DC bill to pay people for not committing crimes

[wmenorr67]

Problem with this in DC is that the biggest crooks in the city are already being paid to be there.

[AJ Dual]

Huh.  Complicated.  Personally, I'd just make 'not committing crimes' a condition of ALL benefits.

But on the other hand, not everybody is eligible for $30k worth of benefits per year, and if you're going to take somebody's time up with therapy and stuff, paying them to do so seems reasonable.  I know it's weird, but if you can successfully stop somebody from committing any felonies for a year for $9k, it's actually worth it over punishing them after they commit one or more.  Yes, things should be structured that this isn't some crazy benefit over those of us who aren't going to commit felonies anyways.

You also have programs like paying kids to go to school and earn acceptable grades.  Why?  They're so short-sighted that they can't comprehend how the education will benefit them later in life, so don't value it unless they benefit immediately from it.  Sometimes the lifestyle of the parent is such that the extra income provides the 'security' necessary to keep the kid in school.

Please note that I'm kind of feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place with this stuff. 
No, I don't want to be paying people to 'not commit crimes'.  But I also think that we need to be fiscally responsible - and if paying them is the cheapest option, then paying them makes sense.  We just have to be careful of slippery slopes.

For example, if you make it so that a baby-momma doesn't get paid unless her offspring are not only in school, but getting good grades, she's going to suddenly be a lot more interested in their school performance.

I can kinda/sorta sympathize with this. If someone ran the numbers, and presuming it worked, they could claim it's "cheaper" than the court costs, police time, prison etc. hospitalization of victims (if they lived) if the person went and committed crimes.

Kind of like the "Mincome" argument, instead of our whole slew of welfare programs, just give everyone X dollars a year. Cheaper, no fraud, cuts huge bureaucracy overhead off the top.

Of course, it's only cheaper in theory, you'd never get an airtight cut-off of other welfare streams, or a way to guarantee new ones wouldn't creep back in legislatively over time.

So I'm left thinking maybe we could just use the $9000 as bait, over a trap door, that leads down to an industrial shredder or something...

[Firethorn]

Personally, I'd rather give as much of it as possible to those few, and let the others starve.

Problem:  That's what leads to people getting their heads cut off, such as what happened in the French revolution.  Even today, long before they starve said people end up committing crimes and therefore get fed in prison.  Prison is expensive, and not a deterrent to these people.  Hell, there are people who will commit crimes specifically to go back!

The problem I see is that you're not taking 2nd order expenses into account.  I worry less about how much goes INTO people's pockets than what's coming OUT of mine.

How many small-time troublemakers got the "jail or enlist" option back in the day and came out the other side of it as productive members of society?

Forcing them to enlist is no longer a viable option, so to be realistic we need an alternative, yes. 

I can kinda/sorta sympathize with this. If someone ran the numbers, and presuming it worked, they could claim it's "cheaper" than the court costs, police time, prison etc. hospitalization of victims (if they lived) if the person went and committed crimes.

Kind of like the "Mincome" argument, instead of our whole slew of welfare programs, just give everyone X dollars a year. Cheaper, no fraud, cuts huge bureaucracy overhead off the top.

That's why I support mincome/BIG schemes.  It's always explicitly a replacement for existing welfare programs, justified because it's probably going to cost about the same, help people more, not dis-incentive at least working some, and generally increasing the power/freedom of normal people.

Of course, it's only cheaper in theory, you'd never get an airtight cut-off of other welfare streams, or a way to guarantee new ones wouldn't creep back in legislatively over time.

True, but I'd argue that we can keep the other welfare streams down to a dull roar.

[AJ Dual]

True, but I'd argue that we can keep the other welfare streams down to a dull roar.

I sincerely doubt that.

It'll instantly be: "Mincome is not enough for..."

Or: "Mincome is federal. The state programs are still..."

And: "Mincome people are being taken advantage of/victimized by..."

Bring on the trap doors and grinders.

[KD5NRH]

Problem:  That's what leads to people getting their heads cut off, such as what happened in the French revolution.  Even today, long before they starve said people end up committing crimes and therefore get fed in prison.  Prison is expensive, and not a deterrent to these people.  Hell, there are people who will commit crimes specifically to go back!

