I have several ideas but the first goal is to help those who need it. Some souls who are citizens will need full support who cannot even work ,lets say, 20 hours a week with enough areas of likely employment to expect them to be employed. For them I would say a full range of benefits to live in modest comfort like a human being is good. Anyone have issues giving this group, narrow, a monthly check and Medicaid and some other benefits as needed? The next group the person can do some work and is likely to be employable part-time or infrequently (might have pain so may do self-employment or work at home but have bad days and need to not work) I would give a partial set of benefits, job training and placement help and expect them to earn a base amount say $4,000 a year with a eye at a COLA and the government offers say Medicaid and some other help. Disability status checked for every four years unless clearly unable to get better, be real disabilities that are testable for and vocational evaluations can be done on with one year of benefits during this process if supported by three doctors/experts. Then there are others okay lets be clear if your not disabled then you need help while training and looking for work. I would just grant a homeless shelter kind of support with NO CASH to anyone in need even if homeless or they opt not to work but make living like that undesirable. But its likely cheaper to do this than leaving them on the street. If you want to work then fine we will take care of you if your doing what society sees as forward momentum this should include not be having more children I would say your a single mom fine your going to get a birth control device implanted before we help, your children can stay with you at home until they are of minimum school age then you go to work and train or else. Foster care for them until you grow up. While working we take care of what you need. Seems to me this would all be reasonable and one could pool all existing funding other than Medicaid to pay for it. But I would not make being "on the dole" better than holding a job say at the minimum wage it should be less.
One aspect that needs to change, is a system that encourages employment, not discourages it. First, make it temporary. For illustration, lets say 6 months to a year interval, then a period following that where one cannot qualify(assuming they are not disabled). Then, make their welfare payment a matching benefit to their employment pay. In other words, if you find a job and earn $200 a week, you get a welfare check in the same amount. Of course you would want a range to operate within. Like a minium welfare check regardless of pay, and a income matching ceiling. So how many folks on welfare would find a job tomorrow, if their welfare check was going to match their employment check?
You could look at how it's been implemented in Sweden, because that's basically what we have here. In essence, you pay into an unemployment insurance, and you get to withdraw money from it based on your previous wage for a limited amount of time. In order to do so, you must continually apply for all the jobs you can find, and you will immediately lose your benefits if you decline a job that you're offered. Most people. Whenever welfare is discussed, people tend to forget that it sucks not having a job. Getting paid for literally doing nothing but applying for jobs all the time is a pretty miserable existence, and not the kind of vacation some people imagine.
How about tying the privilege of voting into being off the dole. Politicians would fall over themselves to insure that their voting base was gainfully employed....
Interesting but are you going to disenfranchise disabled people who are citizens? I know a few born disabled and never worked but are good people just have severe cerebral palsy or other issues making them unfit to even work part-time. And many become disabled later like myself to the point we can't work and what about disabled veterans and elderly people who are retired?
The best way to improve the welfare program is to EDUCATE our youth in skills to help them in the marketplace so they can get JOBS. And, those who draw welfare should be required to work for it! What further revision is needed?
The US already has unemployment benefits separate from welfare that works this exact same way. Folks on welfare here don't have to show they are gainfully seeking employment.
That would be a great proactive approach for eliminating or at least reducing the need for welfare in the future. But we have all these folks on it now, abusing the system. And a welfare payout scale that encourages employment would still be needed.
And if people can't work. I can but my vocational evaluation limited that to maybe 8 hours a week, regulations say to not get SSI I need to be able to earn $1070 a month. So say I did work two four hour shifts a week, would that be enough to get help for the rest of my needs. Seems to me the paperwork and costs to hold that job would cost more than I would earn. I would need taxi service at night if needed for an evening shift, buses may not be available to get home, accommodations at work that will cost money and training to do a job. Its likely better I just get my benefits cost-benefit wise. I would argue if one can work under vocational evaluation one can work 20 hours or more a week then it makes sense, if one can't then its something one should consider mind you I would like to work 32 hours a month but no employers would likely bother hiring me and cover the needs to do the work (voice recognition software, offer training and have hours assured during the day). I don't like getting Medicaid and since SSI is now very likely I know I need the help and am grateful to you all for helping me via the government but its not what I really want I liked working when I could find work on and off the books. I want to work some and get help but my work options are limited. And there is the pain on a bad day its BAD in both hands and feet.
