Alaska: The Only US State Where Everyone Gets Free Money 284
merbs writes: Alaska’s Permanent Fund was established in 1976, in the midst of a black gold rush; the massive Trans-Alaska pipeline was in the process of being built, and the state had reaped $900 million in revenue from the sale of drilling leases in Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in North America, in a matter of years. In a matter of a few more, it’d spent it. Alaskans soon recognized that their enormous oil reserves were nonetheless limited, so, with a kind of longterm forward-thinking rarely seen in politics today, they voted to add an amendment to the state constitution to establish a fund that would protect a portion of all incoming oil wealth for future generations. In 2014, the net income of the fund was $6.8 billion dollars and the dividend doled out $1,884 to 640,000 citizens, despite a decline in oil revenues that year.
But then you have to live in Alaska (Score:3, Insightful)
And Alaska living isn't easy or cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Alaska living isn't easy or cheap.
In a previous job, I worked with a few Alaskans who absolutely loved the place. These particular guys lived in houses that didn't have electricity and relied on well water. They loved to go out and trap food. That's not the norm up there, but it does appeal to some folks.
My wife and I visited Alaska many years ago - it's a very beautiful state. Lots of green, lots of animals, amazing mountains and glaciers... And not so many people. You get to see the Aurora regularly.
It's hard to read the road signs, thoug
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alaska is the closet thing to paradise for those who want to move to a crowded place like Colorado, Montana, Oregon, etc.
It has lake front property for cheaper than these areas due to excess supply. If you love the city and did not grow up as a kid in the woods or near lakes or enjoy outdoor recreation activities then it may suck for you.'
This is from a former Alaska resident. It wasn't hard ... my exwife cried and started to loose her mind as she became depressed and hated the outdoors and refused to leave
Not free money (Score:5, Insightful)
They are royalties for resources held in the ground which are government property, not free money. Who else has a better claim to it, than the owners of the land, i.e., the people.
We paid for it when purchased under President Johnson, at the behest of Seward.
Re:Not free money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least the folks that had paid taxes up to the time of the purchase...
Re: (Score:2)
48 states. Texas also keeps the oil royalties.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact some of them are, but revenues from sale of federal rights are ridiculously low, thanks to lobbying groups. In other words, if you are unhappy complain to your house representative and ask them to increase federal land rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. We can always borrow it from the Social Security fund.
Re: (Score:2)
The payout is from a PORTION of the interest on the permanent fund. So, the fund continues to grow, and Alaskans get a portion of that growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why are you blaming Alaska for that? Complain to your local house representative. There's nothing stopping Arizona from charging more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Several million years ago, most of Alaska split off from Asia. Maybe his geography book is a bit dated.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, gee, then where are my royalty checks from the copper extracted form the ground here in Arizona? No this was a specific carve out for those rugged individualist conservatives in Alaska, who then come to the continental US to lecture us about seeing Putin from their back yard and the evils of the welfare society. Also about how the internet is a set of tubes that we clog with our illegal downloads or something.
Ha Ha. We gave Sarah to you guys. Maybe she can work out another Permanent Fund deal.
And old Uncle Teddy is dead. That's why we're in this mess. Ted Stevens pushed more Federal money into Alaska then we got from the Permanent Fund. He was a pretty cheap date. A couple of million dollars and you get a Senate vote and those couple of million go pretty far in a state with a population less than some eastern counties. Much cheaper than trying to buy out somebody on the lower 48.
Re: (Score:2)
cause Alaska's huge in resources, not in populatio (Score:5, Informative)
Cute. The 640,000 citizens received in total $1.2 billion dollars.
If this had happened in Texas (another state that produces a lot of oil, though in general doesn't have all the natural resources Alaska has), those $1.2 billion would amount to... less than $45 for each of it's 27 million inhabitants.
Now it doesn't look as cool, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
If this had happened in Texas those $1.2 billion would amount to... less than $45 for each of it's 27 million inhabitants.
Now it doesn't look as cool, does it?
True, but using it for infrastructure/schools/etc. and giving a tax reduction might work too...
