Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think its an immoral idea since it is completely voluntary. It just wouldn't eliminate poverty. American "poverty" isn't at all the same thing as international poverty. American poverty is relative to how other Americans are doing financially. The concept of American poverty is a useful, highly flexible tool for politicians to utilize to push for their preferred policy programs.
One could already make the argument that there is no true poverty in the US. No one is starving to death. All Americans can get basic clothing if they need it. Relatively few Americans are truly homeless through no fault of their own.
How are you defining "truly homeless" and "through no fault of their own"?
But in a generation or so, 2k a month would be pennies.
Then increase the amount. This part of the point is moot.
The main point of the thread isn't about how much the basic income is. It's the general idea of voluntary sterilization in exchange for a basic income.
How are you defining "truly homeless" and "through no fault of their own"?
By the homeless I'm referring to people living on the street.
By "through no fault of their own", I am referring to people who did all the things they are supposed to do, but still ended up homeless. What I am not including are drug addicts, alcoholics, the work-shy, people who decided to reproduce with jerks knowing full well they are jerks, etc. In other words, many homeless people in some way contributed to their own homelessness through their actions.
Obviously, people with severe mental illnesses are not at fault, which also is a significant portion of the homeless population.
I guess I should have expected kneejerk reactions.
Anyone who has ever worked with the poor knows that the attitude of poverty gets passed from generation to generation. Pull a random social worker aside and ask her for her observation. She will tell you that it's always the same people across generations applying for benefits. Teen girls see no other path in life except get pregnant and apply for benefits. Teen boys see no other alternative but to sleep around and impregnate girls.
Here are some links for info on generational poverty and how learned helplessness gets passed down from generation to generation.
So, please no more kneejerk reaction. As I have stated many times before, the problem of poverty cannot be solved by throwing money at it. We have been throwing money at it for over 5 decades. It's doing the same thing over and over expecting different results even though we keep getting the same results.
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.
Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.
This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
Well for starters, how about there are people out there who work their a$$ off for $2000.00/month and their taxes would be paying for it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.