We would then be China...

As much as it seriously seriously SERIOUSLY pains me to agree with Stevers.....

The true solution is for government to stop enabling people after a certain point.

Ive always thought a good 'welfare-to-work' program would reward responsibility and hard work and/or study by:

1) Establishing an absolute limit in years that a person can be on welfare.

1a:

A person could be on welfare for two years without demonstrating any initiative in terms of finding employment or training if they are fully healthy, etc. Five years if they can document they have tried to find work or training (like a form of resume - ive looked here and there and these are the people and phone numbers of those who have interviewed me or the schools ive applied to and was denied entry or financial aid), and nine years if they are currently working or in some school or training program.

1b.

Those who have demonstrated initiative in looking for training but have been denied or are unable to attend a specific school because of financial constraints can receive fiinancial aid/scholarships to help them get the schooling they need along with job placement assistance that works in conjunction with private, federal and state programs to fill needed state and federal jobs when they cannot find a job with a private company (employer of last resort type of deal)

1c.

A person who has previously been on welfare and reached their limit can reapply after eight years since they lost their eligibility if they were working at the time. Those people who could not demonstrate any initiative within the two years and were dropped from welfare on those grounds would have to wait ten years to reapply. (an extra incentive to show some initiative)



2. A flat 'state-endorsed' rate of assistance.

2a. By 'flat' rate I mean that the amount of $$$ you receive is not tied to number of children you have. I happen to own section 8 housing (though im selling it) and I can tell you from first hand knowledge that there is a REWARD for having more kids in that when you have more kids you become eligible for MORE rooms. Certain rules (at least in my state) require seperation of kids between certain ages and genders - so if you have a kid who is say one and another who is say five - or a girl and a boy - they each have to have their own room. This makes it possible (again im speaking from first hand knowledge here) to stuff more than who you have listed on your agreement with section 8 in the house. Now if you have some of those people NOT listed on the section 8 list as living in the house WORKING - you are now PROFITING. There are many low level ways to profit off things like section 8 - another way is for a woman to simply NOT get married (government welfare as it stands now completely discourages marriage) to the man who impregnates her but still allow him to live with her. Now if he is working - they are again - profiting.

Thus to make a long story a bit shorter - by not tying the amount or type of assistance a person receives to the amount of children they have ESPECIALLY those they have while ON assistance (I could maybe see agreeing to a provision for people with multiple children PRIOR to getting assistance) you are not giving any type of incentive to have MORE. You are actually discouraging them from having more because they know any extra mouth they have to feed will be coming out of their own pockets instead of being rewarded in any way shape or form (including the ones CREATED by gaming the system).

2b Increasing the rate of assistance (rather than DECREASING it as is done currently) as a person takes steps towards becoming independent. How this would work is as a person becomes employed or finishes their schooling a 'bonus' would be added to their assistance payments or allocated to helping them pay down their school loans as necessary. The 'bonus' would be kept in a savings account (if they are working) and allocatted to them once they are no longer receiving assistance (basically a going away present for good behavior) This would mean a person would have incentive on several different levels to find work - they profit from it once they are no longer on assistance. And since there is a fixed time period of assistance - at some point (and the sooner the better) that person will be trying real hard to find work or schooling in order to maximize that bonus.

2c. By 'state-endorsed' I mean the program would be run by the state (not feds) in terms of deciding what an appropriate amount of assistance would be for the area the people live in, economic conditions, job prospects, etc. and the mix of programs they would endorse from section 8, to food stamps/WIC, energy assistance, tuition assistance, etc.


3. 'Well Off' Welfare Alumni Repayment plan

For people who have been through the assistance program and have gone on in life to make something of themselves and are making over 250k net per year (the standard for wealthy these days so I hear) they would be taxed quite a bit extra for a period of ten years for every year they are earning over 250k net. So basically if these programs made it possible for you to keep your head above water long enough to become wealthy - you have to give back and help pay for the next person and ease the burden on those taxpayers who have never needed and/or applied for assistance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2010 06:21AM by Moligant.