Re: (Score:2)
Something else Texas doesn't have: a state income tax.
Re: (Score:2)
A complete irrelevant metric. The percentage is high only because home prices are low in Texas. Instead, a much more relevant metric would be to take a typical home (1500 sq ft?) and calculate the average property tax in dollars for that house and then compare that dollar value across states.
Re: (Score:2)
Some piss it all off at walmart, etc
I usually invest mine in my home.
Re: (Score:2)
If this had happened in Texas (another state that produces a lot of oil, though in general doesn't have all the natural resources Alaska has), those $1.2 billion would amount to... less than $45 for each of it's 27 million inhabitants.
I think that you're forgetting that Texas produces about 8x as much crude [eia.gov] as Alaska. If they had setup a similar fund we would be talking about at least $400 per year. Not too shabby.
Now, if either state had followed Norway's lead [wikipedia.org] and kept most of the oil profits for themselves, we would be talking about substantially larger amounts of dividends or savings. Norway's fund is now approaching a trillion dollars in value -- for a country with a population one fifth that of Texas's, and approximately the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Plus in Alaska you don't have 27 millions assholes like you do in Texas.
Oh look another texan with a 1" penis driving a Ford F550 pickup jacked sky high and rilling coal.
?? Have you been to Alaska? It is loaded with gun loving conservatives who own trucks and Suburu's (because they are all wheel drive). Not bashing the state but it is as red as Alabama due to it's military presence and those who hate society and go to get a more minimalist approach.
What do others do? (Score:2)
Re:What do others do? (Score:5, Informative)
Alberta just put the royalties into general revenue and spent it. Now that the price of oil has collapsed they are facing a huge budget deficit and have nothing to show for it. (Well, some infrastructure may have been built that wouldn't have.)
Norway placed high royalties on their oil and invested it. I think their fund is the largest sovereign fund in the world. There is a budgetary rule that only 4% of the value of the fund could be taken out in a year to be used in their budget. So far the fund has always grown by more than 4% each year so it looks good for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Alberta just put the royalties into general revenue and spent it. Now that the price of oil has collapsed they are facing a huge budget deficit and have nothing to show for it. (Well, some infrastructure may have been built that wouldn't have.)
I think the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund has managed to do a bit of good. But it doesn't look like it has been as effective as Norway or Alaska's systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the revenues in Norway are used to pay for a comprehensive welfare system. The rest goes into a sovereign-wealth fund to save for the future.
Re: (Score:2)
/. Titles In All Caps Makes Them Hard To Read (Score:3, Insightful)
How can the reader tell when a word is a Proper Noun, Trademarked, etc; or when it is an Ordinary Word? I've complained about this before and some have claimed that the slashdot way is always used by journalists. Well that's not true and here is proof. Slashdot's way is stupid and unconscionable. Look at this summary extracted from today's headlines at Google news. Note the familiar publisher's names and how they handle capitalization in titles:
Dozens of coalition troops die in Houthi missile strike in Yemen ... ...
CNN
Finnish PM's offer to migrants: Take my spare house
STLtoday.com
Protests Continue in Southern Syrian City
Voice of America
47 dead as rebels battle IS in north Syria: monitor
Financial Express
Vast, stubborn Fresno wildfire expected to rage through long weekend
Los Angeles Times
What have Bush, Clinton learned from voters attraction to the outsiders?
