cheque in the mail 3
bob - Hobbes wrote:
why not skip the corrupt middlemen and counterproductive incentives and give the money directly to the people who need it?
There it is. Have a look at the inflated rental rates on so called "affordable housing" in any big Canadian city (the states are likely as bad) and ask yourself who really benefits from the welfare system. If you come to any other conclusion than the landlords (and those employed in the "welfare ministry") and I'll be amazed. I knew landlords in Vancouver who would only rent to people on welfare because... you guessed it. It meant a steady rent cheque as it is not possible to collect welfare without a rental agreement. Working stiffs, especially those at the lowend of the pay scale were just too liable to go tits up on account of some firing or laying off and it would take a couple of months for them to go through the process of demonstrating to welfare that they were truly destitute and so qualified for assistance. Once qualified though they could sit there forever, as long as any income that came in did so well under the radar, in other words through drug dealing, prostitution, a bit of casual labour or, of course, private language tutorials.
So in all of this the one who suffers big time is the low wage earner. He pays exorbitant rent, if he can find housing, and is left with barely enough to live on. The middle class also suffers inflated rent and has to deal daily with a class of permanently unemployed who frequently, shall we say, show little respect for the society that supports them.
The people who benefit of course are the landlords. Laughing all the way to the bank that lot is. Of course they sometimes suffer the inconvenience of kicking whole families out in the snow but by golly this is a tough world after all and if you can't make the rent this month well, that just shows you need a little toughening up. Three weeks in January camped in your car with the wife and kids will teach you....
redandy - Ok, I'm having a hard time seeing how this reduces corruption and beaurocracy. It seems to me that with a massive influx of people into the welfare system, the beaurocracy expands. As for corruption, if people abuse current systems why won't they abuse this one?
j99l88e77 - Giving money to people who aren't working does not work, bob. I didn't read anything else. If you want to elaborate on how this could work, I won't read it because it's silly and I'm too lazy.
You can give too much cash to people who are laid off/quit/get fired/are on welfare, but the fear of no more money coming gets them off their collecitve feet.
I got checks (cheques) from the government to the tune of 50,000 NT/month clear for 10 months on employment insurance. My rent and everything else utility wise added up to maybe 5500-6000 NT/month. Nice vacation.
guangtou - A badly structured welfare net will indeed incline people to 'sit down' - in fact, that's just what many aboriginal Australian's call their monthly welfare check (i.e. 'sit-down money'). But it is not inevitably like this. I read an article about a year ago now (sorry, the piece is locked-up in storage back in Oz and I can't remember the reference) that was basically a test of two different welfare philosophies. The researchers took two groups of unemployed people in Chicago and did this to their welfare payouts (1) kept one group the same (i.e. a status quo control group with a cut-out date after 6 months), (2) gave the second group the standard 6-month payout, but offered a generous lump sum reward for those that found a job. Low and behold, the ratio of successful job seekers was higher in the second group than the first. They took the incentive and ran with it. Interestingly, the total payouts per group were significantly less for the second than the first, even though the second had a lump sum reward thrown in - the unemployed people in the second group got busy early and found work, reducing the total welfare expenditure through the 6 month period. What this test didn't do was see what happens when you get rid of unemployment payouts altogether - there are, of course, ethical problems with running such a piece of research... Anyway, the point is, the way you structure your welfare system can have BOTH a negative and positive effect on work incentives. Handing money to people per se is not necessarily a disincentive to work.
belgian pie - In Belgium as a head of the family you can get unemployment money forever as long as you go out once in while and do a job interview and proof you are looking for work, currently this should be like around 35-40,000 NT$/month
Add some child support money for 2-3 children and you could get more than 40-50,000 NT$ monthly
Who wants to go out and look for job or work ... if you do some moonlighting you could make more money and pay less taxes than in a regular job.
Some large families (mostly immigrants from north africa) can get around 100,000 NT$/ month in the system.
