What specific policy proposals will solve income inequality and poverty?

[Murica!]

Abolition of the State and Private Property(not to be confused with personal property) along with the democratic ownership of the means of production.

[Arturo Belano]

The only thing that will end poverty is the abolition of the politco-economic system that creates it: capitalism.

[muon2]

Let me try to chill things out by putting forth some "realistic" proposals. (Realistic as in they actually have a chance to be adopted.) Free tertiary public education at the associate degree/tech school level as well as otherwise improving public education. Improved access to addiction treatment.

One interesting side effect of free 2-year tertiary education would be the impact on 4-year programs. Introductory courses at community colleges are essentially the same as their counterparts at a state university and will generally transfer as such. At present there is a balance between starting at a cheaper 2-year school and making a transfer or going to one school for a complete bachelors degree. If that is tilted to make the 2-year schools free then the 4-year schools will presumably have to generate income elsewhere (tuition, room and board) to make up for the reduction of students in the introductory courses. To add to the impact, introductory courses are generally the most lucrative courses at a school since they can generate the most credit hours per faculty member and typically have less academic building use per student.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let me try to chill things out by putting forth some "realistic" proposals. (Realistic as in they actually have a chance to be adopted.) Free tertiary public education at the associate degree/tech school level as well as otherwise improving public education. Improved access to addiction treatment.

One interesting side effect of free 2-year tertiary education would be the impact on 4-year programs. Introductory courses at community colleges are essentially the same as their counterparts at a state university and will generally transfer as such. At present there is a balance between starting at a cheaper 2-year school and making a transfer or going to one school for a complete bachelors degree. If that is tilted to make the 2-year schools free then the 4-year schools will presumably have to generate income elsewhere (tuition, room and board) to make up for the reduction of students in the introductory courses. To add to the impact, introductory courses are generally the most lucrative courses at a school since they can generate the most credit hours per faculty member and typically have less academic building use per student.

If such splitting became more common, I could see four-year schools adding associate degrees to their mix of offerings to allow students who went there the full four years to brag about having two degrees from the school as a means of combating such things. Conversely they could design programs that would make it feasible to get bachelor degrees in three years, but only if all three years were spent there.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1. Establish a British-like National Health Service.
2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.
3. Launch a massive public housing program: purchase (or, if necessary, confiscate) a large number of vacated housing units and rent them below market rates to poor households. 
4. Stop the standardized test madness in education, and concentrate all the federal funding on poor neighborhoods.
5. Make public universities free, or at least affordable.
6. Generalize pre-K, to allow more mothers to work.
7. Restore the AFDC to what it was before "welfare reform".
8. Implement a Danish system for unemployment benefits.
9. Develop public transportation.
10. Pay for all this by raising taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes, cutting the defense budget by half, and if necessary running a deficit.

[muon2]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

[Famous Mortimer]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

That's a household, with what, 4 people? I think he was talking about 700 per individual.

[pho]

Income inequality is a feature of capitalism, those who work more challenging jobs are compensated accordingly—eliminating this dynamic shouldn't be on the agenda in my opinion. Likewise, poverty can only be minimised as a percentage of poverty is entirely circumstantial and not because of malfunctions in the economy. "Solving" poverty is a fool's errand.

I would like to see the corporate tax abolished and replaced with an import tariff, to spur domestic investment and, ultimately, job growth. If we can achieve full employment and wage growth (raising the minimum wage if need be), income inequality will be irrelevant.

[muon2]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

That's a household, with what, 4 people? I think he was talking about 700 per individual.

Even if it is 4 people it's pretty close to 700 per individual. The EITC is favored economically because it avoids rewarding teenagers in wealthy households. I trust that you aren't looking to do that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

That's a household, with what, 4 people? I think he was talking about 700 per individual.

Even if it is 4 people it's pretty close to 700 per individual. The EITC is favored economically because it avoids rewarding teenagers in wealthy households. I trust that you aren't looking to do that.

If the EITC is a tax credit, doesn't that mean it only covers households that pay an income tax? If so, doesn't that mean that households who are too poor to even pay income taxes are left out?

[DavidB.]

Poverty is a problem. Income inequality isn't.

[muon2]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

That's a household, with what, 4 people? I think he was talking about 700 per individual.

