Qualification for Basic Income

Blame Welfare Recipients.. or Implement a Solution?

Posted on Updated on

By Kelly Posey 

food stamps complain welfare

 

Think People On Food Stamps Are Eating More Lobster Than You? Think Again

Stories of SNAP recipients using benefits to buy shellfish and junk food abound.
“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards,” Rick Bratten, a Missouri Republican who this year proposed prohibiting SNAP recipients from buying seafood or steak, told the Washington Post. “When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.”

In Maine and Wisconsin, lawmakers are pushing legislation to restrict SNAP benefits to foods deemed healthy. The Wisconsin State Assembly approved legislation this week to ban junk food and also “crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish.” The bill’s sponsor cited “anecdotal and perceived abuses.”


Frankly, I don’t know how someone could really afford to regularly eat lobster on food stamps. You don’t really get enough money to eat comfortably. I mean, sure, you could buy some lobster this week, and maybe go a bit hungry the next. But really, who cares? You can do that with your hard earned wages too if you want. But it really doesn’t matter.
For those who would be concerned that individuals on food stamps are eating more luxuriously than you can on work wages, look – the problem of you not being able to afford expensive food on your wages is not caused by someone on food stamps buying lobster. Therefore, the solution is not contained in trying to prevent those on food stamps from buying lobster or what have you. That would actually likely have more of a negative effect. It would take much more bureaucratic oversight to impose stricter limitations on what can be bought with food stamps, requiring more government work, paid by your taxes.

Wages are low because the economy is low because nobody has any money to spend into the economy. It’s a vicious cycle that just feeds itself and more and more we feel the squeeze. What boosts the economy is people having money to spend into the economy. At this point jobs can’t be counted on to provide enough income to individuals and that’s why we have a support system like food stamps. We have a lot of welfare programs in the U.S., taking up a lot of government resources because it is already divided into so many different programs to ensure that it’s spent on certain things. So much added bureaucracy and tax money going into a lot of double-work, essentially, filling out and processing applications for each different program.

This is why I support the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal, because it proposes to simplify and streamline the welfare process by providing a basic income to those who need it, to be used to cover all one’s primary needs. There doesn’t need to be multiple programs with multiple application processes and reporting processes and so on, when it can be done from one platform. And there doesn’t need to be restrictions on how/where it is spent. That can be up to the individual, as it is the best way for individuals to learn financial responsibility, by going through the consequences themselves, and studies have shown that when individuals are given the chance they do not generally make poor choices, as some would seem to imply or expect. Certainly deciding for individuals promotes dependency as it does not encourage or provide an opportunity for an individual to learn and develop self responsibility.

So let’s make sure that we focus on the real problem and therefore the real solution, and not get caught up in a form of blame game and ‘it’s not fair’ point, like ‘if I can’t have it then neither can they’ I mean, how does that help anything at all? Rather, look at how do we go about creating that which we would like, for everyone, and realize that things don’t have to be the way they are. We live in a world where there is plenty, we need to stop getting lost in blaming each other, and focus on bringing about the changes that will actually solve the problems we’re experiencing.

 

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal

Living Income Guaranteed and Teaching

Posted on Updated on

This is a more difficult issue because thus far the education systems of the world have only been a drain in the economy and have not really produced anything substantial. One of the latest examples is the South African education system that in the last 10/15 years has eaten up 20% of the budget, but at the university level, there’s only a 15% pass rate with billions being lost in inefficiency.

Education and specifically teaching is also a type of ‘easy job’ because there are no real guidelines or minimum standards, while this is one of the points that build the foundation of a society that can exist without a criteria to measure effectiveness, to apply it and to expect effectiveness.

The current likelihood of drawing people into the education field is purely for having an ‘easier job,’ one where there is no real accountability and that is quite a problem. Therefore in Living Income Guaranteed we suggest that the teaching profession should be in the category that is normally referred to as one’s vocation. This means that teaching should be in the hierarchy of needs at the level where a person has achieved everything they wanted to be and become in this life, thus they are accomplished and ‘feel the calling’ to educate the children of the future. And they decide to do so not because of money, they do it because of the satisfaction it gives and because they have prepared themselves effectively to be the best that they can be.

