Poverty in America

Solution to poverty in America:

The theory behind this is based on the assumption that Universal Healthcare and education have been implemented. The second understanding is that the universal tax rate has been implemented, and all of the US Federal Budget  pertaining to Education, welfare, SSI and healthcare will be eliminated. It can even be argued that other spending would fall into this as well. 

The idea would be to eliminate all of those costs entirely from the US budget and instead doing the following: Every adult American citizen (18 or older) who has a HS diploma or GED, may be eligible for a monthly stipend of $1500. Every retiree, or person aged 65+ will receive $3000, instead for having paid into the various SSI or other pension programs that have not been dismantled. All persons in between will be eligible to receive the $1500 stipend so long as the following conditions are met: must be pursuing at a min their HS/GED diploma, if already attained must proceed towards attaining either a certificate, license, Associates, or BA. If the individual cannot attain a HS/GED, License, certification, or Associate decree within 2.5 years they will become ineligible for the stipend. If the individual does not attain a BA with 4.5 years they will become ineligible for the stipend. However whenever an individual becomes ineligible for the stipend they may do one of two things: pursue a different subject of an equal or higher level, or may take an aptitude test that will be federally administered and developed and will agree to pursue whichever career path they are suitable for and is required in the economy. 

Furthermore all person will become ineligible for the stipend if they do not utilize the acquired knowledge for their intended career path within 2 years of obtaining it. At which point they may pursue one of the two options to retain the stipend. If the second attempt is a failure and was a result of personal choice in study than they may reapply for a third time but this time must submit to what the economy needs. If the individual still is unable to find employment and there is sufficient effort given on the person’s part then the person may retain the stipend, so long as they have cone through 2 resubmissions. In short education is free, and people are being given free money to improve themselves, and support their country that cave them those opportunities in the first place. It also rewards those who actively pursue a means to better themselves, and become a productive member of society. 

Furthermore there are multiple avenues for personal choice and freedom in selection of a career/education path that is only limited once successive failures have been amassed. Even then the government that supports you and you have been paying into is going to go out of its way to ensure you succeed, while giving you a means to support yourself on a minimum income. This also ensures that no one adult will never live below the poverty line because the stipend will be set to be at or above the poverty line (1500 for now is above the poverty line by a fair margin for 1 adult). 

Not only that but a person could arguably fail for 12 years after turning 18 and receive $1500 a month. Which is to say that if someone can’t get it together after more than a decade, the government is no longer going to invest in you and you're on your own, effectively being denied a free ride due to your own failure/incompetence/inability to make something of yourself. This eliminates any abuse of the system as it is has a clearly defined outline, which doesn’t allow someone to freeload off of the system indefinitely. In all actuality the only freeloading occurs for the first 2 years everything else is on the individual to improve themselves and their country. That's the argument and logic behind the proposal here are the numbers:

Intial money saved by eliminating the aforementioned budget items:

FY14 $2,146,400,000,000

FY15 $2,297,105,500,000

FY16 $2,392,846,291,250

FY17 $2,443,622,638,434

FY18 $2,479,434,808,223

FY19 $2,608,283,069,284

Now that's how much would no longer be spent on those programs outright, the following is how much it would cost to give people the stipend: these numbers are based on the population of the US as of 9 September 2014 which is 318,707,000, with 12.8% being 65< and 27.3% being 18>.




This is what the approximate annual cost would be assuming: .75% annual population increase

FY15 $411,807,290,456

FY16 $414,895,845,135

FY17 $418,007,563,973

FY18 $421,142,620,703

FY19 $424,301,190,358

That's a savings of:

FY14 $1,737,658,272,500

FY15 $1,885,298,209,544

FY16 $1,977,950,446,115

FY17 $2,025,615,074,461

FY18 $2,058,292,187,520

FY19 $2,183,981,878,926

By paying our citizens which consists of 3 quarters of the entire population, we save well over 2 trillion dollars annually. After just 5 short years the United States would have saved: $10,131,137,796,566 by doing absolutely nothing other than ending frivolous spending in social programs and paying the person directly. The numbers speak for themselves, if we invest in the people we will create an economic explosion for our country, while simultaneously raising every adult citizen out of poverty without creating a welfare based class system, and by encouraging the growth and improvement of the individual at the same time! Imagine what we could do with an additional $10 trillion? How many schools we could build, how many roads we could improve, how much infrastructure we could rebuild, renovate, or replace. We could reshape the face of our nation with all of that money and that’s just from essentially rearranging the budget, which has absolutely nothing to do with the additional income from taxes, legalization of marijuana, to include its industrial uses, or the taxation of religious entities. All of that$9 Trillion is simply from eliminating all the waste from social programs and giving people money directly, and the tools to succeed on their own...

Sources: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/