Washington Post
Police pay respects to slain Texas lawman
Brownsville Herald
Plainclothes cops keep eye out for Times Square hustlers
seattlepi.com
No more union coal mines remain in Kentucky, home of the deadly battles of
Fox Business
Jobless rate falls to 5.1%, a 7-year low
NWAOnline
New England's ports, long past their prime, seek comeback with niches in
Fox Business
Advisory Group Says BofA Should Split CEO and Chairman Roles
New York Times
Apple will show a lot more than iPhones at its September event
Mashable
Google may return to China with Android app shop: report
Livemint
Uber Expires Share Your ETA Links After 48 Hours
I4U News
Destiny composer Marty O'Donnell wins court case against Bungie
Load The Game
Farthest-ever 3.2-billion-years old galaxy detected
The Indian Express
Scientists hunt for clues in mysterious deaths of 60000 antelopes in four days
Christian Science Monitor
Predator population grows slowly in crowded environment: Study
NYC Today
University of Kansas Researchers Discover Quark-Gluon Plasma
NYC Today
Legionnaires' disease outbreaks in three states, 8 people died in Illinois
The Standard Daily
Scientists working on making a gadget to cure seasickness
Nature World Report
CDC is funding to help state health department to eradicate painkiller abuse
The Standard Daily
Take Aspirin to boost your immunotherapy treatment during cancer
PPP Focus.com
I'd be in favor (Score:2)
Reason being is for natives (Score:2)
Yes for non_americans reading this they are properly addressed and not called Indians like the rest of the lower 48. Alaskan English at it's finest :-)
Since we are stealing their land we compensated them for it. That money will greatly help them out where jobs are scarce in the arctic villages and prices and supplies high in cost. During a good year the PFD can be as high as $3,000 a person. If you are a family of 4 in a village on the arctic coast up north that money will buy fuel for the winter and a new
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not close. You're confusing the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [wikipedia.org] with the Permanent Fund.
Many, but not all, Alaskan Natives get regular dividends from the various businesses and resources controlled by the native consortia (not tribes). All Alaskan residents get a dividend from the Permanent Fund (unless it has been garnished). Most Native Alaskans get both. For many natives, those two funding sources constitute the majority of their income.
Thank the Republican governor(s) (Score:2)
Per-capita fund value (Score:3)
Quick calculation seems that the fund is worth about $70k per head (pop 740k). Not shabby.
Norway (pop ~5M) has the largest fund in the world, also from oil revenues, which owns an estimated 1% of world equities. That fund value is about $170k per head. It doesn't pay dividends to citizens, rather using the money to pay government pensions (thus saving gov revenue).
I can't find (from perfunctory searching) historic figures of value (thus growth) for both that I can compare, but it would be interesting to compare the investment return of both, and the management fees.
And for those (Score:2)
...who are trying to destroy the petro economy, that will then go away.
Congrats.
Re: (Score:3)
so get a paper divorce and get more?
also add medicare / medicaid (joined in to one) for all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing with grandiose plans for universal welfare: They're never that well thought out.
Re: (Score:2)
Not caring for couples vs singles makes it easier, as you eliminate bureaucracy / moral burden for that and it may be considered implicit child support. (Yes, there's the $250 per month for a child too)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. I don't think it's a big problem.
Sure, some people are going to get divorced, but I'm still sticking to my idea of 1.5 times for married couples. Not everyone will get divorced. Do you think people would get divorced over $3k/year for the couple?
You see, this is exactly why I vehemently oppose political leaders who espouse socialism and universal welfare: They always have these ideas on paper that they think will work out perfectly, but then they fail to take into account many many variables such as what you're missing here, and after they're elected and their policies get implemented, they discover the hard way that they made shit a lot worse (See Francoise Hollande and what happened after his brilliant idea for a 75% tax on the rich was implement
Re: (Score:3)
An unmarried couple still is a couple. Welfare systems may look at the household and not care if the people there are married or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you calculated the annual cost of your scheme and figured out the effects it would have on inflation? Because you should do that.
Re: (Score:2)
22-66: $750/month/couple"
So you'd punish couples?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So two people live together but don't get married?
What's the rate if 4 people live together? How about if one is disabled?
The reality is that gets complicated fast and soon enforcement starts costing more than just not bothering with all that and paying a flat rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, my primary concern with this has always been the moral hazard. $6,000 per year per adult isn't very much so why not vote for politicians who promise to give you more? There's always been a significant portion of the US that just doesn't care about the future or understand economics. Wh
Justice (Score:2)
In the economic realm, justice is "get what you pay for, and pay for what you get."
Your scheme is deeply unjust. Fully implementing it would destroy civilization faster than global nuclear war.
As far as you personally are concerned, Anonymous Coward, you want to live without deserving to live. I wish you the fate you deserve.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that's just welfare.
