That is, when the argument is "the others are getting cash", some will oppose it. But if it's "we all get cash", the opposition is less.
In America, Social Security straight up gives up cash to ALL older Americans. Assuming you live long enough, you'll get Social Security. It's not immune but it remains popular. Indeed, efforts to cut back on Social Security are framed as attempts to "save" it and keep the program solvent.
In contrast, food stamps, welfare, and unemployment benefits are very much on the chopping block year after year, their recipients stereotyped as "welfare queens" trying to cheat the system.
But it's a sleight of hand. It's "you'll get it too (but I will take the same amount out of your pockets by increasing your taxes, ha!)", and then hoping that people will not realize it. That's quite the bet.
While this is nowhere near as progressive a tax as regular income tax, it's still a wealth transfer from high earners to low earners.
I always wanted to look up that history for when that forked path was allowed and when it was eliminated and why. The author of the piece I read mentioned how he earned much better returns with the money he otherwise would have had he put it into social security and was thankful he took the more "risky" route.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-wa...
There are a few other narrow cases as well, such as student workers and certain government jobs.
It's completely the opposite. You have to call the cash a tax credit and give it to everyone. Then no one can get rid of it because nobody wants a tax hike.
As soon as you start having eligibility restrictions or purchasing restrictions or effort-based gatekeeping, it reduces the number of people who benefit from the program, which is how it gets ruined or dismantled once the number of beneficiaries are no longer enough people that politicians have to care about them.
Make it so that everybody below the 51st percentile income is a net beneficiary and the program is locked in.
Republicans pretty much never do that, it’s just boom, let’s give big tax cuts to the rich or stop all immigration.
Left side of the US needs to boldly actually fight for things rather than step my step planning out what “seems reasonable to republicans”, it’s just a bad losing idea, go boldly with what’s the moral and reasonable thing.
EDIT: Which, by the way, also happens in the Republican party. See, for instance, the repeal vs replace movement and how those went nowhere.
I’m not sure how anyone who follows Democrats wouldn’t see the constant compromises unless they’re center or center right. Pelosi has control of the House but refuses to pass extremely popular ideas like pay check guarantees or cash per month for everyone, or rent cancellation etc.
It could setup a showdown in the senate where republicans have to vote down very popular ideas, but she refuses.
That’s just a recent example, it happens continuously...
The left is legitimately fractured, but maybe it's not as bad as it looks. Sound and fury on social media in the Bernie camp, yet the party coalesced strongly around Biden.
I'd like to hear the case for a left "political upheaval." Where will it come from? Bernie's theory was that youth would vote en masse, and that did not happen.
The problem the left is having right now is articulating what it is they actually want to do. Their main rallying cry for some time has been that they're not Trump, but then what are they?
It seems less than inspiring.
The USA democrats aren't a left wing party, they're a center and even center right party. A politically established left wing doesn't exist in the USA like it does in Europe.
> The USA democrats aren't a left wing party, they're a center and even center right party. A politically established left wing doesn't exist in the USA like it does in Europe.
"The USA republicans aren't a right wing party, they're a center and even center left party. A politically established right wing doesn't exist in the USA like it does in Saudi Arabia."
You can anchor anything anywhere. The Saudis aren't really right wing because they're not literally Hitler. The Nordic countries aren't really left wing because they have private industry. It isn't really saying anything.
Even the concept is flawed. Is a tax cut for the poor a left-wing program because it goes to the poor, or a right-wing program because it's a tax cut and implies a reduction in the size of government?
It matters if a policy is sound, not whether it's dexter or sinister.
Regan's amnesty for over 3 million illegals: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303...
Bush doubles immigration: https://immigration.laws.com/immigration-act-of-1990
Trump supports immigration in "greatest numbers ever" in 2019 State of the Union: https://time.com/5521860/2019-state-of-the-union-trump-trans...
The GOP has supported immigration since the civil war. Both parties are controlled by the same political forces, and neither are on the real left or right, however hard though they pretend to be.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-budget-resurrects-har...
I would not go as far to say it operates in peace, but not having it cash based is the position of the less extreme people.
This was the proper place to stop. Both parties are full of politicians.
EDIT: Of course brits will still look for work. My point is that Ive seen brits in talk shows audiences talk about taking public assistence without thinking of themselves as "bad people" the way American conservatives would. The desire to eliminate all public assistance is absent in Europe. Don't mean to offend brits, I think you guys have the right attitude here. Take assistance if you need it and dont needlessly refuse to help others.
£75 sounds like an extravagant weekly shop, even for a couple with a child.
For example, sequence LFM2 at the Office of National Statistics entitled "inactive - wants a job". That's 1,869,000 people at the last estimate.
The overwhelming number of people who end up short of work due to the structural failures of our current economic system want to work. And they should have the opportunity to do so.
It's a slang term for unemployment benefit. That's somewhat confused these days because there isn't such a thing as unemployment benefit in the UK any more. There's "jobseeker's allowance", "income support", "housing benefit", "universal credit", and a few others, all of which can be claimed by people who are currently looking for work, or in work but on a low income, or who are unable to work. It's a confusing minefield designed to put people off claiming what they're legally entitled to.