Alternative to government welfare

Many offer private charity as an alternative, but there is always the risk that people will not be charitable. So I feel that a better solution would be an organization that people enter into, similar to a type of insurance company but more of a nonprofit, whereby each member of the organization pays a monthly fee and if a member is every in economic trouble assistance will be given from the money collected from all member fees.

Like charity, it is voluntary, but like welfare it is also guaranteed. So to me it seems to combine the best of both worlds. Thoughts on this type of structure?

 

Eliminate charity as a tax deduction, and there will be less of it. Allow every dollar of charity to be deducted from the tax owned, and it would increase greatly, reducing the need for tax dollars.

Instead of an (greedy) insurance company, why not allow people to buy what government services they want.

 

Why would a lazy welfare rat here in the US do that?

A teenage girl can have a baby from some Baby-Daddy, drop out of high school, and get some $40,000 a year in free benefits---all from just spreading her legs.

Why should she apply herself, stay in school, get married and pay for her and her family's own needs out of her own pocket?

Join an organization that requires paying money or doing work? The welfare rats won't have it.

 

I didn't say eliminate charity as a tax deduction. I would prefer that all taxes be reduced so people have more of their own money to spend. And if some are worried about losing a job or needing assistance, it seems reasonably that they can put money towards protecting themselves against that to maintain their lifestyle as they find new work. These companies will have every incentive to get people back to work, because if people don't get back to work they will no longer be able to pay the company and it will go out of business. There will be competition as well. I imagine charity would exist along side it for people who are in extreme need, but for the average joe something like this makes sense.

I am talking about people who are out of work and wouldn't be able to buy services, hence the need for some type of assistance. Private assistance seems better than government assistance to me because it is voluntary.

- - - Updated - - -

This would be instead of welfare from the government, so she wouldn't have the options you listed. The system creates the attitudes in many ways--if the government subsidizes laziness, there will be more of it. If you have to pay into something, you will be more responsible about it.

 

One aspect of welfare that bothers me is government seems to just hand out more and more taxpayer money, receiving nothing (productivity) in return, and never dealing with the root issues which might help remove many from welfare.

Now the US has something like 40 million Americans on food stamps? Can 20 million of these pay for their own food? Can they buy alcohol and tobacco with food stamps?

In my County the private food banks serve about 80,000 per month. Gotta wonder what percentage of these 80,000 also have food stamps? Also interesting that those who take the food are not the ones who volunteer their time to staff the food banks.

It's like handicapped parking permits in which I'm guessing half the people really don't need them...so why do they have them and use them?

The politicos are always talking about means-testing wealthier people to deny them SS and Medicare, etc. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about means-testing those who take welfare?

I guess we should consider Obamacare as another form of welfare??

 

That is a big reason why I think it makes sense to have competing organizations provide these services. If the organization is just keeping people on their welfare, they will end up running out of money. People will always not want to be part of an organization that gives out money to easily, because they will be wasting their money directly. They could just switch to another provider.

 

#horefare. Why not outlaw it and have government orphanages? It will be far cheaper in the long run, taking away the incentive to get pregnant. Such mothers will only breed criminals. Unless we hire criminals to run orphanages, their graduates won't cost the government even more than their mothers do now. So what if they never get adopted? Better to spend their whole youth with hugs rather than thugs.

 

The gooberment gives out money too easily, and there is no other provider to switch to. Government is the ultimate monopoly, the only way to make it worse is to add a state religion.

There has been talk about buying medical insurance from across state lines. Maybe we should be talking about buying government from across country lines?

 

Negative income tax, it replaces welfare add in no min wage, voucher health/ education to eliminate the waste/ govt bloat, promote personal responsibility and stimulate the economy.

[video=youtube;xtpgkX588nM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM[/video]
[video=youtube;zo9ufzIXN3U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo9ufzIXN3U&list=PLYcuLAArq58QbNLp6KFTRT0_ hInRsbDBU&index=18[/video]

 

I have no problem with government programs as long as they are monitored, reviewed, modified, and are fully funded. I don't really like simple welfare in the sense of handing out cash. I prefer to look at the root problems that people experience, for example; shelter, food, education, employment, transportation, medical care, etc. and then have government in partnership with the private sector provide these things to the extent that taxpayers are willing to fund...

 

The only issue is that not all taxpayers are willing to fund the same things. So why not allow people to choose what they want to fund through private charity? Everyone could also be part of some type of unemployment insurance plan as well, so only those unemployed for excessive amounts of time (thus unable to purchase such insurance) would really need the extra help.

 

Everyone today is allowed to choose what to fund through private charity. Charities are personal choices and have nothing to do with government.

Government is supposed to provide equal services to all people therefore all people need to share in the funding. Government makes these decisions for the people who placed them in office, and their actions are validated when they are re-elected to office. News flash; Your government today is a mirror image of want the people demand. If you wish to change government then you need to figure out how to change PEOPLE...good luck!!

 

People want other people to pay for what they want. That doesn't make it right, and that is not what government is supposed to be. What is your problem with the solution I proposed?

 

You didn't provide a solution to government welfare?

I don't know how much the government currently spends on so-called welfare related programs but you believe this same amount of money would be raised through charities and spent on the same types of programs...if so this is a real stretch.

Start with food stamps or whatever they are called today...you think private donations will equal or exceed government spending in this area and provide the same coverage across the USA?

One huge problem with charitable groups is most all of them are politically and/or religiously biased. This means they will not do what is in the best interest of people but instead promote and perpetuate their political and religious bias...

 

Not at all. In the original post I even explained why charity alone is not good enough. All you had to do was read the first line...
"Many offer private charity as an alternative, but there is always the risk that people will not be charitable. So I feel that a better solution would be..."