Even if it is 4 people it's pretty close to 700 per individual. The EITC is favored economically because it avoids rewarding teenagers in wealthy households. I trust that you aren't looking to do that.

If the EITC is a tax credit, doesn't that mean it only covers households that pay an income tax? If so, doesn't that mean that households who are too poor to even pay income taxes are left out?

If the tax owed is less than zero then the government pays you. Some credits have a floor so you can't owe less than zero dollars. EITC has no floor so it pays even if the taxpayer otherwise owes nothing.

It's not the only credit that can reduce tax less than zero. The American Opportunity Tax Credit applies to tuition payments for higher ed. If the tax is reduced to zero part of the remaining credit is paid to the taxpayer.

[DC Al Fine]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

That's a household, with what, 4 people? I think he was talking about 700 per individual.

Even if it is 4 people it's pretty close to 700 per individual. The EITC is favored economically because it avoids rewarding teenagers in wealthy households. I trust that you aren't looking to do that.

If the EITC is a tax credit, doesn't that mean it only covers households that pay an income tax? If so, doesn't that mean that households who are too poor to even pay income taxes are left out?

No, you're confusing refundable and non-refundable income tax credits. Non-refundable credits cannot exceed taxes payable while refundable credits can. The EITC is refundable.

The EITC increases with the first little bit of income, tops out at a relatively high rate, then gets clawed back after income passes a certain threshold.



From the chart above, a single mom with a child would get about $3000 if she earned income between $10 000 and $20 000. There's no way she would ever owe $3000 in tax on that income. Her actual taxes owing would be near $0 even before EITC.

[Jacobtm]

We are importing poor and Low-IQ immigrants from the third world. They are poor, their kids and grandkids are poor, because they can't do high-paying work.

Chinese immigrants come in and end up making more than white people, other groups not so much.

Deporting illegal immigrants and putting a complete moratorium on immigration would help arrest this trend.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

We are importing poor and Low-IQ immigrants from the third world. They are poor, their kids and grandkids are poor, because they can't do high-paying work.

Chinese immigrants come in and end up making more than white people, other groups not so much.

Deporting illegal immigrants and putting a complete moratorium on immigration would help arrest this trend.

Oh move to France and vote le Pen, weirdo.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You can't solve either problem, but you can certainly mitigate them. But what's needed (above ll else) is the political will to do so and an understanding that a) there are no easy solutions and that b) merely throwing money at the problem is not an answer in itself. Which government, I ask, had the better record on this matter: the 1945-51 Labour government in Britain (which operated in a climate of severe financial austerity) or the Johnson administration in the 1960s (which certainly did not).

[ingemann]

As a answer to the specific question this thread started with: The solution are the complete eradication of the human race, or at least the reduction of it to a single individual. At that time poverty will no longer exist.

Of course to mitigate them, there's a lot of specific policies which would help: raise the minimum wage, raise/lower immigration (depending on whether we focus on a national or international inequality and poverty), free healthcare, free or cheaper childcare, free or cheaper higher education (with exception of liberal arts), improved public transportation, higher unemployment benefits mixed with workfare etc.

[Jacobtm]

We are importing poor and Low-IQ immigrants from the third world. They are poor, their kids and grandkids are poor, because they can't do high-paying work.

Chinese immigrants come in and end up making more than white people, other groups not so much.

Deporting illegal immigrants and putting a complete moratorium on immigration would help arrest this trend.

Oh move to France and vote le Pen, weirdo.

I'll stay here and vote Trump so that my country isn't flooded with Mexican peasants.

I suppose you're down with different low-IQ people bringing crime and poverty to your country?

[MaxQue]

We are importing poor and Low-IQ immigrants from the third world. They are poor, their kids and grandkids are poor, because they can't do high-paying work.

Chinese immigrants come in and end up making more than white people, other groups not so much.

Deporting illegal immigrants and putting a complete moratorium on immigration would help arrest this trend.

Oh move to France and vote le Pen, weirdo.

I'll stay here and vote Trump so that my country isn't flooded with Mexican peasants.

I suppose you're down with different low-IQ people bringing crime and poverty to your country?

Go back to Stormfront, racist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

That's a household, with what, 4 people? I think he was talking about 700 per individual.

Even if it is 4 people it's pretty close to 700 per individual. The EITC is favored economically because it avoids rewarding teenagers in wealthy households. I trust that you aren't looking to do that.

