 750Million or work 90 hours a week 51 weeks a year and make a billion... do you really think he would not trade the stress for the $250 Million?

Nope. Warren Buffett still works. Bill Gates still works although no longer at Microsoft.

Paul Allen still runs Oracle . . .

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 11/05/10 12:55pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

thinking about this and i though of something. it would be cheaper to provide free abortions to any woman that wanted one. it would save the nation money in way of no tax deductions/exemptions/credits or, in the case of a person living in poverty, government assistance. (but they will not grow up to be tax payers so there is a possible loss 14 to 21 years down the line)

but the short term savings would be huge!

Try not to think. lol

Just joking.

But there is no loss of income 14-21 years down the road.

Why?

1. People have abortions now, legally or illegally. We have no accurate number of the illegal abortions currently performed. No way to project any "savings."

2. Those jobs will be filled by others. No one knows if an aborted embryo or fetus will grow up to work in any type of job.

3. The same can be said of children who died in childhood. But no one says we are going to be short one teacher someday because that child wanted to grow up to be a teacher.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 11/05/10 4:21pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

money is addictive. that is the motive. if the money is free or at least an amount close to what they already make working then why work. even in your post to suggest that beyond getting ones needs met money is the motive.

But lets look at the man that makes a Billion a year. Say he has 2 options do nothing and get 750Million or work 90 hours a week 51 weeks a year and make a billion... do you really think he would not trade the stress for the $250 Million?

Nope. Warren Buffett still works. Bill Gates still works although no longer at Microsoft.

Paul Allen still runs Oracle . . .

I would say they are hobbyist they enjoy their work so it is not really working. If I was rich I might do something similar to what I do not but not for the same organization .

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 11/05/10 4:31pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:


Try not to think. lol

Just joking.

sad cry confused neutral eek smile wink

But there is no loss of income 14-21 years down the road.

Why?

1. People have abortions now, legally or illegally. We have no accurate number of the illegal abortions currently performed. No way to project any "savings."

we do not need to know the numbers as each one would be one less dependent on someone tax form so the child tax credit alone would save the fed $1000 a year.

2. Those jobs will be filled by others. No one knows if an aborted embryo or fetus will grow up to work in any type of job.

but more people would make need for more jobs as there would be more people needed goods and services (same argument for illegal immigration the fact that they are here spending money on stuff creates jobs)

3. The same can be said of children who died in childhood. But no one says we are going to be short one teacher someday because that child wanted to grow up to be a teacher.

the fewer that die the more grow up to be tax payers

I just said that to avoid someone saying "But they would never grow up and never pay taxes for 40 years so it would be a net loss"

Which I still think would happen, if there were no more abortions and the pregnancy rate stayed the same then there would be more births and more adults 20+ years from now entering the job market many of them would pay taxes. It fact it is assumed that most kids would grow up to pay enough taxes to compensate for the deductions/exceptions/credits the government do not collect as they grow up.

[Edited 11/5/10 16:32pm]

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 11/05/10 5:19pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Nope. Warren Buffett still works. Bill Gates still works although no longer at Microsoft.

Paul Allen still runs Oracle . . .

I would say they are hobbyist they enjoy their work so it is not really working. If I was rich I might do something similar to what I do not but not for the same organization .

So others less compensated can't work because they enjoy it as well as having a means to pay their bills?

No, you did not explicitly say they could not but the implication is that those who don't need to work to pay for bills work because they enjoy it which means it can't really be work.

Do you have to be rich to enjoy your job? OF course not. Most of us would get up and get out the house to do something to feel productive even if our bills were provided for. I'd enjoy my job even more if I didn't have to worry about paying bills.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 11/05/10 5:28pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Try not to think. lol

Just joking.

sad cry confused neutral eek smile wink

But there is no loss of income 14-21 years down the road.

Why?

1. People have abortions now, legally or illegally. We have no accurate number of the illegal abortions currently performed. No way to project any "savings."

we do not need to know the numbers as each one would be one less dependent on someone tax form so the child tax credit alone would save the fed $1000 a year.