A bonus is that you also qualify for public/housing and that's far from what you see in the US, in belgium a lot are one family homes with garden and garage.
bob - 35 - 40,000 a month is outrageous. It reminds me of the unemployment insurance system in Canada where the amount you collect is a percentage of the amount you made while working. Those who had good paying seasonal jobs would continue to collect pretty reasonable amounts of money the rest of the year and would frequently do this year after year. If the guy who worked at a low paying job quit or got fired he would have to wait six weeks or something to collect and then all he would get would be a percentage of what was already not enough money. Basically what it meant was that if you weren't in a Union the boss had you by the balls and could abuse you at his leisure. If you were in a Union (especially a government Union) you were probably a bit lazy, got paid a little too much and had your UIC cheque waiting for you if things went south.
In any case the unemployment insurance model is definitely not what I am talking about. What I AM talking about is a bare subsistence amount NTD10-15,000 given to everybody over eighteeen. People with good salaries would pay all or a portion of that money back in taxes and the people who really needed it would have it. There would be no disincentive to work, no waiting periods, no degrading interviews with half witted social workers, no extortionary contracts with landlords. The minimum wage could be lowered or eliminated altogether giving small businesses especially a running chance. People could go to school if they wanted, live in a tent if they wanted, go to school AND live in a tent...
Jaboney - Interesting idea bob.
I caught John Ralston Saul speaking on healthcare once, and one of his aruments in favour of a universal system was that the management costs of anything other are ridiculously out of line with what's delivered. Another time, I caught a guy from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaking against cutting gov't benefits (seniors' benefits, I believe) to the richest Canadians on the basis that a universal system, even if it doesn't actually benefit everyone ('cause at a certain level of income, you're paying in more than you get out), enjoys the virtue of being seen to be there for everyone. (Much the same argument often used in favour of a no-loop-holes, no exceptions, flat rate income tax.) Such systems enjoy huge savings on management and administration because they're universal, and enjoy significant support because they're there for all.
From a (un)employment insurance standpoint, it'd also be nice because there'd never be any ridiculous waiting period. There are silly buggers like myself, who simply refuse to apply on principle. I know that work will be forthcoming, and it also has come up, but it can take awhile. I've had friends not file papers because they'd rather look for work, only to file much later when there was no work to be found. Then, because they'd tried to got out and do the right thing, they're benefits were significantly reduced thanks to the forumla used.
And the seasonal ski-team workfare scam is ridiculous. Like the fishermen who get maybe 3 or 4 days a season, but manage to qualify for year-round EI/UI. All because the gov't let out too many licenses and now finds too many boats and too few fish in the water.
MaPoSquid - spook wrote:
What would be the result if one day we agreed that henceforth corporations could no longer own any portion of America's vast natural resources and an individual could only own that portion necessary for personal use?
The vast balance would become assets of America Inc. and every American citizen would by birthright become a shareholder in those assets and receive monthly dividend checks. The corporations would be hired and fired to manage and exploit the minerals, energy sources, arable and habitable land, water and other considerable natural assets of the nation and generate the dividends to distribute to shareholder-citizens. A small portion of these dividend payments would be held back as taxes.
I believe they tried that in Russia for about seventy years. When it all fell apart at the end, some people got shares in Yukos, and other people got shares in the local dildo factory they worked in. Rather than cash, the latter often were paid in excess dildo production. Of course, Russian dildos aren't worth a hell of a lot, so they basically got screwed.
I wish I had a copy of the story about that Russian dildo factory, but this was Before The Web in about 1992, I believe in the Chicago Tribune, and the article discussed how these impoverished Russians would have to go door to door trying to sell their monthly dildo dividend so they could buy vodka.
"I am the descendent of an old British Family. Our family crest was two dead French men crossed over a giant pile of dead French men." -- Pissy the Ant
The following words and phrases may not be used in a cadence: Budding sexuality, necrophilia, I hate everyone in this formation and wish they were dead, sexual lubrication, black earth mother, all Marines are latent homosexuals, Tantric yoga, Gotterdammerung, Korean hooker, Eskimo Nell, we've all got jackboots now, slut puppy, or any references to squid.
why not skip the corrupt middlemen and counterproductive incentives and give the money directly to the people who need it?
