Eliminating poverty.

[patriotvoice]

I don't profess to know "the" way, let alone "a" way. But, I've had some ideas that I've posted in several places that I wanted to share as their own thread. First, Naturyl recently posted a call for Guaranteed Minimum Income (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3817932), to which I responded with some general arguments against. In response to another thread (What the heck do you do if you're a single parent on minimum wage? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=230x3415), I elaborated more on one of my ideas presented first in Naturyl's thread. I present that idea, below. Your comments are appreciated.

We have been looking at this problem from the income side for over 40 years. Instead of looking at setting minimum incomes, I suggest we also look at setting maximum costs. In other words, there is:
* a maximum health care cost
* a maximum housing cost
* a maximum utilities cost
* a maximum grocery cost
* a tax on consumption (a VAT)
* a significant reduction in military spending

It begins with health care. Every single person pays a single monthly payment, based on age (younger pay more) and a health index (healthier pay more). Think of it as a "lifetime health savings plan" -- when you are young and able, you pay more for your own "rainy" days. This is collected at the federal level. The government oversees medical costs and pays the institutions the difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into a medical research fund; any shortfall is paid from federal VAT revenue.

It then moves to housing. Everyone who opts for a HUD managed apartment, loft, or home pays a maximum amount each month based on housing grade. Larger units cost more. Lower density units cost more. Small, high density units cost the least. The majority of the payment goes toward owner equity in the unit; the balance goes to administrative overhead. Should you move out (or die), the government sends you (or your estate) a cheque for the equity you have invested in your home, plus interest earned on your money. This is managed at the federal level. The government oversees housing costs (as they do now for Sec. 8) and pays the housing owners the difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into an housing improvement fund; any shortfall is paid from federal VAT revenue.

It then moves to utilities. Every single person pays a maximum monthly bill based on consumption tiers. Your consumption is measured and you are moved up or down in the tiers based on yearly consumption average. This is managed and collected at the state level. It is very similar to the current standard-rate utilities plan, where you pay a fixed amount each month regardless of your usage. The state government oversees utility costs (as they do now) and pays utility providers the difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into an infrastructure improvement fund; any shortfall is paid from state VAT revenue.

It then moves to groceries. Every one pays a maximum amount for each unit (pound, ounce, etc) of raw ingredients and necessities: bread, milk, eggs, fruits, vegetables. Prices are set and managed at the state level. The state government oversees food costs and pays stores the difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into infrastructure (roadway, railway) improvement and farm-subsidy funds; any shortfall is paid from state VAT revenue.

These four programs are mandatory. If there is a state or federal budget shortfall, these are cut last.

Now VAT. The basic idea is that the less "necessary" something is, the more you are taxed for it. Thus, raw ingredients (flour, sugar, etc) and necessities (bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, eggs) are not taxed. Bicycles and scooters are not taxed. School supplies are not taxed. Gasoline and fuel efficient vehicles are taxed moderately (4%). Electronics and gas guzzlers are taxed heavily (10%). Both state and federal will collect that percentage of tax: thus a Hummer H3 would have a 20% tax assessed (10% federal, 10% state).

Finally, the military. We cannot afford to continue operating bases in nearly every country in the world. Theaters of operations must be scaled back. Transfer soldiers from foreign posts to state-side active duty in the National or Coast Guard. Rollback DARPA budget 20%. Force defense contractors to operate within a nominal range of officer to employee pay grade (say 30:1), and force all net profit derived from government contracts be paid back to the federal government (eg, if 70% of the gross receipts derive from Uncle Same, then 70% of net profits must be paid back to Uncle Sam).

[Da Fusa]

1. self delete

[patriotvoice]

3. Health care: yes. Utilities no.

that is absolutely the most stupid idea I think I've ever heard
seriously, the people who use health care and utilities least get to pay the most?

When you are healthy, you better be saving up your cash for when you are sick. Because you will be. Since this isn't a "savings" plan, you credit into the system when you can, and debit when you cannot.

The more utilities you consume, the higher you move in the consumption tiers. The higher the tier, the more the monthly payment. Families and energy wasters will pay the most. Singles and energy savers will pay the least.