2. Those jobs will be filled by others. No one knows if an aborted embryo or fetus will grow up to work in any type of job.

but more people would make need for more jobs as there would be more people needed goods and services (same argument for illegal immigration the fact that they are here spending money on stuff creates jobs)

3. The same can be said of children who died in childhood. But no one says we are going to be short one teacher someday because that child wanted to grow up to be a teacher.

the fewer that die the more grow up to be tax payers

I just said that to avoid someone saying "But they would never grow up and never pay taxes for 40 years so it would be a net loss"

Which I still think would happen, if there were no more abortions and the pregnancy rate stayed the same then there would be more births and more adults 20+ years from now entering the job market many of them would pay taxes. It fact it is assumed that most kids would grow up to pay enough taxes to compensate for the deductions/exceptions/credits the government do not collect as they grow up.

[Edited 11/5/10 16:32pm]

Who else is making this assumption other than you? Enlighten me please.

1. A tax credit can be eliminated at any time. All a tax credit does is reduce taxable income. Most people who qualify are not paying taxes or are paying lower taxes.

2. The population growth argument is the same rationale that people used to say that housing prices only went up and never down. Because there would always be more people looking to buy a house in the future. That mentality led us straight into a credit crisis, financing crisis and deep recession. Nothing says that Mexico will always have surplus labor to send north or that Mexico's surplus labor will want to come here. Projecting more does not produce more.

3. Everyone does not grow up to be a taxpayer. If they are marginally employed or underemployed they are not going to be a taxpayer. If they are uneducated or undereducated they are not going to be a taxpayer.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 11/05/10 5:32pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I would say they are hobbyist they enjoy their work so it is not really working. If I was rich I might do something similar to what I do not but not for the same organization .

So others less compensated can't work because they enjoy it as well as having a means to pay their bills?

No, you did not explicitly say they could not but the implication is that those who don't need to work to pay for bills work because they enjoy it which means it can't really be work.

Do you have to be rich to enjoy your job? OF course not. Most of us would get up and get out the house to do something to feel productive even if our bills were provided for. I'd enjoy my job even more if I didn't have to worry about paying bills.

I am saying that the main motive to work for most people living at or near the poverty line is meeting their basic needs. remember we are really talking about people living at below or near but over the poverty line. For them the best they are accomplishing is where they are currently at. If the amount between their income and some dollar amount over or near what they currently earn is given to them I believe most of them would quit. Now they may find other productive way to occupy their time but i do not think they would keep working at the same job they were at prior to this 'poverty allowance' kicking in.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 11/05/10 6:01pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

So others less compensated can't work because they enjoy it as well as having a means to pay their bills?

No, you did not explicitly say they could not but the implication is that those who don't need to work to pay for bills work because they enjoy it which means it can't really be work.

Do you have to be rich to enjoy your job? OF course not. Most of us would get up and get out the house to do something to feel productive even if our bills were provided for. I'd enjoy my job even more if I didn't have to worry about paying bills.

I am saying that the main motive to work for most people living at or near the poverty line is meeting their basic needs. remember we are really talking about people living at below or near but over the poverty line. For them the best they are accomplishing is where they are currently at. If the amount between their income and some dollar amount over or near what they currently earn is given to them I believe most of them would quit. Now they may find other productive way to occupy their time but i do not think they would keep working at the same job they were at prior to this 'poverty allowance' kicking in.

I guess that's the reason they are poor in the first place right? Right . . . .

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 11/05/10 6:04pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I am saying that the main motive to work for most people living at or near the poverty line is meeting their basic needs. remember we are really talking about people living at below or near but over the poverty line. For them the best they are accomplishing is where they are currently at. If the amount between their income and some dollar amount over or near what they currently earn is given to them I believe most of them would quit. Now they may find other productive way to occupy their time but i do not think they would keep working at the same job they were at prior to this 'poverty allowance' kicking in.

