Anyone with a fairly decent income would use well above the minimal basic needs level in each category. As for Warren Buffett, the entitlement would constitute about the same portion of his income as a stick of gum constitutes of mine.
Are there any indicators that this information is going out?
Yes. To find the indicator, open your web browser. In the address bar, enter "wireshark.org". Press enter. Find your way to the download, and download the appropriate installer. Run the installer. Run the application. Learn how to use it.
Oh, wait... you meant indicators in the OS? Ha. Right. What makes you think they would exist? It's kind of silly to expect there to be indicators showing for these particular things. If everyone got indicators for every little thing they wanted, then the whole screen would be nothing but indicators. This is why third-party programs exist... and development tools galore if you can't find an application that behaves to your exact specification.
You proposed to use it as a stick to drive people to get a job. That would be what if not punitive?
Your dictionary must be broken, because that isn't at all the definition of "punitive".
Otherwise, all restrictions would be considered punitive. Are employer benefits punitive? What about driving (which has speed limits and other restrictions)? Clothes (nudity isn't allowed)? Tours of the White House (they won't let you act as President)? Going to your favorite restaurant (they require payment in exchange for food and service)?
If they end up on the streets, we would know they have the means not to be there (because every citizen would have those means) so it must be something else. If their kids are deprived, inability to do better would no longer be an excuse because we would know they have the ability to provide at least adequately.
And you would need some way to measure that their kids are deprived. Then you need a way to police the matter. Then how are you going to force them to do it right, by throwing them in jail because they spent their money wrong? You called me blind, but you appear to be the one who can't see how this creates a ton of extra overhead.
It may even be that the person has some sort of long-term disability that requires a form of guardianship to make sure their money is properly allocated (and for that matter that the allocated money is actually spent). The difference is that I prefer to treat people as mentally competent until they prove otherwise.
The difference is that I recognize this for what it is: a program that benefits society. If there is no guarantees that society will benefit in the ways I've described, then society will not back the program.
You still haven't answered my question: have you ever heard of the phrase, "Beggars can't be choosers"?
but here you suggest that the restrictions are supposed to have a punitive element
Here you go making things up again. I never said it was punitive in any way.
This is FREE for the citizen. No strings attached. He gets money for food, money for housing, money for all kinds of basic needs. FREE. Why do you insist on twisting things around to make it look like some kind of punishment?
Ever heard of the phrase, "Beggars can't be choosers"?
In my system, the stimulus for going to work is an employer offering a fair market payment for work and the natural human desire to better our own situation. Overhead and potential for political manipulation are kept low by keeping the rules extremely simple. Every citizen gets a card and every card gets the allotted monthly credit, adequate for a decent if minimalist life. Done.
That's nice in theory. In reality, not all people will spend their entitlement on the things that society is funding. According to you, these people have mental health issues that "must be addressed", so you need to add the overhead of measuring how everyone uses their allotment and policing those who do not use it as designed. That's quite a bit more overhead than my plan would have.
If you don't believe that, why don't you believe they'll spend an appropriate amount of money to support their kids?
My company entrusts me with a lot of responsibility, yet does not provide me the option to cash out my benefits package. It's nothing about treating people "like children". It never has been. I keep saying that and you keep ignoring me when I say that. It's about society paying into a system in order to achieve specific goals.
Trust of each individual is not a factor... if it were, it would require increased overhead to determine those who are trustworthy and those who are not, and to tailor the program to each individual case. Is that what you want? More overhead?
And you glossed over the telling fact that you yourself suggested that the disabled should be an exception as if you see some virtue there you do not see in the working poor.
I said "which are special cases and perhaps should be handled differently". As in, I don't know and I haven't thought it through. But I wasn't saying that they should not have restrictions... I was more leaning toward providing them with an additional unrestricted cash fund, simply because the incentive to work created by keeping entitlements on the low side and restricted would not make a difference for those people.
But again, I don't know, it's a worthy issue to discuss but it's not the central matter. In fact, providing that fund for those who cannot work would be a separate matter altogether... they would still receive the same restricted entitlements that everyone else would receive.
I think they can't budget properly because they have little choice but to deal with the welfare system where working more hours or getting a raise can leave you with less money and actually saving money in a bank like a normal person can leave you destitute.
Perhaps, and of course one of the points of this system is to get rid of the one you are talking about.