There's plenty of undesirable public work to be done to have a workfare system.  Even farming out as seasonal commercial labor with careful oversight.  They don't have to starve if they're willing to work, but we first need to eliminate the "I can't find work" argument entirely.

Forcing them to enlist is no longer a viable option, so to be realistic we need an alternative, yes.

As I said, something along the lines of work release for the ones with minor crimes.  Manual skills training, progressively less supervision as they show themselves to be improving and potential to earn points toward a scholarship for something fancier.  Let workfare dig the ditches while work release sets the rebar and pours the concrete.

[Firethorn]

They don't have to starve if they're willing to work, but we first need to eliminate the "I can't find work" argument entirely.

True, I support some sort of 'fedjob' idea - I hear way too much about 'crumbling infrastructure' to believe that we couldn't keep a much tighter lid on it if we paid people to actually fix it.  Even if they might not be the best at it at first.

Thing is, we should all realize that preventative maintenance is normally cheaper than emergency fixes.  So it'd actually save money over the long run.

[brimic]

Problem:  That's what leads to people getting their heads cut off, such as what happened in the French revolution. 

I'm ok with that. Those that are going to get there heads cut off are the hive dwellers and politicians who enabled the welfare lifestyle to begin with.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Then cut off their welfare, crack down on the true malum in se crimes, and kick the single-cig dealers and at-home-not-driving pot smokers out of prison to make room to keep the real criminals.  Commissary funds to be earned by actual work.  Outside contributions only allowed to match, not exceed earnings.

The mythical "at home not driving pot smokers "that some  seem to fantasize about

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[KD5NRH]

The mythical "at home not driving pot smokers "that some  seem to fantasize about

Known plenty of them.  My old roommate for example, wouldn't touch it during the week, but then he'd grab a couple days worth of food, get baked Friday evening and spend Saturday and Sunday morning eating everything that wasn't nailed down.  Ex girlfriend's neighbors were farmers, and they'd actually have big arguments about who had to quit for a day to haul the crops to market or pick up supplies.

Just like plenty of people manage to drink or take prescription meds responsibly, there are people who can do other things responsibly too.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Known plenty of them.  My old roommate for example, wouldn't touch it during the week, but then he'd grab a couple days worth of food, get baked Friday evening and spend Saturday and Sunday morning eating everything that wasn't nailed down.  Ex girlfriend's neighbors were farmers, and they'd actually have big arguments about who had to quit for a day to haul the crops to market or pick up supplies.

Just like plenty of people manage to drink or take prescription meds responsibly, there are people who can do other things responsibly too.

Have you ever known someone jailed that fit those parameters?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KD5NRH]

Have you ever known someone jailed that fit those parameters?

Yes.  Ex gf's neighbors got picked up after someone reported their small grow in a clearing behind the back pasture.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yes.  Ex gf's neighbors got picked up after someone reported their small grow in a clearing behind the back pasture.

small grow that is visible exceeds those parameters

Perhaps the unicorn you seek exists somewhere but in the thousands of folks I have known who were guests at the house of many doors I have not found one


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yes.  Ex gf's neighbors got picked up after someone reported their small grow in a clearing behind the back pasture.

small grow that is visible exceeds those parameters

Perhaps the unicorn you seek exists somewhere but in the thousands of folks I have known who were guests at the house of many doors I have not found one


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[birdman]

Kind of like the "Mincome" argument, instead of our whole slew of welfare programs, just give everyone X dollars a year. Cheaper, no fraud, cuts huge bureaucracy overhead off the top.

I like this.  Provided we set it at something fair and reasonable.  Like FREAKIN ZERO.

[KD5NRH]

small grow that is visible exceeds those parameters

Wouldn't have been visible from anywhere outside their property, other than a very low flying aircraft.  Assumption is that the report came from a hunter either outright poaching or tracking a wounded deer on the property without permission.  They weren't dealing, nor were they growing enough to deal.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No one is ever growing enough to deal



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Firethorn]

I like this.  Provided we set it at something fair and reasonable.  Like FREAKIN ZERO.

Problem with Zero is that you end up paying far more than zero on police, courts, and prison costs.

