Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Charles Murray wants to replace all welfare programs with annual check for $10,000.

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film
View Poll Results: Compared to the current welfare state, what do you think of this idea?
This idea is better than the current welfare state.
9
40.91%
This idea is worse than the current welfare state.
13
59.09%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

Charles Murray wants to replace all welfare programs with annual check for $10,000.

Old 03-26-06, 08:58 AM
  #1  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,284
Charles Murray wants to replace all welfare programs with annual check for $10,000.

I read his book "Losing Ground" many years ago. In it, he said that all welfare programs should be eliminated.

Now, he seems to think that that, by itself, that isn't a very realistic thing to do. So he wants to give $10,000 to everyone every year. I think that this would be better than the current system, because it would eliminate a huge amount of bureuacracy. While I don't like the idea of the government giving everyone $10,000 a year, I do think it's better than the current welfare system.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008142

A Plan to Replace the Welfare State

The government should give every American $10,000 -- and nothing more.


BY CHARLES MURRAY

Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

This much is certain: The welfare state as we know it cannot survive. No serious student of entitlements thinks that we can let federal spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid rise from its current 9% of gross domestic product to the 28% of GDP that it will consume in 2050 if past growth rates continue. The problems facing transfer programs for the poor are less dramatic but, in the long term, no less daunting; the falling value of a strong back and the rising value of brains will eventually create a class society making a mockery of America's ideals unless we come up with something more creative than anything that the current welfare system has to offer.

So major change is inevitable--and Congress seems utterly unwilling to face up to it. Witness the Social Security debate of last year, a case study in political timidity. Like it or not, we have several years to think before Congress can no longer postpone action. Let's use it to start thinking outside the narrow proposals for benefit cuts and tax increases that will be Congress's path of least resistance.

The place to start is a blindingly obvious economic reality that no one seems to notice: This country is awash in money. America is so wealthy that enabling everyone to have a decent standard of living is easy. We cannot do it by fiddling with the entitlement and welfare systems--they constitute a Gordian Knot that cannot be untied. But we can cut the knot. We can scrap the structure of the welfare state.

Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults. Make the grant large enough so that the poor won't be poor, everyone will have enough for a comfortable retirement, and everyone will be able to afford health care. We're rich enough to do it.

Consider retirement. Let's say that we have a 21-year-old man before us who, for whatever reasons, will be unable to accumulate his own retirement fund. We accumulate it for him through a yearly contribution for 45 years until he retires at age 66. We can afford to contribute $2,000 a year and invest it in an index-based stock fund. What is the least he can expect to have when he retires? We are ridiculously conservative, so we first identify the worst compound average growth rate, using constant dollars, for any 45-year period in the history of the stock market (4.3% from 1887-1932). We then assume our 21-year-old will be the unluckiest investor in American history and get just a 4.0% average return. At the end of the 45-year period, he will have about $253,000, with which he could purchase an annuity worth about $20,500 a year.

That's with just a $2,000 annual contribution, equivalent to the Social Security taxes the government gets for a person making only $16,129 a year. The government gets more than twice that amount from someone earning the median income, and more than five times that amount from the millions of people who pay the maximum FICA tax. Giving everyone access to a comfortable retirement income is easy for a country as rich as the U.S.--if we don't insist on doing it through the structure of the welfare state.

Health care is more complicated in its details, but not in its logic. We do not wait until our 21-year-old is 65 and then start paying for his health care. Instead, we go to a health insurance company and tell it that we're prepared to start paying a constant premium now for the rest of the 21-year-old's life. Given that kind of offer, the health insurance company can sell us a health care policy that covers the essentials for somewhere around $3,000. It can be so inexpensive for the same reason that life insurance companies can sell generous life insurance cheaply if people buy it when they're young--the insurance company makes a lot of money from the annual payments before eventually having to write the big benefit checks. Providing access to basic medical care for everyone is easy for a country as rich as the U.S.--if we don't insist on doing it through the structure of the welfare state.

There are many ways of turning these economic potentials into a working system. The one I have devised--I call it simply "the Plan" for want of a catchier label--makes a $10,000 annual grant to all American citizens who are not incarcerated, beginning at age 21, of which $3,000 a year must be used for health care. Everyone gets a monthly check, deposited electronically to a bank account. If we implemented the Plan tomorrow, it would cost about $355 billion more than the current system. The projected costs of the Plan cross the projected costs of the current system in 2011. By 2020, the Plan would cost about half a trillion dollars less per year than conservative projections of the cost of the current system. By 2028, that difference would be a trillion dollars per year.