[bobbolink]

9. You sound exactly like the ones who blamed the poor folk of NOLA for being stuck there.

I suggest you give some serious thought to where your heart and soul are.

[mntleo2]

14. Consumption amount is not always avoidable

...yes you can wear sweaters in the winter, and walk, take the bus etc., but our homes have been built in the last 30 years without any thought to how "energy efficient" they could be, the bus services in many cities don't run when most McJobs are (early AMs and late PMs), YOU try to ride a bike with two toddlers, or cook in a fireplace instead of using the stove and oven because the food you have is ALL you have and you have to feed those kids as cheaply as possible. Try washing your clothes in the bath tub and then try to hang it out where the lease agreement specifically says not to hang anything on the balcony because the cost of using a laundramat is not only expensive, but hauling 5 loads on the bus there with three kids in tow,is *not* easy. Oh and because housing is so expensive you simply don't have any space to hang it inside either, since all you can afford is the smallest place ewithin your price range.

I have done all the above. Now I am 57, older than my years, and disabled thanks to the stress and extra work it took to do all those extra chores as well as work those low paying full time McJobs that barely pay the rent.

Our country is energy dependent now. We have to have oil to get anywhere efficiently and within the time limits we have. We can no longer do without electricity, we can't just go into the forest to live if we lose our homes, and we can't always sleep with a freezing baby to keep him warm, when we have survival things to do. Even ecological housing and living is actually MORE expensive than trying to live in the "traditional" ways we have right now. Our housing is set up in such a way that commuting by vehicle is almost a necessity with a family. Apartment living makes it very difficult to grow your own food. Cooking is almost impossible to do without some kind of purchased energy.

I blamed myself for all this until a friend from Somalia explained to me the shock she got when she immigrated here. She explained how poverty is actually worse here because of the energy dependence America has: in Somalia and Ethiopia if you had no home you could "just go into the forest" where indigenous people had lived for eons and who would teach survival. Here if anyone, even our Native Americans tried to do that now, they would be arrested. Cooking over an open fiore is verboten here, and what rivers do we have to wash clothes that aren't so polluted you would make your family sick or so far away to walk there is impossible.

Furthermore, did you know about the apartment and landlord's new thing of charging for water, etc? It is where they take a collective average of a water bill from all the tenants, and then charge their tenants (which if it is not paid is one thing that could put a lien on their property, and why many landlords paid the bill and figured that into the rent)? It is the way things began with privatized water in South American countries and Africa that now make it so some rich guy even owns the rain water that comes down! This means if the neighbor above is washing dogs for a living and using water excessively, you had no way to control that.

The reason something is called a "utility" is because it IS a utility: definition according to Websters: /yuˈtɪlɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA noun, plural -ties, adjective; definition: a business enterprise, as a public-service corporation, performing an essential public service and regulated by the federal, state, or local government (emphasis mine).

Hope this helps you understand that, until renewable energy is cheaper than the way it is now, and that it is a controllable part of affordable housing and transportation (perhaps as well as at work), we are doomed to depend on what we have and it should be controlled and subsidized as it is a necessity to American survival ...

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

2. Uh, they did this in the Soviet Union

Or maybe you weren't aware. It doesn't work.

[patriotvoice]

4. Not quite.

While a similar approach was taken, the Soviets spent enormously on the Cold War. I am very well aware that these ideas won't work unless military spending scales significantly back.

[angryfirelord]

5. Re:

It's a very interesting idea, but keep in mind that the US is considered conservative compared to the rest of the world. We have not yet implemented a system similar to the Scandinavian countries, nor have we the proper system to do it (however, your system would work under something like Council Communism). But, there are ways to achieving that:

-First, we must begin the expansion and better funding of public services such as health care. This will allow the public to warm up to the idea of more public services.
-Then, we need to implement some form of Direct Democracy. Our politicians have shown their corrupt ways, so we need to implement some form of Councils instead. The Councils (made up of everyday people) would be responsible for making the laws and determining the tax code. The Federal Government would be reduced to a regulator instead of a legislator.