I guess that's the reason they are poor in the first place right? Right . . . .

i would say ones wealth potential is related to their income over spending...

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 11/05/10 6:07pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

oh... I hope I am mistaken. but i was not making any statements as to why a person was living at that level just that they are. Now sure some that are are there temporally or are working to make themselves better. When I say a person who's basic needs are met and then some by the government has most of their most basic motive for working met so other than some other motive to work they would in due time stop working. or get a government job which is pretty much the same as not working... lol cool

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 11/05/10 6:10pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

I guess that's the reason they are poor in the first place right? Right . . . .

i would say ones wealth potential is related to their income over spending...

What you mean to say is one's accumulated wealth is related to maintaining income over spending.

Which is still fallacious and wrong.

A homeowner's presumed wealth increases with the perceived value increase in the home over their (the homeowner's) purchase price. This is independent of their income or spending. Eventually their spending will overwhelm their wealth and possibly their income, but accumulation of wealth which can be from gifts, marriage, winning a lottery, winning a lawsuit, investment dividends, receiving a work bonus ( we know how big bonuses can be from Wall Street don't we?) or other factors that again, can be independent of prior income or spending levels.

Excessive spending at one level of income many not be excessive at another level of income.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 11/05/10 6:14pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

oh... I hope I am mistaken. but i was not making any statements as to why a person was living at that level just that they are. Now sure some that are are there temporally or are working to make themselves better. When I say a person who's basic needs are met and then some by the government has most of their most basic motive for working met so other than some other motive to work they would in due time stop working. or get a government job which is pretty much the same as not working... lol cool

Why doesn't this happen in Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) with their generous social benefits?

Why didn't it happen under communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?

Why doesn't it happen in China?

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 11/05/10 6:14pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i would say ones wealth potential is related to their income over spending...

What you mean to say is one's accumulated wealth is related to maintaining income over spending.

Which is still fallacious and wrong.

A homeowner's presumed wealth increases with the perceived value increase in the home over their (the homeowner's) purchase price. This is independent of their income or spending. Eventually their spending will overwhelm their wealth and possibly their income, but accumulation of wealth which can be from gifts, marriage, winning a lottery, winning a lawsuit, investment dividends, receiving a work bonus ( we know how big bonuses can be from Wall Street don't we?) or other factors that again, can be independent of prior income or spending levels.

Excessive spending at one level of income many not be excessive at another level of income.

i did not say it was the same as just that it was related to and the sell of a home is income as is any forms of money coming in.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 11/05/10 6:18pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

oh... I hope I am mistaken. but i was not making any statements as to why a person was living at that level just that they are. Now sure some that are are there temporally or are working to make themselves better. When I say a person who's basic needs are met and then some by the government has most of their most basic motive for working met so other than some other motive to work they would in due time stop working. or get a government job which is pretty much the same as not working... lol cool

Why doesn't this happen in Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) with their generous social benefits?

Why didn't it happen under communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?

Why doesn't it happen in China?

so all of theos give the person enough money to get them over the poverty line if the do not work or to make up the diffrence between their income and that amount?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 11/05/10 6:32pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Why doesn't this happen in Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) with their generous social benefits?

Why didn't it happen under communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?

Why doesn't it happen in China?

so all of theos give the person enough money to get them over the poverty line if the do not work or to make up the diffrence between their income and that amount?

Now you are moving the goalpost.

You said earlier, " If the amount between their income and some dollar amount over or near what they currently earn is given to them I believe most of them would quit. "

They could be earning less than the poverty rate. The minimum wage is below the poverty rate

but people still work minimum wage jobs don't they?

Wage and Hour Division (WHD)

Minimum Wage Laws in the States - July 1, 2010

Historical Table

Click on any state or jurisdiction to find out about applicable minimum wage laws.

Note: Where Federal and state law have different minimum wage rates, the higher standard applies.