Many questions must be asked of a system that substitutes a direct cash grant for the current welfare state. Work disincentives, the comparative risks of market-based solutions versus government guarantees, transition costs, tradeoffs in health coverage, implications for the tax system, and effects on people too young to qualify for the grant all require attention in deciding whether the Plan is feasible and desirable. I think all of the questions have answers, but they are not one-liners; I lay them out in my book.

For now, let me turn to a larger question: Assuming that the technical questions have answers, do we want a system in which the government divests itself of responsibility for the human needs that gave rise to the welfare state in the first place? I think the reasons for answering "yes" go far beyond the Plan's effects on poverty, retirement and health care. Those issues affect comparatively small minorities of the population. The more profound problem facing the world's most advanced societies is how their peoples are to live meaningful lives in an age of plenty and security.

Throughout history until a few decades ago, the meaning of life for almost everyone was linked to the challenge of simple survival. Staying alive required being a contributing part of a community. Staying alive required forming a family and having children to care for you in your old age. The knowledge that sudden death could happen at any moment required attention to spiritual issues. Doing all those things provided deep satisfactions that went beyond survival.

Life in an age of plenty and security requires none of those things. For the great majority of people living in advanced societies, it is easily possible to go through life accompanied by social companions and serial sex partners, having a good time, and dying in old age with no reason to think that one has done anything significant.

If you believe that's all there is--that the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible--then it is reasonable to think that the purpose of government should be to enable people to do so with as little effort as possible. But if you agree with me that to live a human life can have transcendental meaning, then we need to think about how human existence acquires weight and consequence.

For many readers of The Wall Street Journal, the focus of that search for meaning is bound up with vocation--for some, the quest to be rich and famous; for others, the quest to excel in a vocation one loves. But it is an option open to only to a lucky minority. For most people--including many older people who in their youths focused on vocation--life acquires meaning through the stuff of life: the elemental events associated with birth, death, growing up, raising children, paying the rent, dealing with adversity, comforting the bereaved, celebrating success, applauding the good and condemning the bad; coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness. The chief defect of the welfare state from this perspective is not that it is ineffectual in making good on its promises (though it is), nor even that it often exacerbates the very problems it is supposed to solve (though it does). The welfare state is pernicious ultimately because it drains too much of the life from life.

The Plan returns the stuff of life to all of us in many ways, but chiefly through its effects on the core institutions of family and community. One key to thinking about how the Plan does so is the universality of the grant. What matters is not just that a lone individual has $10,000 a year, but that everyone has $10,000 a year and everyone knows that everyone else has that resource. Strategies that are not open to an individual are open to a couple; strategies that are not open to a couple are open to an extended family or, for that matter, to half a dozen friends who pool resources; strategies not open to a small group are open to a neighborhood. The aggregate shift in resources from government to people under the Plan is massive, and possibilities for dealing with human needs through family and community are multiplied exponentially.

The Plan confers personal accountability whether the recipient wants it or not, producing cascading secondary and tertiary effects. A person who asks for help because he has frittered away his monthly check will find people and organizations who will help (America has a history of producing such people and organizations in abundance), but that help can come with expectations and demands that are hard to make of a person who has no income stream. Or contemplate the effects of a known income stream on the young man who impregnates his girlfriend. The first-order effect is that he cannot evade child support--the judge knows where his bank account is.
The second-order effect is to create expectations that formerly didn't exist. I call it the Doolittle Effect, after Alfred Doolittle in "My Fair Lady." Recall why he had to get to the church on time.

The Plan confers responsibility for dealing with human needs on all of us, whether we want it or not. Some will see this as a step backward, thinking that it is better to pay one's taxes, give responsibility to the government and be done with it. I think an alternative outlook is wiser: The Plan does not require us all to become part-time social workers. The nation can afford lots of free riders. But Aristotle was right. Virtue is a habit. Virtue does not flourish in the next generation because we tell our children to be honest, compassionate and generous in the abstract. It flourishes because our children practice honesty, compassion and generosity in the same way that they practice a musical instrument or a sport. That happens best when children grow up in a society in which human needs are not consigned to bureaucracies downtown but are part of life around us, met by people around us.