So overall, with some more economic research, I'm sure this plan can become more solid. The only thing I would object to taxing under the VAT would be computers. If we want democracy to spread, we need to allow people to gain access to the internet as cheaply as possible. However, other things like iPods can still be included under the 10%. Basically, the luxury items would incur the highest percentage because those people can afford to give more.

[patriotvoice]

6. Agreed, in the majority.

The US certainly seems unready to accept public services on a large scale. As mentioned in Naturyl's thread (referenced in the OP), we are skeptical of, and loathe to implement, a "something for nothing" system; it seems antithetical to our "ruggedly independent" way of life. Also, I believe, people (myself included) are suspicious of government and worry that government growing too large will become inefficient and corrupt.

A shift of collective mind must occur before these systems can take hold. I believe these proposals are more palatable than other competing proposals, so I think the needed shift could come more easily. That is, instead of the government telling businesses the minimum they could give the citizens, government tells businesses the maximum they can take from citizens. Certainly it means more government involvement in the necessities, but it assures we citizens that our most basic requirements -- the lowest levels of Maslow's hierarchy, if you will -- will be met fairly. Balancing the role between the Federal and state governments assures that no entity grows too large while also keeping the system focused on the areas it is most suited to address.

I also agree about computers and VAT: I was thinking, but did not explicitly state, that computers are "school supplies." For example, North Carolina has a sales tax holiday in August for "school supplies": computers are included on that list. So, to clarify: desktop and laptop computers and peripherals (regardless of whether for personal or business use) are exempt from VAT. Electronics, with the exception of hand-held calculators, are subject to VAT.

As for direct democracy, I do not agree it's necessary for this proposal. I believe our democratic republic is sufficiently flexible to provide good economic solutions to hard economic problems, solutions that protect citizens without choking free enterprise.

[angryfirelord]

8. Re:

I agree. I used to be a Republican in that I believed that minimal government involvement would lead to a more prosperous economy. I read the works of David Friedman and Ron Paul, believing that a very small government overall and letting the corporations create jobs would make this economy more prosperous. However, after watching The War on Democracy, my view on politics completely changed. I still support a decentralized government, but the government needs to be much more involved in the economic sector. I'm now much more grateful for the public school system and my college, which gets to knock off 30% of tuition costs from taxpayer money.

I also agree on a maximum wage. The usual economic argument against a minimum wage is that if you increase it, companies will be forced to pay more and lay off more people, which is understandable. However, putting on a maximum wage means CEOs can't make $50 million a year while trying to cut on labor costs. Capping the largest wages would insure that there would be more money in the company to pay for a living wage.

As for the mindset, I feel the only way it's going to change is if people's lifestyles are radically changed. One reason why socialism is becoming so much more popular in the Latin American countries is because American Imperialism by the likes of Milton Friedman & the Reagan/Bush administrations have put many people into the streets of poverty over there. This is why I'm critical of our current democratic system: It puts millionaires into office. That's why I'm warming up to the idea of Councils; they would allow average citizens to run for political office rather than the usual money race. Of course, I could be generalizing. :)

[Imperfect World]

19. A maximum wage?

Let's say that the accountant of a professional baseball team determines that if they hire player X to be on their team, it will increase their advertising revenues by $100 million. What's wrong with the team offering player X 10% of that $100 million, i.e., $10 million, to persuade player X to join their team?

Here's another example. A person writes a book, and gets $3 for every copy that gets sold. The book sells 10 million copies. What's wrong with the writer getting $30 million?

Here's another example: A person invents a home improvement tool that reduces the amount of time that is required to do a certain home improvement task from 11 hours to one hour, and they get paid $10 for every one of the tools that is sold. In other words, each buyer of the tool pays the inventor $10 to save ten hours of their time. A million people buy the tool, and each of them gives the inventor $10 in exchange for saving 10 hours of their time. What's wrong with the inventor getting $100 million, in exchange for saving people 100 million hours of their time?

