Thought Experiment

[BanginJimmy]

Actually money, private business, and trade of any kind was pretty much illegal so the black market included everything even food and other basics as well as "luxury" items.

I am talking about basic necessities. They simply were not always available unless you were among the party leadership.

Actually I think many of them would be more ambitious. Right now, many see no reason to work more because if they make more money they lose the benefits they currently have. To put it simply, working a little harder doesn't make their lives better. If those benefits were not tied to them remaining poor, they all of a sudden have a stronger incentive to work more.

You make a great case for cutting back on the current handouts. If you are getting so many handouts that you lose out by working, you are getting too many.

[bu villain]

I am talking about basic necessities. They simply were not always available unless you were among the party leadership.

Ok so now you are saying the USSR is not a good parallel to my initial scenario (which I agree with by the way)?

You make a great case for cutting back on the current handouts. If you are getting so many handouts that you lose out by working, you are getting too many.

That's one way of seeing it. Another way is that the handouts in many cases are too binary and should phase out in such a way that there is no "gap" where a small increase in income is not profitable. For example, in the scenario I gave in the initial post, no one loses their handouts no matter what their income is so work will always be profitable.

[bu villain]

I am talking about basic necessities. They simply were not always available unless you were among the party leadership.

Ok so now you are saying the USSR is not a good parallel to my initial scenario (which I agree with by the way)?

You make a great case for cutting back on the current handouts. If you are getting so many handouts that you lose out by working, you are getting too many.

That's one way of seeing it. Another way is that the handouts in many cases are too binary and should phase out in such a way that there is no "gap" where a small increase in income is not profitable. For example, in the scenario I gave in the initial post, no one loses their handouts no matter what their income is so work will always be profitable.

[BanginJimmy]

Ok so now you are saying the USSR is not a good parallel to my initial scenario (which I agree with by the way)?

In the beginning all of the necessities will be available, but what about in 20 years when the incentive to work is even more eroded than ti is now?

That's one way of seeing it. Another way is that the handouts in many cases are too binary and should phase out in such a way that there is no "gap" where a small increase in income is not profitable. For example, in the scenario I gave in the initial post, no one loses their handouts no matter what their income is so work will always be profitable.

So who pays for these handouts? As you can tell by our recent deficits, the Govt cant afford it.


The handout programs shouldnt be more profitable than working under any circumstances. Thats why I say we have too many, thats why their use has exploded. Just last week Obama disregarded laws passed by Congress and told HHS to ignore the welfare reforms of the mid 90's. Why work an entry level job when welfare gives you a better standard of living? Who cares that you have almost no education? Who cares that in 5 years you will be making double what the starting pay is? Why should I work to keep my standard of living when I can sit on my ass shitting out kids instead?

[bu villain]

In the beginning all of the necessities will be available, but what about in 20 years when the incentive to work is even more eroded than ti is now?

I think I understand your perspective now. Basically you are saying that the revenue from the people who want to work and thus live a financially better life will not be enough to support those who are satisfied with the absolute minimum.

So who pays for these handouts? As you can tell by our recent deficits, the Govt cant afford it.

It would still be tax revenue. I know I stated that all other laws would be the same but I guess I meant the new provisions would replace most other welfare programs. You don't need food stamps if you are already getting free food. You don't need unemployment if you have housing, food, and health benfits. So I guess the cost depends on how much the proposed benfits cost versus the amount of current programs that can be cut.

The handout programs shouldnt be more profitable than working under any circumstances. Thats why I say we have too many, thats why their use has exploded. Just last week Obama disregarded laws passed by Congress and told HHS to ignore the welfare reforms of the mid 90's. Why work an entry level job when welfare gives you a better standard of living? Who cares that you have almost no education? Who cares that in 5 years you will be making double what the starting pay is? Why should I work to keep my standard of living when I can sit on my ass shitting out kids instead?

Of course welfare programs must balance helping people with discouraging work. I don't think you'll find too many who will argue that work should be discouraged though. I don't know about you but you couldn't pay me to have extra kids.

[BanginJimmy]

Of course welfare programs must balance helping people with discouraging work. I don't think you'll find too many who will argue that work should be discouraged though.

Obama just used executive order to undo passed legislation and relax work requirements for welfare. I am starting to really think he believes himself to be a ruler who only takes congress' bills as nothing more than advise. He just uses executive order to ignore the laws he doesnt like.

[bu villain]

Obama just used executive order to undo passed legislation and relax work requirements for welfare. I am starting to really think he believes himself to be a ruler who only takes congress' bills as nothing more than advise. He just uses executive order to ignore the laws he doesnt like.

Ok but now we are getting off topic. I think this thread has gone as far as it will go. Thanks for the responses.