Simply put, the Plan gives us back the action. Institutions and individuals alike thrive to the extent that they have important jobs to do and know that the responsibility to do them is on their heads. For decades, the welfare state has said to us, "We'll take care of that." As a result, we have watched some of our sources of life's most important satisfactions lose vitality. At the same time, we have learned how incompetent--how helpless--government is when "taking care of that" means dealing with complex human needs. The solution is not to tinker with the welfare state. The solution is to put responsibility for our lives back in our hands--ours as individuals, ours as families, and ours as communities.

Mr. Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State," published this week by AEI Press.

Last edited by grundle; 03-26-06 at 09:00 AM.
grundle is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 09:10 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,807
This is interesting and I have sort of a test case for you to watch. The federal government is almost surely going to pass the "buy out" or" "assistance" program for those in New Orleans where individuals can get up to $150,000. Now the key is in the details that basically read

-this is based on your damages
-Max payment is $150,000
-You must subtract any insurance money already received
-There will be a 30% penalty if you are in a known flood area and you had no flood insurance

My argument is that you should just give everyone who had more say three feet of water in their home (which is easy to tell by satellite/zip codes), $100,000 and be done with it.

Why? based on above there is going to be a huge "claim process". And being that I'm in insurance, I know exactly what that means. The state will literally have to hire insurance adjusters, supervisors, accountants, reviewers, etc, etc. And your going to have to pay all these people. Based on the number of "claims" for this money, it will be a long drawn out process. For example, I have heard no definition of "damage". Is living assistance damage? Is loss of income damage? Is loss of re-sale value damage? If so it will be very easy for most people to reach that $150,000 limit.

At the end of the day, the state will spend more on the "processing" then what people actually get.

I have seen this before. After the Los Alamos fires, the government came in to provide assistance since they were the ones that started the fire. It took forever for them to work through.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 12:27 PM
  #3  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Drug dealers, liquior stores, and convenience stores are salivating at this.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 12:34 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
America is so wealthy that enabling everyone to have a decent standard of living is easy.
The redistribution of wealth...what a novel idea.

I love it when the class warfare arguement begins! By today's standards, a "decent standard of living" means everyone is entitled to digital cable, high speed internet, and a new car every three years. Whatever happened to living within your means?
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 01:35 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,442
Originally Posted by bhk
Drug dealers, liquior stores, and convenience stores are salivating at this.
I have to agree with you on this one, but it might be cheaper for all of us in the long run. Haven't really researched this though.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 01:51 PM
  #6  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
The redistribution of wealth...what a novel idea.

I love it when the class warfare arguement begins! By today's standards, a "decent standard of living" means everyone is entitled to digital cable, high speed internet, and a new car every three years. Whatever happened to living within your means?
We need to keep good jobs in the USA! We need to control illegal immigration. If the USA market decides a job picking apples is worth $11 an hour, and 10,000 mexicans illegally come in the country and do the work for $5 an hour, then we lost jobs. Maybe the unskilled American worker would have been capable of doing the $11 job?

Originally Posted by Sdallnct
At the end of the day, the state will spend more on the "processing" then what people actually get.
Yep. This is why all charity should be private, and not government.
Summer_Wind is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 01:53 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
I like the idea where every child born is given $10,000 in an IRA that they can control but not touch until 18...then your done...use it for college, investing, buying a piece of a business.

But your done, no welfare ever
Tommy Ceez is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 02:26 PM
  #8  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Tommy Ceez
I like the idea where every child born is given $10,000 in an IRA that they can control but not touch until 18...then your done...use it for college, investing, buying a piece of a business.

But your done, no welfare ever
That is a bad idea. Do you know what an 18 year old would do with $10,000? They would blow the money on a car. And 4 years later, they would not be any better off.

Remember, when dealing with welfare, we are dealing with the stupid people. If they can't plan how to get an education, or find a job, they won't be able to handle $10,000 in an intelligent way.
Summer_Wind is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 07:21 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind
That is a bad idea. Do you know what an 18 year old would do with $10,000? They would blow the money on a car. And 4 years later, they would not be any better off.