Here's another example: Let's say that a really smart high school senior is deciding to be either a truck driver (because he likes travelling) or a brain surgeon (because he likes helping people). The truck driving job pays $25 an hour, while the brain surgeon job pays $1,000 an hour. So he decides to be a brain surgeon. But then the government sets a maximum wage of $50 an hour, and so this brilliant student decides that putting in over a decade of his life into college, medical school, internship, etc., is not worth such a low wage, so he decides not to become a brain surgeon - he'll be a truck driver instead. How does that help the people who need brain surgery?

[bobbolink]

10. "(myself included) are suspicious of government "

We homeless people thank you libertarians for keeping us without a roof.

Really, we do thank you.

Cuz we know that you are working day and night to make sure we are housed without the effort of government.

[Naturyl]

11. Good response, bobbolink.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this - and I'm still not, except to say that your response is in precisely the right tone.

[patriotvoice]

13. My first reaction was frustration. So I stepped away for nearly a year and reflected.

I believe every human deserves sound shelter, quality food, appropriate health care, rewarding employment, and unfettered access to sources of learning. I do not believe the government is solely responsible for this common welfare; I believe it is also the responsibility of every citizen to provide for it through taxes or hands on experience. That means, for example, building or renovating houses; providing or preparing meals; serving as a medic or business owner; staffing a library.

I am a libertarian, only because I am not an authoritarian. I simultaneously believe everyone should have the freedom to guide their life as they see fit, while also believing that the citizenry and governments' responsibility is to provide fundamental services to those who ask for them. I specifically believe that a citizenry detached from the spending of its government is detached from the problems that government is trying to solve.

I do believe that any solution to this most heinous problem provides an opportunity for abuse. But, I do not believe that people are naturally abusive. I believe that, given the opportunity, most people want to be active: the question is simply in what way do they want to be active and how can we value that activity. Sometimes the value is monetary. Sometimes the value is cultural, as in providing art or raising healthy children.

I recognize that my solution isn't perfect, or a "be all end all" strategy. I had hoped there would be critical response to my post, ideas that would make it better by illuminating flaws, entertaining new ideas, and encouraging discussion. Some posters did respond with such critique. But others chose to lambast me personally. I decided then this forum wasn't right for me, that my efforts were, in fact, better spent in the real world.

There are a lot of smart people here, thinking critically about the problem. There are some here who live the problem daily. There are some here who work to ameliorate it. I hope we all see that commenting without moving us one step closer to a solution is just time wasted. And, I think we don't need to be wasting any more time -- I think we've spent enough time with this problem. It's time to fix it.

[mntleo2]

15. LOL Bobbolink! So true!

...have you ever noticed that Libertarians are almost all single white men who make a livable wage BECAUSE they are single white men? I am *not* counting homeless men here, but white men who don't have a clue ...I'm just sayin' ...

Every time I point that out to someone they stop, think about it, and then they realize they do not know anyone either who is a libertarian who isn't a single white male with a livable wage and/or a nice inheritance, who actually believe they got it because they were "more qualified." LOL! LOL!

For all those single white men who will take this as being directed at THEM: Forget calling me a racist or sexist. I am white and female. So don't think I am somehow against ALL white men when a white person can never be racist nor a woman be sexist (because racism and sexism is an institutionalized system that favors a certain type of person, in our case, white men).

If you call me prejudiced, well then you got me, but I would say I am prejudiced for a good reason as bobbolink points out ...tho some of the people I love are white males making a livable wage. But most of them are not Libertarians. Because the ones who aren't Libertarians are fathers, husbands, caregivers, and realistically know that the Commons is something that everyone uses and that the Commons could never be individually afforded except by ...well ...rich white men, lol. These non-Libertarian white men actually do other things than simply think of themselves, while most Libertarians unfortunately cannot think beyond their penises.

The biggest difference between Libertarians and Republicans is Libertarians are people who want to get high and get laid ...

LOL!

Cat In Seattle

[patriotvoice]

7. BTW, Welcome to DU! EOM

[Imperfect World]

18. What makes you think the Scandanavian countries...

... set price caps on food?