That is true mostly because of people piling on rules they claimed were meant to make sure the welfare money was being spent properly.
No... it's because the current system fundamentally does not provide for all basic needs on a permanent basis. Getting a job today means you lose entitlement benefits. That would not be the same under my system.
Yes, I have. My last post explained it clearly: Society does not pay the cash equivalent, because it would not receive assurance that the money it is investing is being used toward these goals.
Is it because poor people lack a soul and don't love their children, even if they work hard?
No. I never said that. You are the one that keeps making that shit up... not me.
For the rest, I would submit that if a person is receiving sufficient and regular money to have food, clothing, and shelter and somehow ends up homeless, starving, or naked, he has a mental health issue that must be addressed and that no amount of rules and red tape will paper over it adequately.
You think that all poor people who can't budget properly have mental health issues? Many were simply not raised to understand the concept of putting needs before wants, and some are addicted to spending.
You still haven't answered my question, why do you insist on treating grown ass adults like children by telling them what they may and may not spend their money on?
Because this:
their money
isn't true.
It's not "theirs". It's society's money, and society would use this program to provide for specific needs in order to keep people off the streets, and to provide incentive (in the form of a safety net) for people to choose riskier-yet-more-rewarding business. These things are in society's best interest.
Compare this to your employer's benefits package. Often you see something like this in the benefits section of the policy manual:
Employee benefits are designed to help and protect the employee but they are also to help and protect the company. Therefore, these benefits are always over and above the base salary and can never be considered part of the cash remuneration paid by the employer. An employee cannot take the cash equivalent in the place of any benefit.
An employer might provide tuition reimbursement in order to increase the skill level of its employees. That helps the company as well as the individual. But, the individual can't expect to receive the monetary value of that program because the employer doesn't receive the benefit if it's not used for tuition expenses.
The same goes for society investing in entitlements. The entitlement is for the benefit of both society and the citizen. Society wants to ensure that children are taken care of, so it provides a benefit in the form of paid child care. It wants to ensure that people aren't living in boxes in the alley way, so it provides a benefit in the form of paid housing. Society does not pay the cash equivalent, because it would not receive assurance that the money it is investing is being used toward these goals.
Most people who do not work today live off of savings (traditional savings, retirement savings, whatever). If someone wants to spend $1000 on expensive food this month, then he funds that entire amount out of his savings.
In my system, he would still have that savings account. He could still use that money however he wants. But additionally, he would have the basic needs income. If his card allocates $474 for food but he wants to eat for $1000, then his savings account is just on the hook for $526.
How is my plan worse? He gets to save an additional $474 for whatever purpose in the world he wants. He can't do that today.
As for people today who don't live off of savings, but live off of government assistance, the amount of government assistance they get today is far less than what my program would be providing. And most government assistance programs today are temporary; this would be permanent.
What is this obsession with controlling others?
It's not controlling others. It's providing needs.
And it's an incentive to work. So tell me, what is your obsession with not providing the incentives needed to get people to work and therefore make their contributions to society?
Under this program, there would be no more need for the minimum wage. The job market would open up with lots of lower-wage jobs, which would be fine since the basic income already provides the equivalent of what you get from minimum wage. So any money you make from your job is just money on top of that.
So, the only reason you would not have a job is because you don't want one. Or, because you cannot hold a job due to disability or similar circumstance (which are special cases and perhaps should be handled differently).
Much of the overhead you are talking about already exists. When you swipe your EBT at the grocery store, your SNAP account will only pay for the food items that are allowed by the SNAP program.
What happens if I don't use all of the dairy slot this month?
I never suggested subdividing types of food. Obviously you could take it to extremes, like specifying the precise number of molecules of sugar that one is allowed to take at 6:00 PM on Sunday based on constantly monitoring blood glucose levels... and none of that would be relevant to my suggestion.
Do I, in fact have 6 or seven seperate cards with different cumulative balances on them so I can roll it over?
With today's EBT cards, a single card can access multiple accounts like SNAP and TANF. Same would apply with my suggestion. When your landlord swipes it, it charges the Housing account. When the bus driver swipes it, it charges the Transportation account.
I honestly don't see how it would "double of triple the overhead of the program". The card would be the same EBT card that is in use today, just widely expanded in use (it covers more needs, and everyone including rich people would be using it first). That would be the same even if it were unrestricted.