With communism there is no money at all...in theory of course. Basically you have to force people to work for free, and eventually people get pissed off because some people feel that they do more work than other people, and aren't justly rewarded, and so they leave. Then your GDP goes to shit and you turn to socialism just to try to maintain the status quo of your local political leadership, which is where everybody works for the government as the government owns the means of product
Re:Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
In communism you have money, but nothing to buy with it on the shelves. In capitalism the shelves are always choke full but you don't have money.
Re: (Score:3)
I know you're joking, but...
The first sentence in your statement defines socialism, not communism, and pretty well at that (often times people may have money but nothing worth buying.) It's understandable because most people confuse the two, but in communism there indeed is no money. The USSR identified themselves as communist, but they in fact fit the economic definition of socialism.
As far as the second sentence in your statement, capitalism tends to be very well self correcting in that regard. Namely, if
Re: (Score:2)
The USSR identified themselves as communist,
No they didn't. What do you think the name stood for? If they were communist they would have called themselves the USCR.
They fully knew they were socialist, you just have no clue what you're talking about.
Re:Comment (Score:4, Informative)
Socialism means that the factories (means of production) belong to the state. This is not the case in Denmark, so your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
Re:Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism means that the factories (means of production) belong to the state. This is not the case in Denmark, so your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
Re:Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
When Americans say socialism, they usually mean taxes. Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit. They only narrowly look at the government services they've directly consumed and want their tax bill to match. In fact they might actually argue their tax rate should be lower because a millionaire is still just one man and doesn't consume services in proportion to his income, so they'd rather have a small government and pay themselves. "Socialists" are everybody who want more taxes, progressive taxes, inheritance tax, wealth tax, taxes for welfare, taxes for universal services, taxes for public services or really any form of tax that would redistribute wealth from the rich for the common good. Basically any accumulation of wealth is their own and society has no right to any of it, though those who say that typically want protection of private property and contracts, police, courts and all the other bits that happen to be necessary to keep a large personal fortune. I'm sure it's a coincidence.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
When Americans say socialism, they usually mean taxes. Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit. .
And yet - at least for my my most vociferous peeps who call anything they disagree with, "socialism" they completely ignore the fact that the soocial security they are collecting is an actual socialist program.
Indeed, the most "conservative guy I know, collects social security, has not paid a medical bill in his adult life, went to college fully paid, and worked for the government his entire life. The way I figure, the evil government he so despises, has shelled out many millions for the guy. The only mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I reject that definition.
You can reject it all you'd like. You can reject that the color of the night sky is black and argue that it is white too, but the fact remains otherwise. What the USSR had was socialism; the government owned all of the factories and other means of production, and everybody in the country worked for the government.
Capitalism means a free market economy, and a free market simply means that prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand.
If you choose to make Fruit Cocktail, and are required to make it to a specific formula,
No, there is no such requirement in the US. Though typically it'
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is no such requirement in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Reality disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Most European countries do have some markets that are socialist, namely they run a health care system where the means of production (the medical staff) is owned and run by the government. THAT is socialism,
This single sentence demonstrates perfectly that you dont understand the meaning of "socialism" nor universal health care systems.
A lot (meaning most) universal health care systems, even single payer systems allow a lot of private entities to operate within them. From consulting doctors to entire private hospitals, what universal health care does ensure is that private entities cannot overcharge or profiteer and that a patient gets the care they need regardless of their financial status (I.E. you cant be
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Reality disagrees with you.
For labeling purposes, maybe, but there is no specific formula like you said there was; this leaves a lot of room for interpretation as to what a fruit cocktail actually is. You could even use the minimum values there and add grapefruit.
Still, this in no way fits the definition of socialism. In fact, since you used wikipedia, let's use it to reinforce what I said earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
Now a lot of socialists will tell you that "the people" own the means of production and vote on what the
Re: (Score:2)
If you choose to make Fruit Cocktail, and are required to make it to a specific formula, then you are under a hybrid system (capitalist/socialist), like the USA. If you can choose to make anything you want, however you want (including stealing competitors formulas and logos), then you are pure capitalist. If the state tells you "we need more peaches this year, so that's what you'll be canning" then it's socialist.