There it is. Have a look at the inflated rental rates on so called "affordable housing" in any big Canadian city (the states are likely as bad) and ask yourself who really benefits from the welfare system. If you come to any other conclusion than the landlords (and those employed in the "welfare ministry") and I'll be amazed. I knew landlords in Vancouver who would only rent to people on welfare because... you guessed it. It meant a steady rent cheque as it is not possible to collect welfare without a rental agreement. Working stiffs, especially those at the lowend of the pay scale were just too liable to go tits up on account of some firing or laying off and it would take a couple of months for them to go through the process of demonstrating to welfare that they were truly destitute and so qualified for assistance. Once qualified though they could sit there forever, as long as any income that came in did so well under the radar, in other words through drug dealing, prostitution, a bit of casual labour or, of course, private language tutorials.
So in all of this the one who suffers big time is the low wage earner. He pays exorbitant rent, if he can find housing, and is left with barely enough to live on. The middle class also suffers inflated rent and has to deal daily with a class of permanently unemployed who frequently, shall we say, show little respect for the society that supports them.
The people who benefit of course are the landlords. Laughing all the way to the bank that lot is. Of course they sometimes suffer the inconvenience of kicking whole families out in the snow but by golly this is a tough world after all and if you can't make the rent this month well, that just shows you need a little toughening up. Three weeks in January camped in your car with the wife and kids will teach you....
redandy - Ok, I'm having a hard time seeing how this reduces corruption and beaurocracy. It seems to me that with a massive influx of people into the welfare system, the beaurocracy expands. As for corruption, if people abuse current systems why won't they abuse this one?
j99l88e77 - Giving money to people who aren't working does not work, bob. I didn't read anything else. If you want to elaborate on how this could work, I won't read it because it's silly and I'm too lazy.
You can give too much cash to people who are laid off/quit/get fired/are on welfare, but the fear of no more money coming gets them off their collecitve feet.
I got checks (cheques) from the government to the tune of 50,000 NT/month clear for 10 months on employment insurance. My rent and everything else utility wise added up to maybe 5500-6000 NT/month. Nice vacation.
guangtou - A badly structured welfare net will indeed incline people to 'sit down' - in fact, that's just what many aboriginal Australian's call their monthly welfare check (i.e. 'sit-down money'). But it is not inevitably like this. I read an article about a year ago now (sorry, the piece is locked-up in storage back in Oz and I can't remember the reference) that was basically a test of two different welfare philosophies. The researchers took two groups of unemployed people in Chicago and did this to their welfare payouts (1) kept one group the same (i.e. a status quo control group with a cut-out date after 6 months), (2) gave the second group the standard 6-month payout, but offered a generous lump sum reward for those that found a job. Low and behold, the ratio of successful job seekers was higher in the second group than the first. They took the incentive and ran with it. Interestingly, the total payouts per group were significantly less for the second than the first, even though the second had a lump sum reward thrown in - the unemployed people in the second group got busy early and found work, reducing the total welfare expenditure through the 6 month period. What this test didn't do was see what happens when you get rid of unemployment payouts altogether - there are, of course, ethical problems with running such a piece of research... Anyway, the point is, the way you structure your welfare system can have BOTH a negative and positive effect on work incentives. Handing money to people per se is not necessarily a disincentive to work.
belgian pie - In Belgium as a head of the family you can get unemployment money forever as long as you go out once in while and do a job interview and proof you are looking for work, currently this should be like around 35-40,000 NT$/month
Add some child support money for 2-3 children and you could get more than 40-50,000 NT$ monthly
Who wants to go out and look for job or work ... if you do some moonlighting you could make more money and pay less taxes than in a regular job.
Some large families (mostly immigrants from north africa) can get around 100,000 NT$/ month in the system.
