Free money might be the best way to end poverty
Free money might be the best way to end povertyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html
By Rutger Bregman,
Rutger Bregman is a reporter with the Dutch-language online outlet De Correspondent, where a longer version of this piece can be found. He is on Twitter: @rcbregman.
In May 2009, a small experiment involving 13 homeless men took off in London. Some of them had slept in the cold for more than 40 years. The presence of these street veterans was far from cheap. Police, legal services, health care: Each cost taxpayers thousands of pounds every year.
That spring, a local charity decided to make the street veterans sometimes called rough sleepers the beneficiaries of an innovative social experiment. No more food stamps, food-kitchen dinners or sporadic shelter stays. The 13 would get a drastic bailout, financed by taxpayers. Each would receive 3,000 pounds (about $4,500), in cash, with no strings attached. The men were free to decide what to spend it on. ... The only question they had to answer: What do you think is good for you?
I didnt have enormous expectations, an aid worker recalled a year later. Yet the homeless mens desires turned out to be quite modest. A phone, a passport, a dictionary each participant had ideas about what would be best for him. None of the men wasted his money on alcohol, drugs or gambling. A year later, 11 of the 13 had roofs over their heads. (Some went to hostels; others to shelters.) They enrolled in classes, learned how to cook, got treatment for drug abuse and made plans for the future. After decades of authorities fruitless pushing, pulling, fines and persecution, 11 vagrants moved off the streets.
The cost? About 50,000 pounds, including the wages of the aid workers. In addition to giving 11 individuals another shot at life, the project had saved money by a factor of multiples. Even The Economist concluded: The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.
hunter
(38,312 posts)People without a lot of money spend it on thing's they NEED. This is good for the local economy.
The uber-wealthy tend to spend or "invest" 'their" money in ways that do not make our world a better place.
They forget that it's not really their money at all. The monetary system belongs to all of us, presumably regulated in such a way that everyone's standard of living will be improved by economic activity.
Frankly, I think the uber-wealthy ought to be taxed out of existence. Nobody ought to have the kind of wealth that can buy politicians or fund massive disinformation campaigns.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)raccoon
(31,111 posts)cold, dead hands.
It would require a real shift in our thinking, along the order of the Great Vowel Shift around Chaucer's time LOL.
Seriously, I think it makes sense.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)Conservatives "believe" the only way to help the poor is to starve/freeze/dis clothe them in order to make them WANT to work...otherwise they are just lazy layabouts who want welfare for GENERATIONS...which of course is impossible...since it can only be for 2 years in a row...and 5 years for a lifetime...
Whereas...welfare for the rich is lifetime and enduring... GRRR
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But we don't want to end poverty, if you end poverty, you end cheap labor. People won't do shitty jobs for no money unless they are plenty hungry, cold, and desperate; and the wealthy cannot be expected to take care of themselves.