The only overhead my version adds is funding the time for the group of people who decide how much to fund toward each need type... quite negligible in the grand scheme of things.
But my question is valid, why assume that people who are unemployed are somehow incapable of managing finances
Nothing about this program assumes unemployment. It is provided the same to all.
Regardless, the point of the program is to provide for specific types of basic needs. If there is no way to ensure that the funds are being used for those purposes, then it fails to achieve its goals.
And anecdotally, I've spoken with people before who say that it they just can't get out of the poor cycle. They prioritize buying things they want over things they need, because that's how they were raised. It's obvious that they should do the reverse, even to them. But to them, it's a habit that's very difficult to break, like smoking or overeating.
So, no, not everyone knows how to manage their personal finances and many even know that they can't do it.
(and unworthy of respect)
You said that, not me. I disagree with that remark.
You yourself said you would not enjoy getting a limited use debit card, and here you are advocating for it.
I thought it was obvious in the context, I would not enjoy ONLY getting that card.
But I would enjoy, even less, having to live in a cardboard box hoping for a handout. So yes, I advocate for the entitlement card even though I hopefully never need to solely depend on it.
I'm guessing you lean to the right. Funny how the right is all for the goventment keeping it's nose out of people's business unless it involved entitlements of reproduction and suddenly it's super nanny to the rescue!
You need to get educated on this topic. Government-provided entitlements funded by taxes on the wealthy are pushed by the left, not the right. People who "lean to the right" advocate for little or no entitlements at all. I am here proposing a much more liberal system than we have today, and get called a right-leaner?
That means you are advocating for your own insult and belittlement.
And every single citizen will be rightly insulted if their home finances are micro-managed.
I don't understand where you are getting this from. My plan is simple: you get a card that has allowance accounts for each type of need:
- Food Allowance: $474 - Housing Allowance: $479 - Child Care Allowance: $712 - Transportation Allowance: $452 - etc.
So I can use that $479 for a very basic homestead and utilities, or I can work and add $1500 to it from my pocket to make the total $1979 (getting me a much nicer living arrangement).
The government is certainly not micromanaging the funds you earn. I could have kept the crappy apartment and chosen to eat lobster every day instead. The government only restricts the funds that are part of the entitlement.
Will you enjoy getting a restricted use debit card?
No. That's why I would be looking for a job.
What if you are trying to teach your child about budgeting and saving?
I would prefer to teach them that working for their money provides the freedom to do with their money as they please, and living off someone else's hard work comes with restrictions.
I already mentioned the restricted debit card. Someone would not be able to purchase a manicure with money that is restricted to food expenses.
Another commenter presented an alternative that does not deal so much with money, but with providing needs more directly.
There may be other alternatives as well, or hybrids.
If not, we'll just have to accept that some people do behave better than others.
Frankly, I don't care how someone behaves with entitlement money so long as children are being provided for as the plan designs, so long as they don't use those funds to hurt others, and so long as it doesn't cause the government to invest even more money due to mismanagement.
Let's take two parents who cannot find a job, whose only income is the unrestricted plan that you are in favor of:
- Parent A feeds her kids wholesome meals, as the plan was designed. - Parent B feeds her kids cheap snack foods, and uses the leftover money to buy an expensive manicure.
It's quite realistic that neither parent would get flagged for child abuse. But obviously, parent B is not abiding by the intent of the program.
Perhaps the aim should be at nations that kill, torture, or exile people for these so-called crimes which are non-violent and personal, posing no threat or aggression toward anyone else.
It appears that the only one here who does is you.
The first comment on this thread clearly spoke about unfulfilled promises of presidential candidates, and the reply presented dialogue about a current presidential candidate making a promise that he is very unlikely to be able to keep (at least, without significant help from other elected officials).
If you have a problem with how on-topic this discussion is, you should be criticizing the first comment... not the response to it.
In the extreme cases, that might work. But what about those cases where the parent doesn't spend all of the child's funds on the child? It might not be enough to call "child abuse", but we should not be encouraging people to have more kids just so they get more government benefits they can use in any way they want.
Sure, and most such systems eventually decide that banding together for the mutual protection and common good is better than warring with your neighbors and always being afraid that they will conquer you. A family becomes community, a community becomes a tribe, a tribe becomes a state, and a state becomes larger and larger. This continues to happen until the state cannot grow any more, or until the group is conquered or falls apart from the inside.
But that screen is also a convenient place to look for whatever information is being displayed.
