Better welfare systems.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Brett Nortje, Mar 29, 2017.

  1. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In the world there is a problem with hunger. if we were to find a way to get the food, which does exist, to the hungry, who need it, things would be better off. the problem is services and pricing, if it is free for the hungry, it should be free for the middle classes too, yes? i mean, if you have a lorry unloading food in an urban area, you will find many working people there to collect, yes?

    My solution to this is to funnel it into the budget. if the hungry and working class were to simply arrive and collect as much as they can carry, the state could incorporate that into the taxation of the countries working class where they pay for it in the form of taxes. with the state buying in such bulk, they could easily run the prices down, and, have luxury goods separated from these for the supermarkets.
     
  2. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If we were to observe that food spoils, there is much to be said for distributing it before it does, yes? this would mean, if the farmers get paid for the food they do sell, they could send the rest to the villages and homelands where they could be eaten. this would require extreme 'security' though, as i am sure that the traders would be there to buy food for cheap, so maybe that is a hard position to take?

    But, let's run with it for a while? if the food was to be free there, and they did sell it, what harm would it do? it is up to the farmers, as they have enough food to see everyone fed, so, maybe there is a way? if they were to sell fresh food over to markets - the a grade stuff - then once they had gotten all the money they want they could simply give the rest away? the problem is that many people will wait until the food is free, so, they need to make a plan, or, the state needs to make a plan...

    If the state was to buy all the surplus food, the markets would get the ripe ones, and sell them, creating taxes from the sales. this goes to the state, who spend nothing collecting taxes, so, for each bushel of whatever sold, the state cold buy, with three quarters of the taxes collected, food for the poor that will arrive shortly? this means the state will still collect a minor amount from this sector too, of course.
     
  3. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course, the whole welfare system will be affected by this, as the money raised from taxation into the welfare or social sectors would be diminished due to the money used to buy the food, but, i am sure there is cost cutting everywhere for this cause.
     
  4. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The problem of hunger in the world is not one of distribution, as you seem to think. It's not that the rich man has a huge pile of spaghetti and the poor man just a single bean, and gosh gee, if you took some spaghetti from the rich and and gave it to the poor man, all would be well. There are many problems with your "solution."

    1. You assume an infinite supply of food. Why, the state could just buy in bulk and give it away for free! Food, like all resources, is limited in its supply. Giving anything away for free will increase the demand, thus since supply is finite, you will end up running out of food. At the beginning people would walk away with big sacks of food, but then it will start to run out. Your solution to cure hunger would actually cause hunger--and for those who were not at any risk of it before.

    2. It would be incredibly wasteful. Why would people conserve food when it's free? Go ahead and grab eight gallons of milk while you're at the free food giveaway, why not? And if we don't drink it all before it spoils, just go grab some more free milk! When people pay for things themselves out of their own pocket, they are more careful about not wasting it. When it's free, who cares?

    3. The above problems will manifest immediately, causing the state to have to ration food. Now everyone gets to share in the hunger, yippee! Of course, they wealthy still dine on the luxury foods not part of your program, so they seem to be just fine, it's only the poor and middle class who seem to be suffering under your plan. Who exactly do you hope will support this?

    4. It does nothing to solve the actual problem. This is because you don't understand it. The problem is that not enough food is being produced. Over the last thirty years hunger has gone down worldwide precisely because food production has dramatically increased. Drought resistant crops, improved capital stock, increased levels of CO2, more efficient farming methods etc. have served to increase the food supply and thus decrease hunger.

    The real solution to hunger is private property rights. Wherever farmers have their property rights protected, they invest in increasing their production and growing more food. Wherever private property rights are violated, farmland ends up turning to brown, unproductive patches of waste and death.

    Less government = less hunger.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
  5. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There is so much food, believe me. there is more than enough to be regulated to the people that need it. there will be less waste with regulations, and, more food for the hungry. i never suggested food be free, but rather mixed into the budget.
     
  6. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No, I already pointed out that there is not "so much food." Resources are scarce, not infinite. I also pointed out how your idea would create more waste, not decrease it. Finally, saying that the government would pay for it means it would be free to the consumers, since the target of your idea is the poor who don't pay taxes. Your idea would result in mass starvation over the long term. The best solution is less government, not more.
     
  7. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What do you mean by less government?
     
  8. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Don't have the government get involved in food distribution. The less the government does, the better we all are.
     
    Just_a_Citizen likes this.
  9. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hmmm, okay, after checking the food wastage, and finding that only a third goes to waste, there clearly is not enough food to begin with, as you pointed out. i stand corrected.
     
  10. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,458
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  11. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,310
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's plenty of food. Hell, here in the States, there are frugal folk, not w/o money, that feast quite well on castoff food.



    This goes on all over the country here.

    As far as getting needed foodstuffs to those in dire need, only the extreme basics, just short of Solient Green type nutrients, can logistically delivered.

    It's a shame really, that even were we to reduce edible food waste to zero, it would never come close to enabling delivery of needed goods to the 3rd. World.

    Birth control is desperately needed in these areas.

    Survival of the fittest takes on new meaning in these areas, regardless of who is distributing the rice.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  12. BingoBongoLand

    BingoBongoLand Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    The best solution to the current welfare funding crisis and as a way of genuinely helping the disadvantaged is to introduce a Negative Income Tax (NIT) with a flat rate.