One of the problems with the current welfare system is that it has 'cliffs', IE spots where a person will be worse off working than not working.  Not to mention that trying to determine who's worthy of what assistance gets expensive, and you have program costs in ensuring that the money is spent how the politicians determine it should be spent.

Now, I know this is more social libertarian than fiscal libertarian, but there are still shades of both sides.  By getting rid of all the bureaucracy about benefits, and simply giving a flat amount to 'everybody', not worry about how it's spend, that's socially free.  It should also cost less, which pleases my fiscal responsibility side.

$500/month works out to $6k/year.  Go to a flat tax rate of 30% or so.  At that rate somebody would 'break even' at $20k/year.  I'd have to break out the spreadsheets(don't have the time, need to get work done), to figure out if that disadvantages anybody over the current system.  Especially with standard exemptions and deductions to worry about.

[De Selby]

No one is ever growing enough to deal



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

And no ones ever been charged with dealing who wasn't, nor imprisoned without due cause.

Mate, if you did time in a place where every single inmate needed to be there, your prison must have been Oz.

[grampster]

The elephant in this thread is the Criminal Justice/Welfare System that thrives on criminality and a corrupt and degraded culture that is the Welfare System.  There are millions of people who feed off that system in one way or another; those who work within it and those who take from it.  It will never go away, only get worse.

 The notion put forth in the article in the OP does nothing but additionally feed this system and add another layer of bureaucracy, coarsening and degradation, adding to the federal and state Plantation.  Couple that with one political party that is dedicated to that Plantation and you have modern America.  

This nation will never stop its decline until people are willing to confront the truth; which is the unwillingness to confront the root cause of this Plantation.  This is a coarse and degraded culture that no one will confront, except a few who recognize it for what it is, and are mocked when revealing it.  It's not likely that system will be reversed.  History seems to confirm that societies rise with hard work, intact families, faith in a higher power and personal responsibility...then begins to decline because of a coarsening of that society because of Plenty and neo-Liberal Guilt.

Reading what a number of you have posted, I'll bet when you get in the privacy of the voting booth, you'll pull the lever or hang a chad for The Bern.

[Scout26]

True, I support some sort of 'fedjob' idea - I hear way too much about 'crumbling infrastructure' to believe that we couldn't keep a much tighter lid on it if we paid people to actually fix it.  Even if they might not be the best at it at first.

Thing is, we should all realize that preventative maintenance is normally cheaper than emergency fixes.  So it'd actually save money over the long run.

How many bridges would you be willing to drive yourself and your family across built and maintained by a group of folks that didn't/couldn't/wouldn't finish high school?

[Ben]

How many bridges would you be willing to drive yourself and your family across built and maintained by a group of folks that didn't/couldn't/wouldn't finish high school?

I don't think any of us suggesting that a work requirement vs just the free dough for watching daytime TV would put an ex-con in an engineering role. It would be more like the guy who breaks the forms after the concrete is poured and who sweeps up and makes dump runs. Or the person who works in the copy room, not the board room. The point(s) being that any money being given away has to be earned, and that hopefully, for those few who would and would want to benefit, they have a work history they can put on a resume to get a job that's not being paid for by the taxpayers.

I prefer that people work for their welfare money vs just getting their welfare money for doing nothing. In my perfect world, there would be no govt welfare and it would all be handled by private charity, other than perhaps some small govt fund for disaster relief, given out for a short time to help someone get back on their feet after losing everything in a tornado or what have you.

Otherwise, realistically, what are we supposed to do? Pick the most conservative or libertarian small govt person you can think of and stick them in the White House. What are they going to do? They absolutely would have no power to eliminate welfare programs. At best they would be able to reduce them a little bit, perhaps even moderately. But govt welfare is not going away in our lifetimes outside of SHTF. So if people are going to get money,  I want them to work for it. Or hey, don't work for it, but then you get no money.

[KD5NRH]

Otherwise, realistically, what are we supposed to do? Pick the most conservative or libertarian small govt person you can think of and stick them in the White House. What are they going to do? They absolutely would have no power to eliminate welfare programs.

Find 535 more of them, and we can fix a lot.