How quickly you can view this information depends on where it is located and how many/what type of interactions are necessary to bring it up.
Your phone is the perfect device for getting a weather alert when it is already in your hands, unlocked, and open to the app that contains the information. It's not so great if you're driving so you have to reach past a seat belt to dig in your pocket to get it out, and if you don't drop it, then you have to unlock it by typing in a password, and if you still haven't managed to drive into a ditch then you have to open the app and glance down.
A wearable wrist device can show you that alert at a single glance... or at worst, a slight movement of the wrist to tilt the corresponding information into view.
According to the sheer number of knock-off games that developers have created, evidently it isn't common sense. Otherwise they wouldn't waste so much time creating something that would do well to make its investment back.
For me, I think the following factors determine which games I decide to try: - Is it interesting enough to grab my attention? - Is it fun and challenging enough to keep my attention? - Does it adequately reward me (somehow) for the progress I make? Even if that "somehow" is knowing I completed a worthy challenge. - (If multiplayer) How many of my friends currently play?
For that last one, the "currently" is important. I used to play Halo all the time, but after Destiny released and the MCC debacle, my friends don't play Halo any more so I rarely play either.
Really, I think that's all. It doesn't have to be something like the other games I play (on the contrary, I find playing games that are too similar to my favorites to be wasteful). It doesn't have to be super popular, or even polished... I've put tons of time into Kerbal Space Program and several of its beta versions (heck, even its release) were not nearly as polished as some games that I played once and never looked back.
I agree with all of what you wrote. But I'd like to expand on this point:
Law is an inherently reactive, not proactive, thing.
Actually, many laws are both reactive and proactive. A murderer is thrown in prison because of what he did in the past (reactive), but the primary purpose is to keep him from performing similar crimes in the future (proactive). Our criminal justice system is built less around vengeance and more around deterrence.
But, to your point, punishment (in the sense of jail/prison, fines, or labor) is never completely proactive. The closest we see is when a person is detained for a short time in order to determine if they were involved in criminal activity.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone with a fairly decent income would use well above the minimal basic needs level in each category. As for Warren Buffett, the entitlement would constitute about the same portion of his income as a stick of gum constitutes of mine.
Are there any indicators that this information is going out?
Yes. To find the indicator, open your web browser. In the address bar, enter "wireshark.org". Press enter. Find your way to the download, and download the appropriate installer. Run the installer. Run the application. Learn how to use it.
Oh, wait... you meant indicators in the OS? Ha. Right. What makes you think they would exist? It's kind of silly to expect there to be indicators showing for these particular things. If everyone got indicators for every little thing they wanted, then the whole screen would be nothing but indicators. This is why third-party programs exist... and development tools galore if you can't find an application that behaves to your exact specification.
You proposed to use it as a stick to drive people to get a job. That would be what if not punitive?
Your dictionary must be broken, because that isn't at all the definition of "punitive".
Otherwise, all restrictions would be considered punitive. Are employer benefits punitive? What about driving (which has speed limits and other restrictions)? Clothes (nudity isn't allowed)? Tours of the White House (they won't let you act as President)? Going to your favorite restaurant (they require payment in exchange for food and service)?
If they end up on the streets, we would know they have the means not to be there (because every citizen would have those means) so it must be something else. If their kids are deprived, inability to do better would no longer be an excuse because we would know they have the ability to provide at least adequately.
And you would need some way to measure that their kids are deprived. Then you need a way to police the matter. Then how are you going to force them to do it right, by throwing them in jail because they spent their money wrong? You called me blind, but you appear to be the one who can't see how this creates a ton of extra overhead.
It may even be that the person has some sort of long-term disability that requires a form of guardianship to make sure their money is properly allocated (and for that matter that the allocated money is actually spent). The difference is that I prefer to treat people as mentally competent until they prove otherwise.
The difference is that I recognize this for what it is: a program that benefits society. If there is no guarantees that society will benefit in the ways I've described, then society will not back the program.
You still haven't answered my question: have you ever heard of the phrase, "Beggars can't be choosers"?
but here you suggest that the restrictions are supposed to have a punitive element
Here you go making things up again. I never said it was punitive in any way.
This is FREE for the citizen. No strings attached. He gets money for food, money for housing, money for all kinds of basic needs. FREE. Why do you insist on twisting things around to make it look like some kind of punishment?