If the EITC is a tax credit, doesn't that mean it only covers households that pay an income tax? If so, doesn't that mean that households who are too poor to even pay income taxes are left out?

No, you're confusing refundable and non-refundable income tax credits. Non-refundable credits cannot exceed taxes payable while refundable credits can. The EITC is refundable.

The EITC increases with the first little bit of income, tops out at a relatively high rate, then gets clawed back after income passes a certain threshold.



From the chart above, a single mom with a child would get about $3000 if she earned income between $10 000 and $20 000. There's no way she would ever owe $3000 in tax on that income. Her actual taxes owing would be near $0 even before EITC.

This seems like a pretty contrived system, though it's definitely much better than nothing. A guaranteed minimum/negative income tax would streamline things and target resources more effectively at those who need them the most (I don't get why the lowest-income households gain less than those in the 10000-20000 section under this system).

[DC Al Fine]

2. Set a basic minimum income at $750 per month.

Isn't this what the Earned Income Tax Credit already does? According to the 2009 CBO study cited by Wikipedia a household making $7600 per year ($633 per month) would get EITC and other federal support bringing the effective income up to $30,500 which is equivalent to over $2,500 per month.

That's a household, with what, 4 people? I think he was talking about 700 per individual.

Even if it is 4 people it's pretty close to 700 per individual. The EITC is favored economically because it avoids rewarding teenagers in wealthy households. I trust that you aren't looking to do that.

If the EITC is a tax credit, doesn't that mean it only covers households that pay an income tax? If so, doesn't that mean that households who are too poor to even pay income taxes are left out?

No, you're confusing refundable and non-refundable income tax credits. Non-refundable credits cannot exceed taxes payable while refundable credits can. The EITC is refundable.

The EITC increases with the first little bit of income, tops out at a relatively high rate, then gets clawed back after income passes a certain threshold.



From the chart above, a single mom with a child would get about $3000 if she earned income between $10 000 and $20 000. There's no way she would ever owe $3000 in tax on that income. Her actual taxes owing would be near $0 even before EITC.

This seems like a pretty contrived system, though it's definitely much better than nothing. A guaranteed minimum/negative income tax would streamline things and target resources more effectively at those who need them the most (I don't get why the lowest-income households gain less than those in the 10000-20000 section under this system).

To encourage work/discourage welfare dependency. If you consider that welfare clawbacks act as a tax, the very poor face high marginal rates. The EITC helps reverse that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The belief that people need to be "encouraged" to work (or that it is even a desirable policy goal to force the poor into misery jobs that pay them little to nothing) is one of the biggest reasons why poverty exists in the first place. If people on welfare make more than they would by working, that doesn't mean benefits are too high. It means wages are too low.

[Hydera]

The belief that people need to be "encouraged" to work (or that it is even a desirable policy goal to force the poor into misery jobs that pay them little to nothing) is one of the biggest reasons why poverty exists in the first place. If people on welfare make more than they would by working, that doesn't mean benefits are too high. It means wages are too low.

Greece raised wages and raised government spending that led to a short economic boom in the early to mid-2000's. It didn't last so long did it?

[Jacobtm]

Go back to Stormfront, racist.

Try to actually address the point instead of just calling me a name and shutting down your thought.

Mexicans are our biggest immigrant group. Their country is poor, has been, and will be. We are getting their uneducated lower classes, many of whom are illiterate in their own language.

Then they come here and are poor and don't get good jobs and people act surprised that we have growing poverty in the U.S. It's the simplest thing in the world to solve, don't let any more come here, send the illegal ones back.

This will reduce poverty in the U.S. and allow us to focus any welfare spending and social programs on U.S. citizens who need it. It will also open up jobs at the lower rungs of the economic ladder to actual U.S. citizens.

Working in construction used to be a decent way for someone to make a living without an education, but now it's flooded with illegal labor more and more every year.

[Murica!]

Go back to Stormfront, racist.

Try to actually address the point instead of just calling me a name and shutting down your thought.

Mexicans are our biggest immigrant group. Their country is poor, has been, and will be. We are getting their uneducated lower classes, many of whom are illiterate in their own language.

Then they come here and are poor and don't get good jobs and people act surprised that we have growing poverty in the U.S. It's the simplest thing in the world to solve, don't let any more come here, send the illegal ones back.

Fyck off fascist.