11,000dead and counting.

Originally posted by normbenign
But it is in most every welfare State. Housing is arguably the largest component to the cost of living. At least if housing is subsidized, make it a cash payment, so that it can be realistically counted.

I am in favour of cash-only benefits. That way, people who are unemployable or too lazy to work will be encouraged to move to more rural areas, where they will cost less to society.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am in favour of cash-only benefits. That way, people who are unemployable or too lazy to work will be encouraged to move to more rural areas, where they will cost less to society.

I'm in favor of giving every person money when they WORK FOR IT.
If they need help, give it to them.
But make them punch a time clock and DO SOMETHING for it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What makes you say that? Rapid advancement in technology and skyrocketing productivity have made it so that it is easy for society to provide a basic minimum living standard to all of its members at minor cost. I think people who are able to work and contribute to society should at least attempt to do so, but it's a moral issue, not one of economic necessity.

You want to legislate morality?

At least you people are beginning to admit to as much. Problem is, I have enough morality in the deepest recess of my colon than the entire Congressional body has altogether.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
I'm in favor of giving every person money when they WORK FOR IT.
If they need help, give it to them.
But make them punch a time clock and DO SOMETHING for it.

Most people want to work and feel useful. I don't like freeloaders either, but from a pragmatic point of view, the negative side-effects from not giving them a small welfare check are worse than from giving one.

Originally posted by whodey
You want to legislate morality?

At least you people are beginning to admit to as much. Problem is, I have enough morality in the deepest recess of my colon than the entire Congressional body has altogether.

I don't understand the question. Shouldn't all laws be related to moral issues? Otherwise, what's the point of legislating at all? Laws should exist in order to either prevent suffering or increase happiness.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am in favour of cash-only benefits. That way, people who are unemployable or too lazy to work will be encouraged to move to more rural areas, where they will cost less to society.

Cash benefits are easily accountable, and negate people getting luxury housing as a welfare benefit, and screwing up nice neighborhoods. I witnessed a very nice single mother of a large number of kids move into a huge Cleveland Heights home, which probably would have sold for a quarter million $. Inside of two years the building was trashed. Shortly after the section 8 tenant moved out the house was condemned and razed.

The downside, is that cash payments are more easily converted, moved around and used for other than the stated purpose. If several people eligible for welfare all apply for the cash housing benefit, in some cases they may pocket the money, use it for drugs, and squat in a vacant building, sometimes a dangerous fire trap.

Then there is the moral hazard of giving people something for nothing.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Most people want to work and feel useful. I don't like freeloaders either, but from a pragmatic point of view, the negative side-effects from not giving them a small welfare check are worse than from giving one.

"........the negative side-effects from not giving them a small welfare check are worse than from giving one."

What are the negatives of not giving a check? Or of requiring some community service to get that check? A lot of big cities have large numbers of union workers getting paid high wages and full benefits for jobs that require little or no training or skills.

Originally posted by normbenign
Cash benefits are easily accountable, and negate people getting luxury housing as a welfare benefit, and screwing up nice neighborhoods. I witnessed a very nice single mother of a large number of kids move into a huge Cleveland Heights home, which probably would have sold for a quarter million $. Inside of two years the building was trashed. Shortly aft ...[text shortened]... a dangerous fire trap.

Then there is the moral hazard of giving people something for nothing.

It is easy to require people to have a permanent address in order to receive (full) benefits (I know this is the case in the Netherlands, where the minimum benefits one can receive are approx. $12k/year), especially if there is a civil registry. But I suppose you don't want that, because stormtroopers will abduct you and submit you to torture from Darth Vader or something.

Originally posted by normbenign
"........the negative side-effects from not giving them a small welfare check are worse than from giving one."

What are the negatives of not giving a check? Or of requiring some community service to get that check? A lot of big cities have large numbers of union workers getting paid high wages and full benefits for jobs that require little or no training or skills.

I have no issue with requiring community service for a welfare check.

The most important negative side-effect of not guaranteeing a minimum income is that the children of those people will not get an equal opportunity. Another one is that it increases crime.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It is easy to require people to have a permanent address in order to receive (full) benefits (I know this is the case in the Netherlands, where the minimum benefits one can receive are approx. $12k/year), especially if there is a civil registry. But I suppose you don't want that, because stormtroopers will abduct you and submit you to torture from Darth Vader or something.

If someone is going to beg taxpayers for support, I don't sympathize with them complaining about registration or other government requirements.

As long as the registration is justified, why not?

Is that right? Minimum benefits in Netherlands $12k/year? Single recipient?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I have no issue with requiring community service for a welfare check.

The most important negative side-effect of not guaranteeing a minimum income is that the children of those people will not get an equal opportunity. Another one is that it increases crime.

"The most important negative side-effect of not guaranteeing a minimum income is that the children of those people will not get an equal opportunity. Another one is that it increases crime."

Those are both speculative. It presumes that there are people who will just let their kids starve. Who are these people? Crime is not automatic result of poverty. Many criminals are way above poverty level. Many poor live in poverty for their entire lives without criminal activity.

I would speculate that most people would feed their kids, and find other means of income, if there was no easy welfare.

Originally posted by normbenign
"The most important negative side-effect of not guaranteeing a minimum income is that the children of those people will not get an equal opportunity. Another one is that it increases crime."

Those are both speculative. It presumes that there are people who will just let their kids starve. Who are these people? Crime is not automatic result of povert ...[text shortened]... most people would feed their kids, and find other means of income, if there was no easy welfare.

Neither of them are speculative. Both the connection between poverty and social mobility, as well as poverty and crime, are well-documented. I recommend you investigate the issue.

Originally posted by normbenign
If someone is going to beg taxpayers for support, I don't sympathize with them complaining about registration or other government requirements.

As long as the registration is justified, why not?

Is that right? Minimum benefits in Netherlands $12k/year? Single recipient?

The cash amount is just over $10k a year for a single person without kids. I estimated $12k to take into account housing and other benefits (which I think should be abolished).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't understand the question. Shouldn't all laws be related to moral issues? Otherwise, what's the point of legislating at all? Laws should exist in order to either prevent suffering or increase happiness.

With over 40,000 laws and regulations passed just last year alone, I almost feel giddy.

Are we a better society for those laws and regulations?

Nope.

Originally posted by whodey
With over 40,000 laws and regulations passed just last year alone, I almost feel giddy.

Are we a better society for those laws and regulations?

Nope.

Can you recognize the difference between the two following statements?

- Laws should serve a useful purpose to mankind.

- Every law passed in the history of mankind is awesome.