Ever heard of the phrase, "Beggars can't be choosers"?
In my system, the stimulus for going to work is an employer offering a fair market payment for work and the natural human desire to better our own situation. Overhead and potential for political manipulation are kept low by keeping the rules extremely simple. Every citizen gets a card and every card gets the allotted monthly credit, adequate for a decent if minimalist life. Done.
That's nice in theory. In reality, not all people will spend their entitlement on the things that society is funding. According to you, these people have mental health issues that "must be addressed", so you need to add the overhead of measuring how everyone uses their allotment and policing those who do not use it as designed. That's quite a bit more overhead than my plan would have.
Absolutely. It couldn't possibly be that they just want to use dirtier systems due to their lower costs. No... it's poor minorities.
If you don't believe that, why don't you believe they'll spend an appropriate amount of money to support their kids?
My company entrusts me with a lot of responsibility, yet does not provide me the option to cash out my benefits package. It's nothing about treating people "like children". It never has been. I keep saying that and you keep ignoring me when I say that. It's about society paying into a system in order to achieve specific goals.
Trust of each individual is not a factor... if it were, it would require increased overhead to determine those who are trustworthy and those who are not, and to tailor the program to each individual case. Is that what you want? More overhead?
And you glossed over the telling fact that you yourself suggested that the disabled should be an exception as if you see some virtue there you do not see in the working poor.
I said "which are special cases and perhaps should be handled differently". As in, I don't know and I haven't thought it through. But I wasn't saying that they should not have restrictions... I was more leaning toward providing them with an additional unrestricted cash fund, simply because the incentive to work created by keeping entitlements on the low side and restricted would not make a difference for those people.
But again, I don't know, it's a worthy issue to discuss but it's not the central matter. In fact, providing that fund for those who cannot work would be a separate matter altogether... they would still receive the same restricted entitlements that everyone else would receive.
I think they can't budget properly because they have little choice but to deal with the welfare system where working more hours or getting a raise can leave you with less money and actually saving money in a bank like a normal person can leave you destitute.
Perhaps, and of course one of the points of this system is to get rid of the one you are talking about.
That is true mostly because of people piling on rules they claimed were meant to make sure the welfare money was being spent properly.
No... it's because the current system fundamentally does not provide for all basic needs on a permanent basis. Getting a job today means you lose entitlement benefits. That would not be the same under my system.
You still haven't explained the necessity.
Yes, I have. My last post explained it clearly: Society does not pay the cash equivalent, because it would not receive assurance that the money it is investing is being used toward these goals.
Is it because poor people lack a soul and don't love their children, even if they work hard?
No. I never said that. You are the one that keeps making that shit up... not me.
For the rest, I would submit that if a person is receiving sufficient and regular money to have food, clothing, and shelter and somehow ends up homeless, starving, or naked, he has a mental health issue that must be addressed and that no amount of rules and red tape will paper over it adequately.
You think that all poor people who can't budget properly have mental health issues? Many were simply not raised to understand the concept of putting needs before wants, and some are addicted to spending.
You still haven't answered my question, why do you insist on treating grown ass adults like children by telling them what they may and may not spend their money on?
Because this:
their money
isn't true.
It's not "theirs". It's society's money, and society would use this program to provide for specific needs in order to keep people off the streets, and to provide incentive (in the form of a safety net) for people to choose riskier-yet-more-rewarding business. These things are in society's best interest.
Compare this to your employer's benefits package. Often you see something like this in the benefits section of the policy manual:
Employee benefits are designed to help and protect the employee but they are also to help and protect the company. Therefore, these benefits are always over and above the base salary and can never be considered part of the cash remuneration paid by the employer. An employee cannot take the cash equivalent in the place of any benefit.
An employer might provide tuition reimbursement in order to increase the skill level of its employees. That helps the company as well as the individual. But, the individual can't expect to receive the monetary value of that program because the employer doesn't receive the benefit if it's not used for tuition expenses.
The same goes for society investing in entitlements. The entitlement is for the benefit of both society and the citizen. Society wants to ensure that children are taken care of, so it provides a benefit in the form of paid child care. It wants to ensure that people aren't living in boxes in the alley way, so it provides a benefit in the form of paid housing. Society does not pay the cash equivalent, because it would not receive assurance that the money it is investing is being used toward these goals.