Clickable map of America

Green

States with minimum wage rates higher than the Federal

Yellow

States with no minimum wage law

Blue

States with minimum wage rates the same as the Federal

Red

States with minimum wage rates lower than the Federal

Brown

American Samoa has special minimum wage rates

Minimum Wage and Overtime Premium Pay Standards Applicable to
Nonsupervisory NONFARM Private Sector Employment
Under State and Federal Laws
July 1, 20101

http://www.dol.gov/whd/mi...merica.htm

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 11/05/10 6:35pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

[EDITED]

Living Wage

According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, living wage is defined as a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living. With an ideal living wage, an individual working 40 hours per week (2,080 hours per year) would be able to afford food, child care, medical, housing, transportation and other expenses for his family if he is the sole provider. According to Neumark and Adams, living wage ordinances adopted by cities typically require those businesses who have a contract with the city or who receive assistance from the city to pay their workers a living wage. A living wage calculator to estimate the cost of living in a particular community or region in the U.S. is available from Penn State University (see Resources).

Minimum Wage

According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, minimum wage is defined as a wage fixed by legal authority or by contract as the least that may be paid either to employed persons generally or to a particular category of employed persons. In the U.S., minimum wages are set both nationally and statewide. Effective July 24, 2009, the U.S. federal minimum wage was set at $7.25 per hour with an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). All U.S. states and territories except Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina have minimum wage laws (see Resources).Certain occupations such as agricultural and service workers are usually exempt from minimum wage requirements. Also, workers with disabilities can be paid special minimum wages known as commensurate wage rates which are less than the FLSA minimum wage. These wages are based on the disabled worker's individual productivity in comparison to non-disabled experienced workers in the geographic area from which the labor force is drawn.

Distinction

According to Fairchild, living wage laws differ fundamentally from minimum wage laws in that they cover only a small subset of workers in a local jurisdiction whereas the latter cover almost all workers. Furthermore, a living wage is usually linked to the federal poverty level whereas minimum wage is not.

Living Wage Effects

According to Neumark and Adams, living wage ordinances can increase the wages of low-income workers and reduce urban poverty. However, these ordinances also have strong negative effects on the employment of low-wage workers.

Minimum Wage Effects

According to Abbott and Fairchild, minimum wages can increase the standard of living for the poor, motivate people to work harder, improve the economy by increasing the spending power of lower income people, and decrease government spending on social welfare programs like food stamps, medical insurance and subsidized housing. However, they can also hinder firms from being efficient during economic downturns, hurt small businesses, lead to inflation and entice poor teenagers to enter the workforce at the expense of their education.



Read more: Living Wage Vs. Minimum Wage | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about...z14ShZIzuI

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 11/06/10 12:46am

DarlingDiana

SUPRMAN said:

Jesus Christ on a Friday!

WOW!

clapping

I love it.

Great idea.

I'm glad you agree. Credit goes to Prof. Friedman for that one.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 11/06/10 9:46am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so all of theos give the person enough money to get them over the poverty line if the do not work or to make up the diffrence between their income and that amount?

Now you are moving the goalpost.

You said earlier, " If the amount between their income and some dollar amount over or near what they currently earn is given to them I believe most of them would quit. "

They could be earning less than the poverty rate. The minimum wage is below the poverty rate

but people still work minimum wage jobs don't they?


I do not think I moved it that much if any. I said pretty much the same thing. That if you choose between being given what you are currenly making or a little more or even a little less by working for not working then which would you choose? You will make about the same either way. Which do you choose?
"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 11/06/10 10:35am

SUPRMAN

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

I do not think I moved it that much if any. I said pretty much the same thing. That if you choose between being given what you are currenly making or a little more or even a little less by working for not working then which would you choose? You will make about the same either way. Which do you choose?

No you shifted the standard from "their income and some dollar amount over or near they currently earn is given to them. . . . " to "give the person enough money to get them over the poverty line if they do not work . . . "

If the minimum wage is below the poverty line, then since the inception of the minimum wage haven't we had a system where you could stay home and collect more benefits than working for minimum wage?