You are harping on private charity, but that isn't what this thread is about.

 

If only that were true.

We have at best a choice between two candidates, that requires consistently close races. In many locations, one party clearly is in control, and shy of outright fraud, that party wins election after election.

The candidate that wins is far more concerned with the wishes of their major contributors than the general voter. Why, because the contributors pay for their ads (and what ever else they can, legal or illegal). If enough contributors support the other candidate, the incumbent loses.



If you wish to change government, throw a lot of money at the right politicians and regulators.....

When you vote the bums out, they are replaced with a different set of bums, with pretty much the same motivations (new boss, same as the old boss).

 

I'm just harping on your comments. If I misinterpreted them...big deal.

Private charity is not the answer to take care of Americans who can't or refuse to take care of themselves. If it was, or even came close, the government would not need to be involved.

There will always be a percentage of Americans who simply cannot manage their lives in the economic system which exists in the USA. I'm guessing a large percentage of these are lazy, many just scam the system, and the rest lack the mental and physical characteristics to obtain education and learn skills in order to earn an income.

Instead of government handing out unqualified cash, how about government providing things like shelter, food, transportation, medical care, education, job training?

Instead of government handing out cash how about asking for some productivity in return from those who can perform some types of work?

Let the government work with the private sector to build millions of units of affordable housing, in every single city. Why isn't the government building effective public transit in every area of the USA?

Bottom line; there are lots of things government could do differently but in reality government and society are really too stupid and too self-serving to consider these alternatives...

 

It's 100% true! It does not make any difference if we have 2 candidates or 100 of them...the People vote them in office and keep them in office.

Who does the district voting mapping...government. Who votes in government...People.

Campaign contributors...and this is a fact...have zero votes. People have 1 vote each and there are approximately 150 million voters. So which has more power; zero votes or 150 million votes?

Whether it is the bums currently in office, or the bums that will be voted into office...all of them are put there by the People...

 

Like other libertarians I prefer a voluntary system but the scope of the problem is beyond what a voluntary system can address. If we just look at food assistance provided for we have private food banks plus SNAP and SNAP spends $80 billion a year. Admittedly private food banks provide food at about 1/4th the cost of SNAP but even if the cost was reduced and channeled through the private food banks we'd need $20 billion a year in additional donations. That's an awful large amount of money.

I've approached this from another direction. Reduce proverty that necessitates the assistance. There are three identified sources for most poverty. First is discrimination against minorities and women in the workplace where they are paid far less than "white males" and women and minorities receive a lot of public assistance. Next is Social Security where it has an average benefit of only $15,000/yr which is a proverty level income. I suggest privatization which would provide at least 5-times the average income that Social Security provides. Finally we need to have fair state and federal taxation where all Americans have the same tax burden relative to gross income. Currently the poor and middle class have a huge tax burden relative to gross income when compared to the wealthy. The greatest problem relates to regressive state taxation but favoritism for investors over workers is also a problem at the federal level.

Fair and equal opportunity in employment, personal wealth accumulation for retirement, and fair tax policies based upon tax burden relative to income would eliminate virtually all poverty in America greatly reducing the need for assistance.

 

The regulators don't matter but the incumbant politicans do and they've created the "campaign finance laws" that almost ensure their re-election. Additionally the Republican and Democrats have ensured huge incomes to the wealthiest of investors with the Capital Gains tax loophole and those very wealthy individuals fund the super-pacs where there are no contribution limitations. Republicans and Democrats also control the "debates" at virtually all levels of government and specifically related to Presidential elections to ensure their tight grip on American politics.

 

I agree with everything you said except for the part about regulators. Does the term regulatory capture ring any bells?

Tax breaks are all fine and good, but in a competitive environment, taxes make up 35% of profits, and even with a 30% profit, that is less than 10%.

Now, lock out the competition with regulation, and you have something. As an example - the big guys were losing profits due to the little start ups, so they called in their friendly politicians / regulators and wrote IPO regulation so that is too expensive for any but the big guys (remember when IPO's were happening every day, not any more). The little guys want to make it big, they have to sell off to a company big enough to afford the regulation cost, innovation suffers, venture capital dries up. Or they have to grow big enough on their own, like FaceBook or Google.

Back to your point, there are those that think the Republicans will shrink government - hasn't happened yet. The other side thinks the Democrats are going to protect them from the rich - that hasn't happened yet either. Neither will, the politicians have way too much to lose.

We have more to lose. But, the politicians will run this train right off the cliff, increasing taxes up and debt until the system breaks. Those relying on government income, retirees, welfare, unemployment, disability, military, government employees... will be hurt very badly.

 

"None of the above" isn't an option.

If 100K people vote in an election, and the only two competing candidates for a position, get 3 votes total, the one with 2 votes wins.

 

The ONLY thing that makes any difference to me is how I vote. I cannot control others so why even worry about them? None of the above is definitely a voting option but few will do this. We have other choices but we just can't force ourselves to vote against our incumbent who is great at bringing home the bacon...and you know how much Americans love their bacon...

 

Why not address the solution in my original post? This topic is about the merits of that solution, not the merits of the government system or private charity. I'm not going to restate it, because its right there in the first post.

 

I agree that simply private charity like what you are describing above is not sufficient. But I am not advocating replacing government with private charity. I am talking about a type of poverty insurance. Pay a portion of your paycheck to the company, which will then provide you assistance in the event of unemployment and the like. The only people who would need the extra help from charity or government would be the perpetually impoverished--those who are at the bottom and not moving up at all.

I agree with the premise of reducing poverty, but simply adjusting taxes, social security, and equality will not solve this nation's economic problems. You have to address the monetary system as well, which is the cause of so many economy-wide downturns.