We suggest that the teachers should be the best individuals of our society, the living examples that can share with the younger generations how to walk through the path of life with sufficient skills, sufficient understanding of how the world works while standing as an example of what it means to be a self responsible and integral person in society. Therefore money should not be what drives the teaching vocation, because Living Income Guaranteed would be – in our proposed format –sufficient to make a decent living, which means a teacher should only ever receive the Living Income Guaranteed and not anything more.This would require one to look at teaching from a different perspective and to investigate the reasons why our education system at this stage seems to be a complete failure.

What must also be emphasized is the importance of the family in the basic education of a child, realizing that in essence: education begins at home. The tools and the mechanisms with which to do this should be available in every home, and every parent should be educated and supported to understand how to facilitate this so that by the time the child reaches school, they follow an integral technological education curriculum that facilitates the correct functioning and learning of the mind, and the structure of the character within the relationships that produce a society that is best for everyone. This is how we can bring about the intellectual development of the human to be able to facilitate and contribute to society through finding more effective ways for the coexistence and harmony that is necessary between humans & humans, and humans & animals and humans & nature.

Another proposal is that if a method can be found to be effective in managing and ensuring that the teachers do produce the children that we can be proud of in our society, such as teachers being subject to performance evaluations and meeting the criteria for effectiveness, then one can revisit this point and possibly pay the teachers at least the minimum wage. However, based on our current evidence, the situation has not improved at all, it has only gone backwards and there is clearly no solution proposed for immediate implementation, and to simply try and ‘motivate the teacher with money’ while the very future of our society is dependent on their effectiveness means such incentive would be in fact counterproductive.

Teaching will be stepping stone to create a society that is genuinely driven to support others to become the best self-sufficient interdependent beings in society, rather than being merely competition driven individuals to make the most profit only – we will finally establish living values that will be the essential structure in which the functionality of our coexistence in self responsibility will be based upon.

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

Basic Income Guaranteed and Teaching, Education

Living Income Guaranteed and Property Ownership

Posted on Updated on

Living Income Guaranteed is particularly focused on those situations where a person is not in a position to have sufficient income to be able to participate as an equal within society through spending, purchasing, ensuring the basic needs required for a human to exist. There are conditions where a Living Income Guaranteed is not required meaning that those that have = do not qualify for a Living Income Guaranteed which is destined to ensure that there is enough income available to support those when in trouble, or when society is not yet able to produce sufficient jobs.

One of the foundations of capitalism is owning property, but also one of the foundations of capitalism is having a society that is able to consume because they have the means with which to do so, and this is why it is suggested that a balance must be struck.

The basic regulation would be that if you have more than one house you’re owning = you do not qualify for a Living Income Guaranteed because you are able – due to your property value – to sustain yourself or at the very least, you’ll have to sell one of the properties and then if you do not have employment, you’ll be able to qualify for a Living Income Guaranteed.

Another point is Investments. If you are able to sustain yourself through your investments – that means you have money somewhere in some form = you won’t need such investments any longer, because the Living Income Guaranteed will also act as a pension. Eventually, a mechanism will have to be established to see at which level investment would be sufficient so that you are no longer dependent on the Living Income Guaranteed and you are able to sustain yourself. Therefore savings or investments from the perspective of it creating sufficient wealth for you to sustain yourself will automatically place you in a position where you do not require a Living Income Guaranteed, because you are able to financially sustain yourself.

Capital growth is thus one of the points that will be promoted within a Living Income Guaranteed system because it will eventually create a situation where one will be able to be financially self-sustained, and the objective is to get each human to be financially self-sustained so that you are no longer dependent on your social systems – pension plans, insurance, loans, investments – as well as acquiring the skill to use capital in a way that you actually are able to sustain your existence. Then capitalism will become a functional system that benefits everyone with this necessary support when needed and a necessary responsibility when your Living Income Guaranteed is no longer required. This also places one within the self-development mindset that capitalism represents where you specifically acquire skills to eventually free yourself from the needed support, because you have been able to create for yourself a self-support system. Within your hierarchy of needs this would mean that you have achieved a level of self-fulfillment, thus a higher level of living within responsibility.

The psychological benefit one can find within capitalism will be worthwhile as it is structured practically within this reality, you do not have the stress that comes if you get to fail in your endeavor and you have nowhere to go, because there will be support. And as we have noticed within capitalism, one tends to fail the first few times because you haven’t got the skills yet and the experience, although that should be developed also within the education system so that failure is limited to the minimum, because failure means resources get wasted and when resources get wasted: it becomes more difficult to have a sustainable balanced system.

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

 Basic Income Guaranteed and Property Ownership