A bonus is that you also qualify for public/housing and that's far from what you see in the US, in belgium a lot are one family homes with garden and garage.
bob - 35 - 40,000 a month is outrageous. It reminds me of the unemployment insurance system in Canada where the amount you collect is a percentage of the amount you made while working. Those who had good paying seasonal jobs would continue to collect pretty reasonable amounts of money the rest of the year and would frequently do this year after year. If the guy who worked at a low paying job quit or got fired he would have to wait six weeks or something to collect and then all he would get would be a percentage of what was already not enough money. Basically what it meant was that if you weren't in a Union the boss had you by the balls and could abuse you at his leisure. If you were in a Union (especially a government Union) you were probably a bit lazy, got paid a little too much and had your UIC cheque waiting for you if things went south.
In any case the unemployment insurance model is definitely not what I am talking about. What I AM talking about is a bare subsistence amount NTD10-15,000 given to everybody over eighteeen. People with good salaries would pay all or a portion of that money back in taxes and the people who really needed it would have it. There would be no disincentive to work, no waiting periods, no degrading interviews with half witted social workers, no extortionary contracts with landlords. The minimum wage could be lowered or eliminated altogether giving small businesses especially a running chance. People could go to school if they wanted, live in a tent if they wanted, go to school AND live in a tent...
Jaboney - Interesting idea bob.
I caught John Ralston Saul speaking on healthcare once, and one of his aruments in favour of a universal system was that the management costs of anything other are ridiculously out of line with what's delivered. Another time, I caught a guy from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaking against cutting gov't benefits (seniors' benefits, I believe) to the richest Canadians on the basis that a universal system, even if it doesn't actually benefit everyone ('cause at a certain level of income, you're paying in more than you get out), enjoys the virtue of being seen to be there for everyone. (Much the same argument often used in favour of a no-loop-holes, no exceptions, flat rate income tax.) Such systems enjoy huge savings on management and administration because they're universal, and enjoy significant support because they're there for all.
From a (un)employment insurance standpoint, it'd also be nice because there'd never be any ridiculous waiting period. There are silly buggers like myself, who simply refuse to apply on principle. I know that work will be forthcoming, and it also has come up, but it can take awhile. I've had friends not file papers because they'd rather look for work, only to file much later when there was no work to be found. Then, because they'd tried to got out and do the right thing, they're benefits were significantly reduced thanks to the forumla used.
And the seasonal ski-team workfare scam is ridiculous. Like the fishermen who get maybe 3 or 4 days a season, but manage to qualify for year-round EI/UI. All because the gov't let out too many licenses and now finds too many boats and too few fish in the water.
MaPoSquid - spook wrote:
What would be the result if one day we agreed that henceforth corporations could no longer own any portion of America's vast natural resources and an individual could only own that portion necessary for personal use?
The vast balance would become assets of America Inc. and every American citizen would by birthright become a shareholder in those assets and receive monthly dividend checks. The corporations would be hired and fired to manage and exploit the minerals, energy sources, arable and habitable land, water and other considerable natural assets of the nation and generate the dividends to distribute to shareholder-citizens. A small portion of these dividend payments would be held back as taxes.
I believe they tried that in Russia for about seventy years. When it all fell apart at the end, some people got shares in Yukos, and other people got shares in the local dildo factory they worked in. Rather than cash, the latter often were paid in excess dildo production. Of course, Russian dildos aren't worth a hell of a lot, so they basically got screwed.
I wish I had a copy of the story about that Russian dildo factory, but this was Before The Web in about 1992, I believe in the Chicago Tribune, and the article discussed how these impoverished Russians would have to go door to door trying to sell their monthly dildo dividend so they could buy vodka.
"I am the descendent of an old British Family. Our family crest was two dead French men crossed over a giant pile of dead French men." -- Pissy the Ant
The following words and phrases may not be used in a cadence: Budding sexuality, necrophilia, I hate everyone in this formation and wish they were dead, sexual lubrication, black earth mother, all Marines are latent homosexuals, Tantric yoga, Gotterdammerung, Korean hooker, Eskimo Nell, we've all got jackboots now, slut puppy, or any references to squid.
posted by david at 6:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home