    An example of how it would be used:
    Flat tax at 50%
    Tax rate of £20k p/a

    Those on £0k p/a would receive £10k p/a and pay no tax
    Those on £10k p/a would receive £5k p/a and pay no tax
    Those on £20k p/a would receive £0k p/a and pay no tax
    Those on £30k p/a would receive £0k p/a and pay £5k tax
    Those on £40k p/a would receive £0k p/a and pay £10k tax

    It's a very progressive system of tax and eliminates the need for a minimum wage because workers' wages are supplemented by the government, allowing corporations to keep more of their earnings and therefore reinvest into diversifying their market share, pushing employment rates up further.

    Moreover, this eliminates the need for food stamps, winter fuel allowance, child support and w/e, and instead streamlines the entire welfare system, therefore removing an incredibly large part of the bureaucracy away and thus saving the government a lot of expenditure by reducing their employment.
     
  13. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Paying people to be poor does not genuinely help them. In the first world countries, people are poor because of their own bad decisions. Giving them money only allows them to be shielded from the consequences of their bad decisions. Back in the day, if a women went out and got knocked up before she was married, she would have to live with her parents, and they would basically take away her ability to make more bad decisions. When charity comes from individuals, it comes with strings attached. No more partying, no quitting your job, no more drinking etc. When charity comes from the government, then you can keep on doing the bad things that cause poverty in the first place because there are no strings attached to it.
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  14. BingoBongoLand

    BingoBongoLand Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not paying them to be poor, it's a supplement on top of their income.
    Source?

    >also not universable
    No.. It doesn't..

    The money is still not an enough to live on, it's a supplementation, not a replacement.

    Have you got any proof of this?
     
  15. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Poor people are responsible for their own poverty. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for it. And if we do decide to pay for it, then we will call the shots and tell that person they get nothing unless they change their behavior. Just handing out money will not change their behavior because they are being shielded from the negative consequences of it.
     
  16. BingoBongoLand

    BingoBongoLand Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, that's partially true, but also entirely ignorant of people's lives.
    God forbid you help people.
     
  17. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,402
    Likes Received:
    1,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I nation is not in an internal conflict, and has a hunger problem---then the people and their leaders are too ignorant to solve the problem, and there are likely too many people for the land or economy to sustain.

    I say let these nations have nature take care of their people problems. They don't need outside efforts with medicine, clean water or food to allow them to produce ever more people and cause more misery.

    In developed nations like the US, I would like food stamps/SNAP to be eliminated and replaced entirely by commodities---real food, basic foods. These should be limited to rice, beans, flour, cheese, powdered eggs, powdered milk, canned meats and possibly locally grown produce or overage food from grocery stores.

    The social justice warriors will say this is too mean, but maybe, just maybe, it will get the laziest of the poor off their behinds and force them to expend energy to cook meals.
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  18. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You're not helping people, you're making it worse. Stealing from some and giving it to others is the laziest thing you can do. You obviously don't have kids. The easy thing to do is give them soda and chips and let them do what they want. It's hard getting them to brush their teeth, eat healthy, go to bed on time, not fight with each other, etc. Poor people are poor because they make bad decisions, and if you really want to help them, just giving them money is the worst thing you can do. It's like giving money to a junkie. All you are doing is shielding them from the consequences of their bad decisions, and thus never giving them the incentives to make better decisions. It's truly evil and awful what you people are doing to the poor, and the worst part is that you wear it like a badge of honor.
     
  19. BingoBongoLand

    BingoBongoLand Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    False equivalence but okay
    Sometimes, but that's not universally applicable


    Except it's not giving them money, it's not a replacement for work, it's a supplementation.

    All it's doing is slightly reducing the burden of poverty.
    >saying that like it's a bad thing
    >Except the incentive to work

    The incentive to work is still there, whatever is supplemented to them is not enough to live off.

    Not forgetting it allows one to look for better employment opportunities or to train. You can't really do that when you've got no income and weren't able to save to take time off away from previous employment to go off and train to better your qualifications or remain [frictionally] unemployed for a little bit longer while they find a better job.
    irony
     
  20. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,054
    Likes Received:
    854
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the USA, in which we have 2.2 million Americans in jail, in which taxpayers are paying $40-150K per prisoner per year, why can't these prisons be farming produce? All produce goes to food banks and the needy. And in this process the prisoners create the food they eat...
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  21. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because some of the prisoners would take the tools and kill the guards would be my guess.....The young punks at our local juvie grow some pretty flowers though. They are way overpriced which is why people don't buy more of them. "But you are helping fund programs." "Nope I just want plants. Don't really care what you do with the money. Just want you to have as little of mine as possible."
     
  22. BingoBongoLand

    BingoBongoLand Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Because the cost of prison labour will be less than a worker's wage, agricultural workers will then be replaced with prisoners and put workers out work.
     
  23. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Sure, except for the whole, ya know, giving them money thing.
     
  24. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that is the key to 'helping' a great many who simply accept a life of being maintained by government.
     
  25. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If nothing else, prisoners should be held responsible for their own keep.
     

Share This Page