Most people who do not work today live off of savings (traditional savings, retirement savings, whatever). If someone wants to spend $1000 on expensive food this month, then he funds that entire amount out of his savings.
In my system, he would still have that savings account. He could still use that money however he wants. But additionally, he would have the basic needs income. If his card allocates $474 for food but he wants to eat for $1000, then his savings account is just on the hook for $526.
How is my plan worse? He gets to save an additional $474 for whatever purpose in the world he wants. He can't do that today.
As for people today who don't live off of savings, but live off of government assistance, the amount of government assistance they get today is far less than what my program would be providing. And most government assistance programs today are temporary; this would be permanent.
What is this obsession with controlling others?
It's not controlling others. It's providing needs.
And it's an incentive to work. So tell me, what is your obsession with not providing the incentives needed to get people to work and therefore make their contributions to society?
If "we're not children", then we would get a job.
Under this program, there would be no more need for the minimum wage. The job market would open up with lots of lower-wage jobs, which would be fine since the basic income already provides the equivalent of what you get from minimum wage. So any money you make from your job is just money on top of that.
So, the only reason you would not have a job is because you don't want one. Or, because you cannot hold a job due to disability or similar circumstance (which are special cases and perhaps should be handled differently).
Much of the overhead you are talking about already exists. When you swipe your EBT at the grocery store, your SNAP account will only pay for the food items that are allowed by the SNAP program.
What happens if I don't use all of the dairy slot this month?
I never suggested subdividing types of food. Obviously you could take it to extremes, like specifying the precise number of molecules of sugar that one is allowed to take at 6:00 PM on Sunday based on constantly monitoring blood glucose levels... and none of that would be relevant to my suggestion.
Do I, in fact have 6 or seven seperate cards with different cumulative balances on them so I can roll it over?
With today's EBT cards, a single card can access multiple accounts like SNAP and TANF. Same would apply with my suggestion. When your landlord swipes it, it charges the Housing account. When the bus driver swipes it, it charges the Transportation account.
I honestly don't see how it would "double of triple the overhead of the program". The card would be the same EBT card that is in use today, just widely expanded in use (it covers more needs, and everyone including rich people would be using it first). That would be the same even if it were unrestricted.
The only overhead my version adds is funding the time for the group of people who decide how much to fund toward each need type... quite negligible in the grand scheme of things.
But my question is valid, why assume that people who are unemployed are somehow incapable of managing finances
Nothing about this program assumes unemployment. It is provided the same to all.
Regardless, the point of the program is to provide for specific types of basic needs. If there is no way to ensure that the funds are being used for those purposes, then it fails to achieve its goals.
And anecdotally, I've spoken with people before who say that it they just can't get out of the poor cycle. They prioritize buying things they want over things they need, because that's how they were raised. It's obvious that they should do the reverse, even to them. But to them, it's a habit that's very difficult to break, like smoking or overeating.
So, no, not everyone knows how to manage their personal finances and many even know that they can't do it.
(and unworthy of respect)
You said that, not me. I disagree with that remark.
You yourself said you would not enjoy getting a limited use debit card, and here you are advocating for it.
I thought it was obvious in the context, I would not enjoy ONLY getting that card.
But I would enjoy, even less, having to live in a cardboard box hoping for a handout. So yes, I advocate for the entitlement card even though I hopefully never need to solely depend on it.
I'm guessing you lean to the right. Funny how the right is all for the goventment keeping it's nose out of people's business unless it involved entitlements of reproduction and suddenly it's super nanny to the rescue!
You need to get educated on this topic. Government-provided entitlements funded by taxes on the wealthy are pushed by the left, not the right. People who "lean to the right" advocate for little or no entitlements at all. I am here proposing a much more liberal system than we have today, and get called a right-leaner?
Wow... my bad. I must be blind, I thought you said "Yeah, my current phone has a non-bendable screen."
That means you are advocating for your own insult and belittlement.
And every single citizen will be rightly insulted if their home finances are micro-managed.
I don't understand where you are getting this from. My plan is simple: you get a card that has allowance accounts for each type of need:
- Food Allowance: $474
- Housing Allowance: $479
- Child Care Allowance: $712
- Transportation Allowance: $452
- etc.
So I can use that $479 for a very basic homestead and utilities, or I can work and add $1500 to it from my pocket to make the total $1979 (getting me a much nicer living arrangement).
