Employment Guarantee

[Revoltingest]

Fanciful nostalgia.

I checked first.
Things were great under Reagan.
(Note: I voted against him both times.)
It was a big improvement over the Carter years.

 

[Curious George]

I checked first.
Things were great under Reagan.
(Note: I voted against him both times.)
It was a big improvement over the Carter years.

Yep, me too. Reagan = not so great.

 

[idea]

I think those seeking welfare should have to go to court and be judged by a jury to get it - ie - they present their case of why they can't work, evidence that shows they have been applying for jobs etc. etc. and then if their evidence seems plausible, the jury votes to extend them welfare for some period of time. There are legitimate cases out there, but there are illegitimate too... Aren't courts supposed to decide if someone is trying to steal $ etc.?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think those seeking welfare should have to go to court and be judged by a jury to get it - ie - they present their case of why they can't work, evidence that shows they have been applying for jobs etc. etc. and then if their evidence seems plausible, the jury votes to extend them welfare for some period of time. There are legitimate cases out there, but there are illegitimate too... Aren't courts supposed to decide if someone is trying to steal $ etc.?

A jury is for cases involving criminal charges. People should not be looked upon as or treated as criminals just for applying for welfare.

 

[idea]

A jury is for cases involving criminal charges. People should not be looked upon as or treated as criminals just for applying for welfare.

Innocent until proven guilty - a jury serves the innocent as well as the guilty. Those who "donate" their hard-earned $ money to the cause would just like the peace of mind that what they worked so hard for is not going to waste, that's all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Innocent until proven guilty - a jury serves the innocent as well as the guilty. Those who "donate" their hard-earned $ money to the cause would just like the peace of mind that what they worked so hard for is not going to waste, that's all.

Innocent or guilty of what?

 

[idea]

Innocent or guilty of what?

Innocent or guilty of trying to take another person's hard earned cash. Most people are very charitable and are more than willing to help IF they know the cause/person they are helping really is unable (physically/intellectually/etc.) to help themselves. Life is hard for everyone, there are limited resources - there would be plenty to go around to those who are in real need if we could get rid of those who really should not be in the system.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most people are very charitable and are more than willing to help IF they know the cause/person they are helping really is unable (physically/intellectually/etc.) to help themselves.

If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for welfare, and food banks would not be drying up and shutting down, blood would always be in plentiful supply, and organ donation would not be an issue. Our sense of charity has been replaced with a sense of "mine" because our society likes to pretend we can do it all on our own.

Innocent or guilty of trying to take another person's hard earned cash.

The government takes in money through taxes. Those on welfare are not taking another person's money, but rather money that the government has collected and dispersed to function and perform their obligations, one being to promote the general welfare of the public. It's like saying I took your money to get through college. I was given money, from the government, money that was collected from the public in order for the government to function and perform it's duties. And, yes, I did have to show my need of assistance. However, because I did not commit any crime nor was I accused of committing any, rather than stand before a jury I had to transfer some numbers on my tax forms over to my FAFSA forms. I did have a hearing for my insurance, but it wasn't before a jury due to the lack of a crime, but before a judge who deals in those sort of cases, and I presented my case that reflected my need.
Those applying for welfare have not committed any crime by applying for welfare, and they should not be treated as if they are on trial.

 

[metis]

In 1985.....5% of the population held 8trillion dollars in personal wealth.
25yrs later....40trillion dollars held.

got ideas?

Yes. For one, tax the wealthy at the same rate as others, allowing no or very few deductions.

Secondly, encourage employee and community ownership of business.

Third, move some of our federal taxes more towards a VAT whereas it's much more difficult for people to avoid taxes, plus it tends to make domestic products more competitive against imports.

Fourth, tax imports at a higher rate from countries that manipulate their currency, such as China,

Fifth, encourage people to buy more locally made/grown products.

That's for starters.

 

[metis]

Innocent or guilty of trying to take another person's hard earned cash.

Just a reminder that your cash was not made in a vacuum, and you were helped by many people all along the way, including local, state, and national government.

 

[metis]

I think those seeking welfare should have to go to court and be judged by a jury to get it - ie - they present their case of why they can't work, evidence that shows they have been applying for jobs etc. etc. and then if their evidence seems plausible, the jury votes to extend them welfare for some period of time. There are legitimate cases out there, but there are illegitimate too... Aren't courts supposed to decide if someone is trying to steal $ etc.?

There were cuts in that system for inspectors under Reagan and they never have been restored back to what they were. The reason is that it was felt by his administration and others apparently that it was too expensive to hire these people.

I mentioned in a previous post about the experiment of "workfare" here in da U.P., and that plan actually worked. So, why was it dismantled? The reason is $. It costs more to run such a system, much like it costs more to hire many inspectors.

Remember, with Reagan's "starve the beast" approach, it was all about cutting governmental cost.

 

[Thief]

Yes. For one, tax the wealthy at the same rate as others, allowing no or very few deductions.

Secondly, encourage employee and community ownership of business.

Third, move some of our federal taxes more towards a VAT whereas it's much more difficult for people to avoid taxes, plus it tends to make domestic products more competitive against imports.

Fourth, tax imports at a higher rate from countries that manipulate their currency, such as China,

Fifth, encourage people to buy more locally made/grown products.

That's for starters.

They didn't gain all that money by avoiding taxes.

Picture a large pie enough to serve one hundred.
First man in line stuffs his pockets...his jacket....his shirt....juggles more on his head....
Second in line tries to do as much...

By the time number ten is up for grabs....most of it is gone.

It's first come first serve.

Have you heard how Roosevelt dealt with the disparity?
100% tax on anything over 25,000dollars.

