A right-wing solution to equality.

[Ultimatum]

*Scrap minimum wage, social security payments and tax credits--apart from child benefit.
*Raise personal allowance to £20,000.
*Implement a 50% flat rate negative income tax.
*Every breathing thing is automatically guaranteed £20,000-0=£20,000*0.5= £10,000.
*Government subsidies any negative income taxable additions through your employer or pension provider.
*Those earning £0 get a direct payment from the Government WEEKLY.
*Welfare trap eradicated and any additional income earned through wages is subsidised.

Any sizeable party would be automatically elected, basically.
The left-wing have got it wrong and encourage the institutionalised machine for propagating poor Government policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

*Scrap minimum wage, social security payments and tax credits--apart from child benefit.
*Raise personal allowance to £20,000.
*Implement a 50% flat rate negative income tax.
*Every breathing thing is automatically guaranteed £20,000-0=£20,000*0.5= £10,000.
*Government subsidies any negative income taxable additions through your employer or pension provider.
*Those earning £0 get a direct payment from the Government WEEKLY.
*Welfare trap eradicated and any additional income earned through wages is subsidised.

Any sizeable party would be automatically elected, basically.
The left-wing have got it wrong and encourage the institutionalised machine for propagating poor Government policy.

This reminds me of a (better) libertarian proposal by the Cato Institute.
As I recall.....
- Every citizen gets $10K/year
- The above replaces most economic safety net programs.
- There was more, but I don't remember it, nor can I find it.

 

[Ultimatum]

This reminds me of a (better) libertarian proposal by the Cato Institute.
As I recall.....
- Every citizen gets $10K/year
- The above replaces most economic safety net programs.
- There was more, but I don't remember it, nor can I find it.

 

[Ultimatum]

This reminds me of a (better) libertarian proposal by the Cato Institute.
As I recall.....
- Every citizen gets $10K/year
ind it.

There it is, you've fallen into the trap.

We're trying to remove the welfare trap, not keep it.

 

[Revoltingest]

There it is, you've fallen into the trap.
We're trying to remove the welfare trap, not keep it.

As I see it, we're doomed to have a welfare state.
So I advocate having one which incentivizes work.
Since the $10K/year is unconditional, they don't face loss of benefit by working.
Also (as I now remember), the tax rate would be lowered to a flat 17%.
As things stand, the poor can face a combined tax rate & benefit loss exceeding 100% when they work.
Why work when gov pays'm not to, eh?

 

[Quetzal]

I know in the US, welfare makes up such a small percentage of the budget it is almost laughable. Yet, fiscal conservatives would have you believe that eliminating it would solve all of our financial issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know in the US, welfare makes up such a small percentage of the budget it is almost laughable. Yet, fiscal conservatives would have you believe that eliminating it would solve all of our financial issues.

That seems unfair to cons, ie, they don't believe that.
I believe they want to cut much other spending too, eg, foreign adventurism.

 

[Augustus]

This reminds me of a (better) libertarian proposal by the Cato Institute.
As I recall.....
- Every citizen gets $10K/year
- The above replaces most economic safety net programs.
- There was more, but I don't remember it, nor can I find it.

I think it is good. Complicated systems get filled with loopholes and unintended consequences and tend to get more and more complex over time as people try to patch loopholes and unintended consequences.

A simple system would be more efficient, saving vast sums. Would be less open to fraud. Would encourage people to take work when they can, as often now there is no point in taking a casual job or even a full time one that pays minimum wage.

Also because everyone gets the same, there would be less scapegoating of 'scroungers' and hostility towards the economically marginalised. And if everyone has enough for a basic standard of living then that is the purpose of a welfare state.

I'd still keep universal healthcare though.

I'm pretty sure one of the Nordic countries has recently proposed something similar to this, someone definitely has anyway to the level where it is actively being considered by government.

 

[Quetzal]

That seems unfair to cons, ie, they don't believe that.
I believe they want to cut much other spending too, eg, foreign adventurism.

You're right, not every repub believes this. But I do find it to be a shocking question: "Why should the government pay to help people?"

 

[Ultimatum]

So I advocate having one which incentivizes work.
Since the $10K/year is unconditional, they don't face loss of benefit by working.

Whilst that is a better arrangement than current, its almost oxymoronic.
A handout disincentivises an expansion of the work fource at the personal allowance cut off point.

I know in the US, welfare makes up such a small percentage of the budget it is almost laughable. Yet, fiscal conservatives would have you believe that eliminating it would solve all of our financial issues.

In the UK its the largest source of GDP spending bar universal healthcare.

And I have no idea what the rest of it is going on about.

 

[Ultimatum]

You're right, not every repub believes this. But I do find it to be a shocking question: "Why should the government pay to help people?"

It's not fiscally conservative.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're right, not every repub believes this.

I should point out that I don't see conservatives & Republicans as the same animal.
There are a few who are both though.

But I do find it to be a shocking question: "Why should the government pay to help people?"

To avoid their becoming a major problem for the rest of us.

 

[Quetzal]

It's not fiscally conservative you dunce.

Butthead! (See, I can act like a three year old too! )

 

[Quetzal]

To avoid their becoming a major problem for the rest of us.

In what way is it a major problem? I sense that you are allowing a minority who abuses it to drive the idea that eliminating it entirely is a suitable possibility. I disagree because it would condemn those in genuine need. Am I making sense? (Some might suggest otherwise...)

 

[Demonslayer]

"Why should the government pay to help people?"

WWJD?

 

[Revoltingest]

Whilst that is a better arrangement than current, its almost oxymoronic.
A handout disincentivises an expansion of the work fource at the personal allowance cut off point.

Few would find $10K/person/year enuf.
They'd want to work for more.

 

[Revoltingest]

In what way is it a major problem? I sense that you are allowing a minority who abuses it to drive the idea that eliminating it entirely is a suitable possibility. I disagree because it would condemn those in genuine need. Am I making sense? (Some might suggest otherwise...)

The poor can become violent if they become too numerous & dissatisfied.

 

[Quetzal]

The poor can become violent if they become too numerous & dissatisfied.

I don't understand how eliminating the only source of welfare they have will make that better? Wouldn't that invite more violence/desperation?

 

[Ultimatum]

Few would find $10K/person/year enuf.
They'd want to work for more.

Ah now we're delving into figures and not the mechanics of the systems--which means we can go no further, as I have no clue about the American wage and standard or living.

 

[Revoltingest]

WWJD?

Werewolves want jury duty?