Transitioning off the Welfare State

[Eiuol]

I am thinking about how to eliminate welfare programs in the long run. One premise here is that an immediate repeal of welfare programs and entitlement programs is not proper. People adapt to laws, even bad ones, as well as the context they exist, such as twisting the nature of markets such that the programs are the new "market". So, immediate repeal would screw with those adaptations. It would be unjust to the actual good people doing their best.

Now, one idea seems to be to condense programs down so that programs are simpler to adapt to. One way to do that is to create a "living wage", not because people deserve one, but because it makes the programs less unruly (they aren't run so well). This makes it possible to spend money within a market, without any constraints on how the money is spent. Or if there are constraints to the type of spending (e.g. for medical care, for food), the constraint wouldn't be specific. The idea here is that over time, one result is a living wage where bureaucrats don't make decisions. That is, ALL citizens get a flat amount.

Then, a little while later, the living wage will be eliminated. A simple flat amount is also a way to balance out any sense "of need" so that "need" doesn't enter the equation. Even more, the net cost is likely to be less than it is now, as far as bureaucracy.

But I am most interested in problems this may cause. Might it inadvertently promote the programs that many want to keep, like the safety net as a whole? Might it make the government into more of a caretaker, and make it harder to end the welfare state?

[StrictlyLogical]

I think phasing in of private solutions is a good way to transition to eliminate all government programs.

First government allows private entities to create the program.. i.e. government no longer bans them from offering such programs.

Individual participants in the program provide proof they are opting out of the government program, and each participant is entitled to get a full rebate in taxes otherwise which would have been taken for funding the program.

This would be applicable to profit and non profit programs, consumers and donors alike.

Profit programs would be education or mail delivery or recycling programs various types of health and employment insurance, micro-loans, student loans, etc.

Non-profit programs would be charities for the old, disabled, infirm, or whatever kind of charity or grant proposed.

Donors to private programs are credited with taxes which they would have paid through government to fund similar charity/welfare.  Recipients choose to receive the private charity in lieu of what they would have received from government.

 

This will also serve to get people thinking outside of the nanny state sand box and the idea that always relying on a single player (who has a monopoly on the use of force) to provide everything is not the wisest choice.

 

All proposals to wean the public off of the government does rely on a government's willingness to abdicate from interfering with (and unjustly profiting from...) the lives of the citizens.  THIS is likely just as tough a battle.

 

A living wage IMHO is a step in the wrong direction as it encourages dependence and culture of dependence and altruism.

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by StrictlyLogical

[Eiuol]

45 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

First government allows private entities to create the program.. i.e. government no longer bans them from offering such programs.

Individual participants in the program provide proof they are opting out of the government program, and each participant is entitled to get a full rebate in taxes otherwise which would have been taken for funding the program.

This is part of my point: some set of bureaucrats are deciding who gets what. It would still operate as an extension of government entitlements, insofar as there are still bureaucrats who would run it and intend to serve the same role. "Opting out" to qualify for a private program makes the government into a legitimate and rival provider, and also creates a dichotomy of government as always bad and individual as the opposite. I see no way for it to work unless people disinvest in the government and any interest in its promotion and importance.

What are reasons a living wage encourages dependence if the intent is simplification, and goes with less intervention, and you can use that money as you wish?