Yes, some people would be stupid and waste the $3k on stuff they don't need because of the incredible amount of consumerism ideology pushed on people. Is it their fault they want things when everywhere they look tells them to want things? It is a gross overgeneralization to say that most would do this with the majority of their money. Most would spend the money on what they need, food, clothing, housing, etc. just like they do currently with welfare. Most poor people work very hard. Have you ever noticed how the most back breaking jobs, stressful, and stringent jobs are the least paying? Construction, cooks, janitors, call centers, farm workers, landscapers, etc. The more money I made, the less I had to work. It would help greatly if jobs paid a decent amount. More than 50% of the nation makes less than $30k a year. $3k for them is a 10% increase, it makes a huge difference. 40% of the nation makes less than $20k a year, making it a 15% increase for them. http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2012 To say it won't make a difference and things will be as they were is naive and simply wrong.
As you state, those "menial" jobs definitely pay less, but so is the skill level. So, we should pay them just because they don't make as much as a neurologist (who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, time and resources to gain the skills) and if we don't, it makes it wrong? Never in history have less skilled workers made the same amount as higher skilled workers (except in failed Communist regimes where they still didn't make as much and the ruling class made a bundle!) So, would you have a "fruit picker" (which I did in my youth) be paid as much as the neurologist? The facts quoted by the lead document and the SSA are "red herrings" and avoid the larger question about labor force supply, personal motive, drive, and the like. Dr. Benjamin Carson came from extreme poverty as did Dolly Parton, and they are quite successful. So we should "punish" them by taking what they have earned and just give it people. Why don't they follow these two people's example and start learning new skills - and they CAN do it in this society (there are thousands and thousands of examples). How about the Vietnamese Boat people from the 70's? They came here not speaking English, with little money (if any), and made something of their lives (and there are thousands of examples like this). It is the "opportunity to succeed" that government should protect, not the equality of outcomes (which it will NEVER successfully do). Even Jesus (like I have heard many give ascent to) who encouraged sharing your goods with the poor, NEVER supported or encouraged that "sharing" to be done at the "tip of the Roman spear" so to speak. He NEVER advocated "government" forcing the people with means to share with those who have less means! If we have too many "selfish or self-centered" people in this land, that topic is a moral/ethical/religious issue not a public policy issue. Maybe we SHOULD go back towards the early days of our Nation when Alexis de Tocqueville made the observation: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Maybe we should go back to having students read that one in Civics class instead of some of the crap they are forced to read in schools now). Here are just a couple more quotes from Alexis: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" (like a lot of what is happening in today's USA) "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." "Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."
No the fruit picker should not make as much as a neurologist, nor did I imply they should. I'm no supporter of communism by any means, it's far worse than democracy as it leads to corruption even quicker. I like how some Scandanavian countries have done it. There is a maximum amount the highest paid employee can make in relation to the lowest paid employee. It helps with inequality greatly. Citing two people that became rich is pointless, you're ignoring the vast majority of people that do not have income mobility or fail as entertainers to ever make anything significant. It is not a punishment to redistribute wealth to the needy. It's benefits those with money and it is a necessity. Less people in poverty helps everyone, including the rich. Do you like dealing with homeless and the hungry? Not to mention, if you don't eat enough, you can't function well, and can't expect to perform well in a job. It helps everyone to help those in poverty. Consider too how many children do not eat enough, affecting their growth and therefore their ability to contribute as much to society in the future. I very much agree that we should protect the 'opportunity to succeed'. And we have failed to that immensely. There are huge barriers to entry, huge inequalities in people that were not born with a lot of money vs someone that did in starting a business, getting a degree, making decent money. We do not have a fair market, we have a market that promotes corporate oligarchies and makes it harder and harder for local businesses to survive. Think about the cost of marketing for example, no business does very well without strong marketing and marketing prices for TV are priced for corps making millions upon millions, not the typical family run business. We do not protect the opportunity for people to succeed, simply being in the USA does not mean you have the same opportunity as it is greatly tied to your family wealth and also where you live. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, my parents give me a good example of it happening, but my parents are in the top 5% of the nation and that is appalling because they are by no means rich. Ethical issues are public policy issues. If you look at almost all of our public policies, it has to follow some code of ethics. It's inescapable because of the nature of dictating what the society ought to do. For a society to thrive, we cannot be selfish for only ourselves. We must be selfish for our society also. We all need each other, we all affect each other, and we all need the same things. Some interesting quotes, but not really accurate. We have a socialist democracy of sorts now, we need to iron it out further. Our democracy has made us all debt slaves, we are all in servitude now. Faith is the death of morality...you no longer do things for your fellow man, you do it for god which completely defeats the purpose of morality. Our single biggest issue above all of this is our money system, it is broken and makes us poorer and poorer...no one but the top 1% can escape this. With loans being made out of thin air and interest payments demanded that do not yet exist...it's absurd. Everyday the value of our money is going down and our entire economy operates under the assumption of infinite growth in a finite world. It's only time before we have to change our idea of economics.