Remember, when dealing with welfare, we are dealing with the stupid people. If they can't plan how to get an education, or find a job, they won't be able to handle $10,000 in an intelligent way.
As opposed to the far more than $10,000 they will collect off the gvmnt for thier lives?
Tommy Ceez is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 07:41 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 29,875
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind
Remember, when dealing with welfare, we are dealing with the stupid people.
Your "Cool New Member" status has just been revoked.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 06:46 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: currently Philly originally from Puerto Rico
Posts: 2,896
Originally Posted by eXcentris
Your "Cool New Member" status has just been revoked.
Agreed!
BuddhaWake is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 06:50 AM
  #12  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,729
So, I pay the government $10k in taxes every year, and then they turn around and mail it back to me (minus 'postage and handling', of course)?

How does that make sense? Why not just lower my tax rate to zero?
wendersfan is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:01 AM
  #13  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind
Remember, when dealing with welfare, we are dealing with the stupid people. If they can't plan how to get an education, or find a job, they won't be able to handle $10,000 in an intelligent way.
[mod] I am not sure if you are trolling or not but in the last week you have generated a great deal of reported post.

While you are not breaking the rules you are offending people with your generalizing posts towards segments of society. Remember we have all kinds of people on this forum and we like to keep this a friendly place for all.

My family was on welfare after my father left. My mother went on to start her own company and end up very successful - was she stupid? PLEASE THINK BEFORE YOU POST![/mod]
bfrank is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:07 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind
That is a bad idea. Do you know what an 18 year old would do with $10,000? They would blow the money on a car. And 4 years later, they would not be any better off.

Remember, when dealing with welfare, we are dealing with the stupid people. If they can't plan how to get an education, or find a job, they won't be able to handle $10,000 in an intelligent way.

they can always go into your line of work
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:09 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Ignoring users is your friend: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/profile...ignore&u=69570
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:22 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pleasantville - in black & white ;P
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by Venusian
Thanks Venusian.

I'd just like to say Summer Wind may be politically incorrect, but to ignore his/her type is to ignore an actual segment of the public. Sad as it may be. Better to know the opposition than pretend it doesn't exist. I would recommend NOT stooping to his/her level though.

We have the guaranteed right to free speech; there is no constitutional right to "not be offended".

mosquitobite is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:22 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,392
The Katrina victims got a nice gov't check and assistance and a good majority of them spent lavishly on stuff they didn't need and are now yelling and screaming they need more money. This is exactly what would happen with this plan. I don't see it working.
General Zod is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:23 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Originally Posted by mosquitobite
We have the guaranteed right to free speech; there is no constitutional right to "not be offended".

you have neither of those on this forum
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:23 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
wouldn't this cause a problem with inflation?
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:24 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
oh...and, $3k has to be used for healthcare? I don't have $3k in healthcare costs a year. does that mean I dont get the money?
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 09:39 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pleasantville - in black & white ;P
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by Venusian
you have neither of those on this forum
I realize that

I just dislike politically correct crybabies as much as I dislike the politically incorrect statements.
mosquitobite is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 10:37 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,807
Originally Posted by mosquitobite
I just dislike politically correct crybabies as much as I dislike the politically incorrect statements.
I like you
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 11:03 AM
  #23  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,513
Originally Posted by bhk
Drug dealers, liquior stores, and convenience stores are salivating at this.
Yup. This is one of the 30% of times I agree with bhk.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 11:21 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
There is a program where people apply for SSI, and it generally takes a year or more to get it. But once you get it, you get a big check retroactive to the time you applied. Many social workers refer to this as the "suicide check" because often people get close to $10,000 and some kill themselves by binging because they have never had so much money at once before.

A renter of mine got one of these. She isn't into drugs or drinking, but suddenly had a check for around $5k about 5 months ago. It is all gone and she has nothing to show for it.

I tend to think that if you were good with money, you wouldn't be on welfare for long. So for the vast majority of people on welfare, this is just a bad idea. They aren't stupid people, but they spend what they got when they got it (in general).

The love of my life is back. Hi bfrank
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-27-06, 01:14 PM
  #25  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,284
Originally Posted by wendersfan
So, I pay the government $10k in taxes every year, and then they turn around and mail it back to me (minus 'postage and handling', of course)?

How does that make sense? Why not just lower my tax rate to zero?
Yes. I agree with you. That would be better.

Remember, Charles Murray wanted to do that too.

But realisticlaly, that's not going to happen. So this is better than the current system. (Or not, depending on one's opinion.)
grundle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.