Actually it is all wrong, more or less at least.
Capitalism is half a specific model of society
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant to this thread, in Denmark the oil and gas production does belong to the state, through a hilariously named state enterprise called DONG Energy. But it's true that many other things are privately owned. Maersk, for example, is not owned by the state, but the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
And East Germany was Democratic, too.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are called USSR, why do their Olympic athletes have CCCP on their outfits?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, they had that in their name, but when you look at the things their political leaders said, they always self identified as communist. For example, the governing party during the USSR days was the CPSU, or Communist Party Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least when applied to the US where 99% of the population produces all domestic wealth while 1% of the population has over 60% of the wealth. What does the other 1% do? Since they have the majority of the wealth they effectively loan most of it back to some of the people who actually generate wealth and charge them interest. In other words, they contribute nothing.
The price tag to join this group is a mere $17-20 million which will yield you the salary of
Re: (Score:2)
It's a genius idea and a perfect way to seriously gut the federal, state, and local governments of useless bureaucrats. Welfare programs are horribly sexists and promote single motherhood something that is neither good nor should be celebrated. Institute a living wage, gut the governments of their useless bureaucratic leeches, eliminate the minimum wage, and end pensions. I'd be thrilled to see something like that instituted. Being a bureaucrat shouldn't be encouraged as a career choice. You'll see hyperinflation before such a program comes about
And also, you'd have to pay me a lot more than 1,800$ to want to live in Alaska. Something northwards of $150k and then maybe i'd consider it for 3-5 years. Otherwise, pass on the great cold north.
Damn, that's sounds a lot like the perfect recipe to create third world conditions right here at home. Do you like the idea of stepping over dying old people while kids beg from you in the street? Is that really your idea of paradise?
Re: (Score:2)
Where is this mass of invaders coming from? You are aware that there has been no net immigration from Mexico in the last 5 years.
The US deported over 300k Mexican citizens in 2013.
Even as border apprehensions dropped, deportations of Mexican immigrants reached a record high in 2013 of 314,904, up from 169,031 in 2005. This is due in part to a 2005 shift in policy that has increased the chances of being deported following apprehension in the border region, instead of just being sent back without an order of removal.
They're still trying, but that does seem like the US could be doing something better with its resources than stopping "invaders".
Re: (Score:2)
1. I'm not punishing marriage. Married couples have shared expenses so it decreases the need somewhat.
You ARE punishing marriage. Two single friends living as roomates in an apartment have the same shared expenses but get more. (BingBang Theory's Leonard and Sheldon, each get the single payment.) Then Leonard falls for Penny moves next door, and they each get less now. That's punishing marriage.
Just give everyone the same amount. Give everyone half the married amount, and it will actually cut your program costs down. Yes, it might force singles to live with roomates, rent basements or room-and-board, share
Re:what a stupid headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget Wall St. We have been artificially holding interest rates at 0 for 7 years now just to give an enormous boost to the financial industries. That far exceeds the dividend to Alaskans. Nobody is making any noise about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevada was trying to get Yucca Mtn going for nuclear waste storage, and bill the other states for storage of their waste, and I know there was some talk about doing an Alaska-style annual payment to residents from these funds, but our "village idiot", Harry Reid, shot that one down...
Re: (Score:3)
"The State" doesn't have any goddamn valuable resources. The people who live in the state have those resources. It's called "the commons".
Who owns the air over your head? Who owns the motherfucking light on a sunny day? If the state you live in has oil, on public lands then it belongs to the citizens of that state.
Re: (Score:2)
"The State" doesn't have any goddamn valuable resources. The people who live in the state have those resources. It's called "the commons".
Who owns the air over your head? Who owns the motherfucking light on a sunny day? If the state you live in has oil, on public lands then it belongs to the citizens of that state.
It certainly seems like a worthwhile use of state resources - take the state income and split it amoungst the residents to do with as they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
As Abraham Lincoln said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Or in the vernacular, "If you need to pull the biggest load, hitch up the strongest horses".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that wasn't Abe Lincoln, it was Groucho Marx.