The two people I cited came from "dirt poor" backgrounds, and it is NOT pointless! If they can succeed, one black and one white, then the opportunity exists for any others to succeed! One became a world renowned surgeon, and the other, while an entertainer, started “Dollywood” and its associated enterprises to bring economic growth into the Appalachian area (read her story!).I don't agree that we have failed miserably. The US, and other market based systems, have created more income and better living conditions for billions around the world; more than any other economic system. We could look at any measure to show this is true historically and otherwise. The only person who would not like our system is Karl Marx - and his diatribes and economic systems have failed miserably. The only "communist/socialist" type systems that still exist have had to adopt some type of market based system to survive. Everyone points to the Nordic countries as the pinnacle of success, but if they did not export and trade with market based systems, they would be on their "economic butts"! As to the poor, what has failed most miserably is our government hatched, government run welfare systems which are poorly designed and keep millions entrapped in poverty because they are not built to help people "up" so to speak. It is better to leave the money in the hands of private charitable people and entities because more of the dollars go to the needy and not government "bureaucrats" who suck the vibrancy out of the "private" economy like leeches. That is not to say all government programs are a failure, but it does tend to take resources from the private sector that could be better used to create jobs and feed more people! As to taxes, they are necessary to run the country in the manner that the Constitution recommends; however, we have moved far from those guidelines and we are reaping the downside of those moves. I would say we are experiencing the "negative consequences of well intentioned, but misguided compassion". If you want to look at the "spiritual" side of it, even Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always". That is because no "government" can make up the difference in motivation, the inclination to take risk, and other factors that differentiate individuals in the world. How can a Vietnamese "boat person" come here with next to nothing, learn the language, get educated, and succeed in businesses? They were MOTIVATED to do so, and they did not expect the "government" to support them for life.
As Thomas Jefferson pointed out: To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
Yes some can succeed quite well, but that is not the norm by any means. Which is why I said citing two people alone is pointless. The norm and reality are the opposite, there's a low chance of income mobility for over 50% of people. It makes sense too, the way most people enter the top 5% is by investing and making money off of money. Those that don't make much money, don't have money to invest. Our income system makes the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer, not only in the basic interest based structure, but in our policies (especially tax) too. Don't misunderstand me, anyone living in the USA is better off than most people in the world. But look at what has been done to the world, especially poorer less developed countries. We thrive off of their poverty and taking of their resources. How much of what we use is made by people being paid slave wages across asia? Electronics, clothing, furniture, etc. So sure, we do okay...but we rape the world to do okay. The number of countries we have actively fucked over is astounding. Our welfare system is not good, but it is certainly better than nothing. It actually does help people stay out of poverty and move up, however, finding something to move up to is very difficult for many. Our economy is mostly a service economy, which does not pay very well. Do you honestly expect those at or near the poverty line to have the time or money to get a higher education? For so many, especially those with children, it's nearly impossible. Not to mention so many graduates are underemployed today and have massive amounts of debt which the federal gov profits off of too! We do need taxes to run the government, but the constitution does not allow for unapportioned taxes and only allowed direct taxes. No % based tax bullshit that we deal with today. We know how much it costs to run the government, we should be paying a flat amount, not a % based amount. It was not until the Federal Reserve and IRS were created that we passed the 16th amendment along with them. The entire system is designed to make us poorer from the beginning, taxing the poor and middle class much more than the rich, the government paying interest to the federal reserve for every dollar that's created. The dollar today is worth 96% less than it was 100 years ago. Our economy is racing straight towards the edge of a cliff, and nothing short of ending the federal reserve will save it. I by far don't expect the government to take care of us. However, if the government CREATES poverty, then it should take care of those in poverty. We create, mandate, require, fundamentally must have, poverty because of the Federal Reserve System and always having less money available to people than what is owed. lol Jesus. Okay, Jesus would ask why someone's right to food and shelter necessitates their working for it? Why is it okay to exploit people and the earth for financial gain, the way many corporations do today and the majority of people support? He would tell you to give the needy what they need if you can do without it.