The government is certainly not micromanaging the funds you earn. I could have kept the crappy apartment and chosen to eat lobster every day instead. The government only restricts the funds that are part of the entitlement.
Will you enjoy getting a restricted use debit card?
No. That's why I would be looking for a job.
What if you are trying to teach your child about budgeting and saving?
I would prefer to teach them that working for their money provides the freedom to do with their money as they please, and living off someone else's hard work comes with restrictions.
I already mentioned the restricted debit card. Someone would not be able to purchase a manicure with money that is restricted to food expenses.
Another commenter presented an alternative that does not deal so much with money, but with providing needs more directly.
There may be other alternatives as well, or hybrids.
If not, we'll just have to accept that some people do behave better than others.
Frankly, I don't care how someone behaves with entitlement money so long as children are being provided for as the plan designs, so long as they don't use those funds to hurt others, and so long as it doesn't cause the government to invest even more money due to mismanagement.
Let's take two parents who cannot find a job, whose only income is the unrestricted plan that you are in favor of:
- Parent A feeds her kids wholesome meals, as the plan was designed.
- Parent B feeds her kids cheap snack foods, and uses the leftover money to buy an expensive manicure.
It's quite realistic that neither parent would get flagged for child abuse. But obviously, parent B is not abiding by the intent of the program.
Perhaps the aim should be at nations that kill, torture, or exile people for these so-called crimes which are non-violent and personal, posing no threat or aggression toward anyone else.
You got a reading problem??
It appears that the only one here who does is you.
The first comment on this thread clearly spoke about unfulfilled promises of presidential candidates, and the reply presented dialogue about a current presidential candidate making a promise that he is very unlikely to be able to keep (at least, without significant help from other elected officials).
If you have a problem with how on-topic this discussion is, you should be criticizing the first comment... not the response to it.
In the extreme cases, that might work. But what about those cases where the parent doesn't spend all of the child's funds on the child? It might not be enough to call "child abuse", but we should not be encouraging people to have more kids just so they get more government benefits they can use in any way they want.
Sure, and most such systems eventually decide that banding together for the mutual protection and common good is better than warring with your neighbors and always being afraid that they will conquer you. A family becomes community, a community becomes a tribe, a tribe becomes a state, and a state becomes larger and larger. This continues to happen until the state cannot grow any more, or until the group is conquered or falls apart from the inside.
But that screen is also a convenient place to look for whatever information is being displayed.
How quickly you can view this information depends on where it is located and how many/what type of interactions are necessary to bring it up.
Your phone is the perfect device for getting a weather alert when it is already in your hands, unlocked, and open to the app that contains the information. It's not so great if you're driving so you have to reach past a seat belt to dig in your pocket to get it out, and if you don't drop it, then you have to unlock it by typing in a password, and if you still haven't managed to drive into a ditch then you have to open the app and glance down.
A wearable wrist device can show you that alert at a single glance... or at worst, a slight movement of the wrist to tilt the corresponding information into view.
According to the sheer number of knock-off games that developers have created, evidently it isn't common sense. Otherwise they wouldn't waste so much time creating something that would do well to make its investment back.
For me, I think the following factors determine which games I decide to try:
- Is it interesting enough to grab my attention?
- Is it fun and challenging enough to keep my attention?
- Does it adequately reward me (somehow) for the progress I make? Even if that "somehow" is knowing I completed a worthy challenge.
- (If multiplayer) How many of my friends currently play?
For that last one, the "currently" is important. I used to play Halo all the time, but after Destiny released and the MCC debacle, my friends don't play Halo any more so I rarely play either.
Really, I think that's all. It doesn't have to be something like the other games I play (on the contrary, I find playing games that are too similar to my favorites to be wasteful). It doesn't have to be super popular, or even polished... I've put tons of time into Kerbal Space Program and several of its beta versions (heck, even its release) were not nearly as polished as some games that I played once and never looked back.
I agree with all of what you wrote. But I'd like to expand on this point:
Law is an inherently reactive, not proactive, thing.
Actually, many laws are both reactive and proactive. A murderer is thrown in prison because of what he did in the past (reactive), but the primary purpose is to keep him from performing similar crimes in the future (proactive). Our criminal justice system is built less around vengeance and more around deterrence.
But, to your point, punishment (in the sense of jail/prison, fines, or labor) is never completely proactive. The closest we see is when a person is detained for a short time in order to determine if they were involved in criminal activity.