Poverty

[English]

I believe in active job creation. Although you end up with a fairly bloated public sector and higher taxes, it saves money in the long-run due to reduced welfare bills and crime.
I don't think increasing welfare works as it just encourages a dependency culture. Better to have people in work.

[John Dibble]

Decrease taxes, unnecessary spending and waste, decrease regulations on business.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For Rural Poverty: Massive investment in infastructure, [good] jobs, health (and NHS would *really* help here) education, housing etc...

For Urban Poverty: Massive investment in education, health, housing (rip down ghettos and build new houses in their place), try to prevent a Yuppy invasion, crack down on drug dealers...

[Bono]

OF that list, passive Job Creating. But dramatically decreasing taxes would have a huge role to play also.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But dramatically decreasing taxes would have a huge role to play also.

HOW?

[Inverted Things]

Increase the minimum wage. This might have the effect of reducing the number of jobs, but the people who work will have more disposable income, thus creating jobs. I'd guess that the net effect is more overall jobs as the economy feeds on itself for over the course of a year.

[Brambila]

It's not the government's responsibility to decrease poverty. The government's SOLE resonsibility is to protect our individual freedoms. However, a good way to decrease poverty would be to dramatically reduce taxes (flat tax rate), and to impliment faith-based programs to produce welfare.

[Bono]

But dramatically decreasing taxes would have a huge role to play also.

HOW?

Simple. Decreasing payroll taxes would give employers more money to create more jobs.
Decreasing corporate taxes would do the same, but I don't want to go there.
Decreasing the Personal Income Tax would make the people have more money to:
1.Spend, improving the economy and creating wealth;
2.Donate to charity, thus helping the needy in a much more efficient way than state welfare does;
3.Invest, helping companies and creating money.

[Huckleberry Finn]

In USA

Increasing the minimum wage and decreasing taxes of middle class and poors. Cheaper healthcare and better public education.

In Finland (and in most European countries)

Massive decreasing of ALL taxes. Moderate decreasing of the labour market regulation and welfare, which only makes people passive.

Though poverty isn't big problem countries like Finland or Sweden.

[bejkuy]

I think the goverment has already done just about everything it could to reduce poverty.

We're never going to get below are certain (I don't know what that is) level of poverty, especially with the huge numbers of legal and illegal immigrants we take in year after year.  Unless the government controls everything, there will be natural transitions in everyone's life.  Some will be have better economic ramifications than others.

Btw- I spent a period of time in my youth below the poverty level, so I'm not some insensitive jerk.  I know what it's like to do without.

[Felix]

Active job creation, lowing the tax burden on working class families, and raising the minimum wage.

[Nym90]

I agree that we can never eliminate poverty completely, but I would strongly support more government spending on education (increase teacher pay and reduce class sizes, and free tuition at public universities for those who can meet the entrance requirements) and public works programs, aggressive revitalization efforts in slums and ghettos (tear down and condemn buildings that are falling down, and sell the land cheaply....businesses will move in), reanaissaince zones (businesses in certain areas pay no tax for a certain number of years). I would also support lower taxes on the poor and middle class, especially payroll taxes (which are nonrefundable, unlike the income tax).

[Shira]

"The poor are poor because they are lazy"
That's the simplistic conservative view on poverty.

[A18]

We should acknowledge that only people can move themselves out of poverty.

The minimum wage violates the fundamental right of people to trade with each other.

[Dr. Cynic]

Active Job Creation AND raising the Minumum Wage would do the trick.

[KEmperor]

Active Job Creation AND raising the Minumum Wage would do the trick.

If you want to increase poverty, it certainly will.  But getting rid of the minimum wage and lowering taxes will do the trick to lower poverty.

[Dr. Cynic]

If you create jobs, folks go out and get jobs, and that cuts poverty. Also, people have a right to be paid at least fairly for working an honest 40 hours a week.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'm inclined to say all of the above...but what exactly is the difference between passive job creation, active job creation, and workfare?

In any case, we should dramatically increase the minimum wage, to at least $10/hour.  And any able-bodied person who is seeking employment should be able to get a job from the government doing public works projects at this minimum wage.  People who are unable to work because they are disabled should be supported by welfare.  I also support eliminating the payroll tax and replacing it with an increased income tax.

[A18]

We should abolish minimum wage. 'Fairly' is a load of crap; it doesn't exist, folks. You don't have the right to earn a certain amount of money.

By DEFINITION, you don't have a RIGHT to EARN a certain amount of money.

[Dr. Cynic]

Then why work if you're not being paid fairly? Could you support six people on less than $5.15 an hour? And don't you dare say you could, because you can't support six people on Seven bucks an hour. And all the humanoids in the White House and/or Congress, who support abolishment of the minmum wage will say "Go get a better job" But, with no minimum wage, what's to keep that job from paying any less?

[A18]

I don't know; why should you? You don't have to work.

But if you want to, you have to be the type of person an employer is willing to hire. You accept what OTHER PEOPLE are willing to give you in exchange for your services. It's their business, not government's.

Why does the guy want to pay you less in the first place? It's less expensive. And all expenses get passed on to...the consumer. Or else subtracted from the employer's or other employees' wages.

You should not be supporting anyone but yourself on five bucks an hour. How are you going to support two hundred people on $12 an hour? You can't; should we raise it for that too?

Fair is set by the market. It is exactly what you can do for other people in exchange for what you both believe is reasonable.

[Dr. Cynic]

Nobody wants to work, unless it's something that they want to do. Take me for example, I want to be an actor, I know how to get there, but it certainly won't be overnight. If I had to support more than myself on my salary at my suck job, with a humanoid boss, who because there's no minimum wage, decides it fair to pay me 60 cents an hour. How do you support yourself. It just helps the rich get richer, and the poor become poorer.

[A18]

People want to work because (in general) they like eating.

It's up to you. You don't have to take the 60 cent job; the point is, it isn't your, my, or anyone else's right to any job.

If no one else would take the job, they couldn't pay you 60 cents. But obviously someone else was willing to work for less.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Everyone who is willing to work should be able to earn a decent living by doing so, even if their skills are such that they cannot actually produce value up to that level.  I believe this on a fundamental moral level, but it is also good pro-growth economics.

If you want to grow the economy to its maximum potential, everyone who can work needs to be working, even if that means paying some people more than they are worth.  

Let's say someone can only produce $5/hour worth of value, but it unwilling to work at less than $10/hour.  If you only offer this person $5 for his work, he won't work, and his potential will be wasted.  If you instead offer him $10/hour, he will add $5/hour of additional value into the economy.  

The employer will lose $5/hour by employing him, but this is just a distributional effect, it doesn't influence the amount of total economic growth, because that $5 will have roughly the same affect on growth whether it ends up in the hands of the worker or to the business owner.  

Obviously, the business owner will not be willing to pay $10/hour to this person, but it is still in the PUBLIC interest for him to be hired.  This is why people who cannot produce market value up to a fair, living wage should be given public works jobs by the government, or the government should give subsidies to businesses to employ such workers.

[A18]

What's a decent living, anyway? You know how many rich people from 500 years ago would love to be dirt poor today?

Productivity grows the economy. Just getting people to do something considered work does not.