So how do minimum wage jobs get filled? Why would people take them? They aren't all teenagers and seniors.

Does the Minimum Wage Reduce Poverty?

This study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway shows convincingly that minimum wages, because of inefficient targeting of the poor and unintended adverse consequences on employment and earnings, are ineffective as an antipoverty device. The report relies on an impressive array of empirical evidence showing that, however one views the data, in the United States, state and federal minimum wages have not reduced poverty.

National Analysis for the United States
The authors conduct their national analysis using historical data on the official government poverty rate for households in the United States. They examine whether, after adjusting for price changes, the business cycle and the level of per capita federal transfer payments, the national minimum wage was effective in lowering the poverty rate. Drs. Vedder and Gallaway also estimate the effect of the national minimum wage on the poverty rates for sub-groups in the population based on gender, race, ethnicity and age. They find that the national minimum wage was ineffective in reducing poverty both in the aggregate and for specific subgroups. In fact, for some subgroups, the minimum wage actually appeared to raise the level of poverty.

The economists also experiment with different poverty definitions, including one recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, and other definitions that use different income cut-off levels. They find that the national minimum wage had no statistically significant negative relationship to the rate of poverty regardless of how poverty was measured.

To avoid any error from known deficiencies in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the authors also repeat their analysis using an adjusted CPI that produced lower inflation rates in the 1970s and 1980s. Again, there is no statistically significant negative relationship between the minimum wage and poverty.

The minimum wage conceivably could reduce poverty in selected geographic areas, if not nationally. Therefore, the authors also investigate the possibility that minimum wages reduced poverty in particular geographic regions or in areas differing in population density. Once again, they find no statistically significant negative effects.

The authors also assess the effects of minimum wages on poverty among full-time workers who worked for an entire year. If minimum wages were to reduce poverty, the effect is most likely to show up among this group. This is because, if such fully employed workers keep their jobs and maintain their hours, they are likely to see a much larger effect on their annual income than those who are not so fully employed. However, the authors do not find a statistically significant poverty-reducing effect for full-time workers, either in the aggregate or for subgroups. It is likely that some of these workers saw little or no wage gain because their wages were above or in the upper part of the range affected by the wage mandate. Also, any gains to full-time workers in poverty may have been offset by employment losses (either in terms of jobs or hours) by other household members or loss in overtime pay to the full-time workers.

State-Level Analysis
Because some states have minimum wage laws requiring higher wages than the federal law, the authors also consider the poverty rates in such states. Specifically, they examine whether, in states with state minimum wages above the national level, poverty rates were lower than in states with the national minimum wage in effect. Their analysis reveals no statistically significant poverty-reducing effect of the higher state minimum wages. This finding is robust against alternative specifications of their statistical model.

This state-level analysis implies that states with lower minimum wages do not as a result experience higher rates of poverty. This is relevant for the current “State Flex” proposal of the current Bush administration. Under this proposal, states would be given the flexibility to opt out of future federal minimum wage increases. Critics contend that this would lead to an increase in low-income families in those states that do not follow lockstep with a federal increase. However, this report implies that such a State Flex policy would not lead to increases in poverty.

PDF VersionDownload the full study in .pdf format

http://epionline.org/stud...cfm?sid=31

So apparently people work even if it doesn't take them out of poverty. Just like people who have more money than they can spend do.

Do you think if you offered all these people poverty rate subsistence differential they would just quit and sit at home collecting?

Only those who don't see a future for themselves, have no aspirations for themselves, have no one they want to be an example for and don't value being independent. There are those people everywhere, but nowhere near the majority. We never would have come this far.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 11/06/10 12:15pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

I think the minimum wage SHOULD be and may Have to be below (at 40 hours) the poverty line.

If we increased the wage to $20 an hour that would drive up the cost of all goods and services or bring down the amount paid to more skilled and better educated workers.

But in due time the $20 would be non enough to Live off of.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Homelessness- Give them what they want?