Over the decades lobby work has reduced that method....almost to the beginning.....
when the first great depression took hold.

 

[metis]

They didn't gain all that money by avoiding taxes.

Picture a large pie enough to serve one hundred.
First man in line stuffs his pockets...his jacket....his shirt....juggles more on his head....
Second in line tries to do as much...

By the time number ten is up for grabs....most of it is gone.

It's first come first serve.

Have you heard how Roosevelt dealt with the disparity?
100% tax on anything over 25,000dollars.

Over the decades lobby work has reduced that method....almost to the beginning.....
when the first great depression took hold.

I didn't say nor imply that the wealthy made all their money by avoiding taxes, but what I am saying is that if Joe can avoid taxes, Sam will have to pay more in order to make up the difference. If not, then programs would have to be cut, which means someone else will pay.

An excellent book, although it's dated, covered that well, and it's called "America, What Went Wrong", written by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors. The above is the general theme of the book, namely someone else will pay for my tax breaks, one way or another.

 

[Thief]

I didn't say nor imply that the wealthy made all their money by avoiding taxes, but what I am saying is that if Joe can avoid taxes, Sam will have to pay more in order to make up the difference. If not, then programs would have to be cut, which means someone else will pay.

An excellent book, although it's dated, covered that well, and it's called "America, What Went Wrong", written by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors. The above is the general theme of the book, namely someone else will pay for my tax breaks, one way or another.

I know what went wrong....the law didn't step on double digit interest rates.

When I was soooooo much younger.....interest was simple.
Then it became compounded.
Then allowed to accumulate over many years.

A thirty year mortgage on a house of 50,000value.......ends up 150,000dolars paid.
money for nothing but time.

 

[Thief]

If you have programs getting people to work, that means you are adding to the pool of people paying taxes.

didn't work for social security....did it....

 

[metis]

I know what went wrong....the law didn't step on double digit interest rates.

When I was soooooo much younger.....interest was simple.
Then it became compounded.
Then allowed to accumulate over many years.

A thirty year mortgage on a house of 50,000value.......ends up 150,000dolars paid.
money for nothing but time.

I hear ya.

 

[Thief]

The 1981-1982 recession did occur during Reagan's reign, but it was a parting gift from Carter.
Things boomed under Reagan. I did pretty well under the boom after he took office.

The stock market rose to the 10,000 marker in less than ten years.
Historically it took forty years previous to cross the one thousand marker.
People were making lots of money.....at the top of the scale.
Insider trading?......were you?

 

[Thief]

When 401k took off.....my wife was given a pin number
and allowed to manage her account at will.
She made 20,000 in that year.

apparently a lot of other people were doing the same.
They took away the pin number..
Now you can move your interest on the quarter year only.

 

[Wirey]

"Of the array of non-reformist reforms Sanders could adopt as key planks, the one that probably makes the most sense is a job guarantee, whose historical advocates have ranged from Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King. Under this program, the federal government would act as the "employer of last resort"; it could hire the unemployed for its own national projects, funnel money to states and municipalities or let communities design their own projects and apply for funding.

Guaranteeing public sector employment to anyone who wants to sign up would accomplish a lot of the goals Sanders trumpets. It would reduce inequality by eliminating unemployment and its resultant poverty. It would magnify worker power by providing an exit from the job market, thereby setting minimum standards for all sorts for private sector employment. It would eliminate employment discrimination, long a central pillar of structural racism, erasing the chief cause of recidivism. It would allow communities that currently rely on prisons to close them without toppling the local economy, thereby enabling the type of mass decarceration Sanders would do well to advocate forcefully, the better to make up for his recent blunder at Netroots Nation. It would promote ecological sustainability by making full employment independent of the resource extraction sector, by paying for low-emissions employment like elder- and childcare and by providing resources for pollution-reducing infrastructure renovation. It would guarantee dignified pay and conditions for so-called "unskilled" labor typically performed by women: domestic work, childcare and nursing. It would end reliance on increasingly expensive higher education as a prerequisite for employment. It would practically establish a public option for health care, since those availing themselves of the program would receive normal benefits for a federal employee.

All these virtues, and the program would be fiscally sound on its own. It would grow the deficit permanently – an outcome Sanders has repeatedly, to his disgrace, maintained is undesirable – but never so far that inflation, the sole danger of too big a deficit, ensues: When the business cycle is down, the program would grow to bring us up to capacity, and when a boom threatens to inflate the economy, the program would automatically shrink. As long as the job guarantee wages are not competitive with the private sector, they should serve to anchor the general price level.

Nor is this some bizarre, far-fetched idea that would hike Sanders' already uncomfortably high degree of Seeming Kooky: even without inclusion on the agenda of any mainstream political actors, a job guarantee already polls at 47 percent.

Ironically, no one touts the merits of guaranteed public employment more vigorously than modern monetary theorists like Stephanie Kelton, the chief economist for the Democratic staff on the Sanders-chaired Senate Budget Committee. I took his hiring Kelton as a signal that Sanders was preparing to run for president on a job guarantee. So far, he has given no such indication, but there remain many excruciating months until the primaries; Sanders has plenty of time to earn more fully the label he says he's not afraid of.

Why Doesn't Bernie Sanders Run on a Truly Socialist Platform? | Rolling Stone

Whatdaya think? Maintain close to 0% unemployment when the markets fail to provide enough jobs?

Horrible idea. In theory it would be great, but think about the people who will gravitate towards such projects, and imagine the tax burden associated with providing for them. Unfortunately people are real scum.

 

[dust1n]

Welfare is welfare. Why make them work for it?

"Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[31][32]It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[29][31][33]"

Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia