The Government of Distributism

[hvizsgyak]

I am not saying this system needs to be implemented so don’t get so uptight. Since you don’t like this system that I’m suggesting then lets hear yours where the lowest paid in our society can afford all the things I mentioned way at the top of this thread and have money left over to do other things. And if you are not going to give a corresponding answer then please don’t reply. Lets work toward solving the problem not arguing about it.

 

[Crocus]

At the end of the day, we are not trying to distribute money to obtain a just society, but goods and services. We can use money to do so, only if it is stable.

I too saw some problems with the solution proposed by @hvizsgyak . You seem open to a more just society, any ideas how to distribute those goods and services?

 

[hvizsgyak]

I’m sorry to say but raising taxes on the rich is not going to help a struggling or poor person pay for a place to live, transport them around, buy food for them, get healthcare insurance… better than paying them a wage that they can afford these things. A lot of the rich people did work hard for their money and they should keep it. I want to see the people at the bottom be able to at least pay for the essentials with any form of help from nobody except their own working power.

 

[hvizsgyak]

Too many people in the middle (not you) are ok in their financial positions, see no need for a different outlook. This is a time if ever there was, for “people of good will” to think critically and work together on solutions to very obvious problems.

Amen to that.

 

[Crocus]

I’m sorry to say but raising taxes on the rich is not going to help a struggling or poor person pay for a place to live, transport them around, buy food for them, get healthcare insurance… better than paying them a wage that they can afford these things. A lot of the rich people did work hard for their money and they should keep it. I want to see the people at the bottom be able to at least pay for the essentials with any form of help from nobody except their own working power.

Last sentence first. That should be the goal for sure: an income on which one can live.

Health care. Government could extend something similar to Medicaid, to any who would sign up. After a period of time, perhaps most people would be covered fully, with no co-pay and maybe even including most or all medicines. There is much resistance from people well off enough in their own circumstances and unwilling to see others’ sub standard coverage.

Income. People feel sorry for some employers that cannot afford paying a decent living wage. The government could top that up with a refundable tax credit, plus a higher amount (than what is now given to some families) for each child. The tax returns are well set up to administer this.

Raising taxes on the rich is the obvious source of revenue to pay for these expenses. Taxes were cut and cut; why can they not be returned? The rich themselves say they should pay more taxes; it is a burden for them to constantly have to figure out where they should direct their charitable giving (and political giving).

 

[Elizabeth3]

The rich themselves say they should pay more taxes; it is a burden for them to constantly have to figure out where they should direct their charitable giving (and political giving).

Nobody is stopping them from writing a check to the gov’t if they wish.

 

[Crocus]

Nobody is stopping them [the very rich] from writing a check to the gov’t if they wish.

And they do, but not all, and not consistently, and not in a way that changes the system of institutionalized and commodified poverty.

 

[tafan2]

I am not saying this system needs to be implemented so don’t get so uptight. Since you don’t like this system that I’m suggesting then lets hear yours where the lowest paid in our society can afford all the things I mentioned way at the top of this thread and have money left over to do other things. And if you are not going to give a corresponding answer then please don’t reply. Lets work toward solving the problem not arguing about it.

Instead of saying distributionism, which is what I am tempted to say, I will say it would follow the ideas of Rerum Novarum along with a couple of other features:

1. A free enterprise system, which has been proven to lift more people out of poverty than anything else. However, we must see what it needs
2. It must include a very real system of protection and recording property rights. This has been shown by Hernando de Soto to be critical for a rising and successful middle class. I suggest you read his excellent book “The Mystery of Capital”
3. Employers would pay a just wage, as defined by Rerum Novarum and other Church documents. This takes a change in morality of society, but that is more likely to be achieved as any other method
4. Strong unions, especially in those industries where it is apparent that small business cannot really compete.
5. Keep companies from getting gigantic, as they reach certain levels, their taxes go up to the extent that they eventually quite trying to take over more and more of the economy. We do not need the Amazons of the world which can disrupt any industry by their sheer size just by saying they are entering that market. And we do not need 6 banks controlling 75% of bank assets.
6. Encourage an ownership society. This is key.
7. Focus policies on creating small, independent family businesses.

 

[Socrates92]

We could eliminate all low-end (I’m not advocating abolishing all licensing of course) barriers to employment and relax all maximum hours-of-work laws, enabling the poor to work more without having to juggle 2-4 jobs. That would be a good start.

 

[Socrates92]

The rich themselves say they should pay more taxes; it is a burden for them to constantly have to figure out where they should direct their charitable giving (and political giving).

Oh the horror!

 

[Crocus]

Oh the horror!

I know, eh?

relax all maximum hours-of-work laws, enabling the poor to work more without having to juggle 2-4 jobs.

I’m not in favor of people having to work long hours in order to tally up their income towards a living wage.

 

[Socrates92]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Socrates92:

relax all maximum hours-of-work laws, enabling the poor to work more without having to juggle 2-4 jobs.

Me neither. But I’m also not in favour of cancer. Doesn’t mean I want to take away chemo, which I’m told can also be pretty hard on a person.

It’s much better to work long-hours in the short term (especially if the poor in question is a young person with a lot of energy), than to spend long years working short hours while stressing about affording basic necessities during every non-work hour. Just the stress itself can make the additional leisure time counterproductive if you’re in a really bad place.

 

[Crocus]

Just pay the man!
A living wage does wonders in preventing stress induced cancer. Create the conditions conducive to a healthy lifestyle. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, family leisure and worship time, modest resources to hope for attaining personal property.

 

[hvizsgyak]

Sorry, I just don’t think the poor should to work more than 40 hrs unless they want to. They may have work that needs to be done around the house and they may have a family that would want to spend time with them. Not everybody is married to their job. Again though, if they are go getters then let them work more than 40 hrs.

 

[hvizsgyak]

Just pay the man!
A living wage does wonders in preventing stress induced cancer. Create the conditions conducive to a healthy lifestyle. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, family leisure and worship time, modest resources to hope for attaining personal property.

I love your answer.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

What you are proposing is the the Govt fix everything, not that we as individual take responsibility.

Why not have something or both or more specifically somewhere in between, it seems like the problem of our welfare system may be that we are willing to spend money to help the poor subsist but not enough to uplift and transition them to the middle class (and then maybe we can get them to serve as mentors/social support for the remaining/“new” poor), also an incentive issue where a raise not only means losing help (Medicaid, child care, rental assistance (if you’re luck to get a slot), etc) but also paying a higher marginal tax credit (I wonder if the tax bill mitigated that)?

Also, what can be done to improve the prospects of the working class? Like you’re from Washington right, what can be help working class Seattle families who are facing an upswing in rents and property mortgages (if they had a modest mortgage), if people can’t save, where is there future?

 

[Peeps]

he group that assigns the amount a worker/manager/boss would get paid would be made up of honest working Americans from all parts of the work force. There are probably a lot more holes that need to be thought about and taken care of.

But how would these people be selected? Would it be a vote by the citizens? An appointment by the President or by State Senators or Representatives? Would they apply for the position–then what “company” would interview and make the selection?

And frankly, HOW would the people have the time to do this work and still be '“working Americans from all parts of the work force?” This is impractical–unless they will hold their committee position for a lifetime, they will end up losing their "'working jobs!–companies can’t just hold positions open for a few years until they have served their time and done their duty assigning paycheck amounts to everyone else!

Even now, the Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees that a worker will be able to return to employmnet–but there is no guarantee that they will still have their current job–they just have to be given a position with equal pay to their job. That means that if I take FMA from my job in Microbiology Day Shift–I may come back after 12 weeks to a job in Chemistry Night Shift!–which is UNACCEPTABLE to me after working exclusively in Microbiology for over 30 years! But I fully understand why my hospital would have to do this–they simply don’t have enough staff to allow me to take 12 weeks off while the rest of my Microbiology department attempts to do all the work that I would normally do! There would have to be a new hire for Microbiology, so I would be bumped to Nights–an “equal” position with the same pay, but NOT the job I would want to be doing now that I am in my 60s!

I can’t imagine any American workers wanting to serve on this committee and losing their jobs. And I can’t imagine their families wanting their lives uprooted while Mom or Dad or Grandparent is off–where? Washington?

Finally, no matter how good the intentions of such a “committee” are–inevitably they would be under such heavy pressure from corporations, unions, guilds, associations, etc. to assign high salaries. How would a “worker” face down a Union President, or the head of the AMA, or the NEA, or Joe Gotbucks the President of Amalgamated Sludge, or the Realtors Association, or the American Guild of Organists!—HOW would anyone have the intestinal fortitude to face these people and tell them calmly and lovingly, “No, sir or madam, we will be paying your people X amount and we will be paying your cleaning ladies X amount, and the difference between these two salaries is only a few dollars because everyone has worth and should be paid according to who they are, not what their job is.”

I think this would not work at all.

Sorry.

 

[Peeps]

I’m not in favor of people having to work long hours in order to tally up their income towards a living wage.

Do you work?

My husband is a computer guy–he has held various “titles” throughout his 40 years of working (he’s 62 this month). He often works 12 hour days–more if you count a commute into Chicago, or travelling to another spot in the U.S.

I work in a hospital lab in Microbiology. I often work 10 hours days, especially during the flu season (now). And I often work a double shift, as we do not have adequate staff–interestingly, this is not a career that requires an advanced degree–someone can get an Aasociate’s Degree and be hired as a “technician” and after they have worked a few years, our hospital will pay their tuition to complete their Bachelor’s Degree and move up into the level that I work (Bachelors, medical technologist)–of course, that would mean working long hours because you have to juggle an 8 hour workday with classes at the university.

My brother is a welder and is currently working from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m., mainly because there is currently a huge shortage of welders. Welding certification takes two years, and there is no “college” degree required–no classes in world history or English 101 or Chemistry 102–it’s just a high school diploma follow by two years of training in a certified tech program. We have thousands of people in our city who graduate from high school and end up unemployed–WHY!!! It certainly isn’t because mean old rich people are hoarding all the money–that’s nonsense!

The incredibly rich people who own the company where my brother welds have been advertising for welders for YEARS!!! YEARS!!! My brother would like to retire, but he feels loyalty to his company and he keeps working those long hours in physically hard settings…

… because there are no takers for the welding jobs that the rich company owners are offering!!! Even though these jobs pay wonderful salaries, much more than my husband and I make with our college degrees! (My husband has a Master’s Degree.) I

Apparently all those unemployed high school graduates have better things to do than train to be a welder–or a medical technician. And perhaps they make more money doing …whatever they do while they are unejmployed… than the $90,000/year that my brother is making now.

So you’re against working long hours? I hope you’re not a farmer. Or a full-time stay at home parent. Or a priest or pastor. Or a doctor. Or a company owner. Or almost anything.

 

[Peeps]

We are having a big problem in our city with children not being adequately prepared for school.

What’s sad is that many of these children are at home with mothers who are unemployed (welfare moms).

The mothers have all day to prepare their children for school–read to them.

Of course, perhaps these moms cannot read themselves–adult illiteracy is also an issue in our city.

But mom can at least show them pictures and repeat the names of the items on these pictures-this is an exercise that helps build reading skills in very young children.

There are so many things a stay-at-home mom who can’t read can do to help her children be prepared for school. One thing that a mother can do with extremely young children is teach them their FULL name–first, middle, and last–and also their address and phone number. My children were under 2 years old and were able to recite these things.

Moms can SING to their children face to face. And talk to them face-to-face–many of the children who start school are intimidated when others look them in the eyes–they feel threatened because no one has done this with them!

Moms can take their children to all the “free” activities in their area. Our Park District offers ALL programming FREE to low-income families. Many of our museums are part of our Park District, so that means free admission to the museums along with all the children’s programs that the museums offer throughout the year.

Also the library story hours are free, and there are branches of the library through the city in neighborhoods.

Boys/Girls Clubs have options for poor children to join at no charge, and so do other children’s “club” organizations. The YMCA is free for low-income children and their families (and we have one of the BEST YMCAs in the U.S.!).

And of course, churches–many churches offer a VBS during the summer, and other children’s clubs and activities during the school year.

And outdoor play–a mom can take her little ones out every day, and just take a walk. Our award-winning Park District has playgrounds and parks in almost every neighborhood in the city, and many of the parks in the “poor” neighborhoods have a program run by a counselor who is there every day throughout the summer–games, crafts, sing-alongs…

…speaking of sing-alongs–there are many free concerts in our city and festivals and celebrations…

…in fact, I would say that we already HAVE a “government of distributism”. ALL of these “free” programs and activities are paid for by our TAXES and by RICH PEOPLE DONATIONS!

Yet…with all this available to stay-at-home moms (and dads), we have a school system in which only 15% of the public school children manage to achieve the MINIMAL level for their age group.

That means essentially that 85% of our population is illiterate and incapable of graduating from high school, and therefore, unemployable.

So…how does the Government of Distributism deal with this? Do moms and dads who have no work, but fail to prepare their children for school in spite of all kinds of freebies–deserve a “good wage?” I say no.

 

[Crocus]

Why not have something or both or more specifically somewhere in between, it seems like the problem of our welfare system may be that we are willing to spend money to help the poor subsist but not enough to uplift and transition them to the middle class (and then maybe we can get them to serve as mentors/social support for the remaining/“new” poor), also an incentive issue where a raise not only means losing help (Medicaid, child care, rental assistance (if you’re luck to get a slot), etc) but also paying a higher marginal tax credit (I wonder if the tax bill mitigated that)?

Exactly! People don’t consider the cost all around, of doing things part way, just enough to keep the poor, poor.