Re: (Score:2)
The bizarre thing about the dividend is how holy it is. People here seem to think that everyone is entitled to free money from their government, not that it's an aberration for a state to write you a check just because it has some valuable resources.
It's only a matter of time here before the dividend is repealed. We've made a lot of decisions lately (tax wise) that favor the big corps, that have drained income from government/education budgets, and were supposed to, you know, JOBS! The dividend won't stay sustainable with government expenditure.
I live here too and we will both see the end of the Dividend in our lifetimes (unless you have an unfortunate rapidly fatal illness). The state legislature is sitting there like a moose in the headlights waiting for the state economy to come crashing down due to $40 / barrel oil and the decreasing production out of the Prudhoe fields. The only pot of gold left is the Permanent Fund, which won't be so permanent starting next year. They will wait till the bitter end when they start shutting down the roads,
Re:My neighbors get free money every month (Score:5, Insightful)
Where the hell do you live that welfare/disability pays enough to buy endless beer and meth? I know a couple of people on disability and they have a fuck of a time just eating satisfactorily, little well being able to buy more then a 6 pack of beer once a month.
There's also one fuck of a lot of homeless people around and they sure don't look like they're having a great life, especially when the weather turns to shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have an uncle with MS who's on disability, and he can't even pay his rent with it. He gets $600/mo, and rents a cheap apartment in a shitty part of Los Angeles for about $550/mo. He can only buy food and pay for his medical co-pays because we send him money.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the hell do you live that welfare/disability pays enough to buy endless beer and meth? I know a couple of people on disability and they have a fuck of a time just eating satisfactorily, little well being able to buy more then a 6 pack of beer once a month. There's also one fuck of a lot of homeless people around and they sure don't look like they're having a great life, especially when the weather turns to shit.
Because someone making a billion a year needs that 800 a month the guy on disability makes. How the hell are billionaires going to create jobs if they can't get over that criticaal threshold started by those stupid greedy sick and handicapped fucks?
Or the guy making 30 K a year, who "will be a billionaire" next year. Good luck.
There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There is something terribly wrong with the hatred shown toward those less fortunate.
Re: (Score:2)
That was Nip/Tuck season 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one looks at an individual with a disability and says "what a freeloader!"
Come on down to Indiana sometime....
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in the sense that someone who pays for insurance, benefits when the insurance pays off. They can receive far less than they paid in, or far more.
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly why I believe universal income is a good thing. No fear to lose welfare, or just uncertainty from changing lifestyle and go to a working place where everyone is frowning, tired and living in submission and/or fear and "competing" with colleagues for crumbs or a permanent position. If you can even get hired in the first place.
Instead, the bums could go to work for a 20 hours a week unskilled job smiling, and the oppressed workers have a range of options from quitting the job, working a bit le
Re: (Score:2)
That's good for the environment :).
No really, some people just won't work, it's like the left handed or homosexuals. Getting rid of them is pointless. Suck it up. If you're from the US, welcome to the part of the developed world with permanent 10+% unemployment. You had a good run thanks to your huge land and oil resources. Now your productivity and GDP are too high for everyone to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and he never paid into Social Security, so I'm not sure how you are so 100% wrong 100% of the time. Do you know how it works? Or do you hate it without understanding?
Re: (Score:2)
Put them on farms, where there's always work to be done. Drugs are less of a problem for people doing hard physical labor 16 hours a day.
Taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who manifestly don't deserve it has always been wrong, and always will be. Furthermore, it sets a bad example; more people will be tempted to live without working.
Judging by the n
Re: (Score:2)
Alabama tried that. In fact, a lot of Southern states tried that - chain gangs.
Conscripted labor, be it through a jail cell or a welfare roll is shit labor. Not worth the money it takes to supervise them. Besides, most farm jobs are skilled positions. If you're working a $100,000 piece of machinery you don't want the idiot next store who can't even read getting up in the cabin. Even picking vegetables takes a modicum of skill and coordination.
It's a tough pill to swallow but there exists a significant
Re: (Score:2)
You poor lost soul.