The Scandanavian countries have higher taxes and more spending on social welfare programs than us. But their system of food production is no different than ours. They don't have price caps on food.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

12. Why don't we do what Sweden does?

Just give everyone a housing subsidy so that everyone has an easier time affording it. Of course there are no free lunches...but if you do it just right, you can effectively help ease the burden on the bottom 75 percent of income earners since only the relatively affluent will pay more in taxes than they get back in subsidies.

But due to our general aversion to really high tax rates, and since this thread is about the poor and not the true middle class, we could just offer graduated subsidies to the poor much like we do now through Section 8, only expand the program, make the subsidies more generous and broaden eligibility. Same goes for expanding food stamps - make them more generous, cover more people, and eliminate some of the red tape involved in applying for them and renewing them. We could take the program a step further by either fattening up the earned income tax credit or switching to a system of scaled hourly wage supplements - so that the people who get the most assistance are the ones working the longest hours at the lowest wages.

In addition, we need to take a more aggressive approach to geographical inequality of opportunity. Provide work relief programs to depressed inner cities and impoverished communities. This will help people acquire work skills where few are available, while at the same time putting purchasing power back into the local economy, both of which will help rebuild the economy. Add universal health care, and unionize Wal-Mart, and you've got yourself a society with drastically less poverty!

All of this will require more taxes. Waging peace, eliminating corporate welfare and ending marijuana prohibition will not be enough to cover the difference; some tax increases will be necessary. The goal should be to aim most of them at the upper 10 percent of income earners, while the remainder of the tax burden will be structured in such a way as to accomplish other incentive-based policies.

[cutlassmama]

23. This would take care of the homeless problem. Good idea.

[jcarterhero]

16. you have some great ideas

not sure if it'll work here, though.

[Imperfect World]

17. Price controls on food?

Real world experience in many different countries all over the world over thousands of years of history shows that price caps on food always causes shortages.

Price caps on food might sound like a good idea, but only if you ignore the effect that is has on farmers and food production.

We have a system of food stamps that works very well, and unlike price controls, it rewards farmers, instead of punishing them.

[ffellini7080]

20. The first step would be to introduce universal health care

After all, every other western nation has done so.

[DeadEyeDyck]

21. follow the money

anything that exists is serving somebody. it is the law of utility. If we have a poor class, someone is benefitting. Therein lies your answer.

[cutlassmama]

24. leads to the IMF and Goldman Sachs

[BlueInMass]

25. Poverty is an enormous problem...

but I don't think the best solution is to change our system of government or create government programs that give people handouts.

This country was built on people wanting to better themselves and their communities. I think we should encourage that by shifting government spending. For example, I think that the idea about cutting many of the overseas bases we have is a good one. Take that money and pour it into education and job training.

The old expression is that if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. If we work to develop more fishermen instead of keeping people dependant for their fish, this country will be much better off.

Alternative education, job training, and an investment in small business is the formula needed to eliminate poverty.

I realize this sounds a bit right wing, but as long as we think Capitalism works, this is the best way. Whether or not Capitalism works is another argument entirely.

[bobbolink]

27. Oh, very good. So, those of us who can't work should just hurl ourselves off a cliff, so as not to

disturb all of you good Capitalists?

[HudsonValley]

28. poverty-capitalism

Having real conversations, real dialogues, real discussions in the public square concerning poverty are long-overdue. Those begin by honestly examining what we mean when we refer to "capitalism" and "poverty" and "job training", etc. Although it deserves more than a brief post such as this, I would say that we are not engaged in capitalism in most of the West. Further, that our notions of poverty and people-in-poverty are pretty sketchy and often blurred by misinformation. Perhaps we should take one step back; Perhaps we cannot assume that "capitalism works" any longer. Personally, it's clear to me that we are facing a problem of "structural poverty" -- something arising from a broken capitalism that has lost all moorings to ethical grounding. i.e., a poverty that can only be resolved by ideas/action arising outside the current paradigm. If we "think inside the box, " we will simply continue to stall in half-steps and bring about only temporary and partial relief. We are all in this together and we need to start thinking in evolutionary terms because our current approach is clearly not working. IMHO.

[uppityperson.]

26. k/r