How can we help the poor?

Mayor Bloomberg wants to try something new

Published on June 19, 2007 By IanTyger In US Domestic

This article from Fox about a pilot program in New York City caught my eye. It sounds like an excellent idea to me (the only good idea Mayor Bloomberg has had IMHO, but hey).

It descibes a pilot program to pay poor people for actions taken to lift themselves out of poverty - read the article for details. Payments for going to doctors for routine checkups, for kids getting good (95%-level) grades, etc

But the thing that caught my eye was this quote from an opponent of the plan:

"But some critics have raised questions about cash reward programs, saying they promote the misguided idea that poor people could be successful if they just made better choices.

"It just reinforces the impression that if everybody would just work hard enough and change their personal behavior we could solve poverty in this country, and that's not reflected in the facts," said Margy Waller, co-founder of Inclusion, a research and policy group in Washington.

Waller, who served as a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration, said it would be more effective to focus on labor issues, such as making sure wage laws are enforced and improving benefits for working people."

I was gobsmacked by this; and I rather suspect our host will get his blood pressure raised. Everyone I know who was poor (and are no longer), and everything I've read on the subject says, in effect, that poor people can in fact be successful if they make better choices. Lord knows if I had made better choices I would be in a much better position than I am now - in fact, if I hadn't had more "cushion" in my life and finances I would be poor now - I'm just now learning how to really manage my finances.

So what are you going to do, Margy, when the program shows that it's working?

Comments (Page 3)

danielost

on Jun 22, 2007

you told me that spell checker didn't matter now it does make up my mind

danielost

on Jun 22, 2007

Let's start by banging the same drum I've been banging on here for THREE YEARS! (eyeroll!)

and i have been saying it for at least 20 years

so what is your point about what i said about lower taxes

why attack me if we agree

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 22, 2007

and i have been saying it for at least 20 years

I said banging ON HERE (meaning JU).

so what is your point about what i said about lower taxes

why attack me if we agree

I'm not attacking, daniel, I'm trying to be helpful. The spelling isn't the primary issue, but it does help. Like I said, you were doing good there for awhile.

I didn't like the tone of your response, though. To me, it seemed you thought you were giving us a new revelation, something we never thought of. It's entirely possible you never meant it that way, but the way you responded made it appear that way. Like I said, I'm trying to be helpful. If it bugs me, I'm probably not the only one bugged by it.

Draginol

on Jun 23, 2007

The less involved the government is in our lives, the better off we are.

I don't want the government "paying" people to stay at home or paying for daycare or whatever. If people want to have children, that's great. But the government has no responsibility to paying for those children. It's the choice of the individual citizen.

The more you invite government into your lives, the less control of your life you'll have.

CharlesCS

on Jun 25, 2007

Couldn't have said it better myself Draginol. Again I say I will never understand this whole concept of having to make it easier for everyone. Why is it so bad for people to have to struggle a little in order to have a future? Why is it that if a woman becomes a mom that she should get paid for it? Why is it that if this mom wants or has to work that free daycare should be provided? I aspire to make more money so that I can live better and not have to live in the slum. How can I aspire to better myself when I always have the Gov't offering to pay everything for me? Why would I want a job when I can live for free? How can I learn anything if I don't have to because the Gov't will do everything for me?

Children should be our most precious cargo in life. They should be given a chance to become better people. But they should also be taught to survive on their own. Doing it all for them will teach them nothing. Those who I believe should get help are the elderly who are not capable of sustaining themselves. Not those who are perfectly capable of doing for themselves.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 25, 2007

The less involved the government is in our lives, the better off we are.

I don't want the government "paying" people to stay at home or paying for daycare or whatever. If people want to have children, that's great. But the government has no responsibility to paying for those children. It's the choice of the individual citizen.

The more you invite government into your lives, the less control of your life you'll have.

I have a very simple proposal that will solve all of this and not directly involve the government. And one that makes sense.

And that is to give employers a tax credit for every dime of wages, salaries, and benefits they pay their employees. Why? Because the employees are already being taxed on it and the government is "double dipping" as it is. If we did this, an employer with surplus revenues would usually be happy to reward good employees with extras that would be of mutual benefit.

Dr Guy

on Jun 25, 2007

And that is to give employers a tax credit for every dime of wages, salaries, and benefits they pay their employees.

With the exception of some high salaried executives (and the reason why Stock Options have become so popular), they do. Businesses are allowed to deduct employee's wages before taxes as an expense.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 25, 2007

With the exception of some high salaried executives (and the reason why Stock Options have become so popular), they do. Businesses are allowed to deduct employee's wages before taxes as an expense.

Not really, doc. They get a DEDUCTION, but not a CREDIT. AND they still have to pay the portion of Soc. Security.

We should actively reward businesses who treat their employees well. They are benefitting the entire country in so doing.

Dr Guy

on Jun 25, 2007

They get a DEDUCTION, but not a CREDIT. AND they still have to pay the portion of Soc. Security.

Correct on the first (sorry for not reading closer) and I wish the government had to do a "Truth in Law" law. If so, then a lot of the hyperbole they spin when they start talking about raising taxes would be blown away by the truth in taxing.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!