Opt-in increased welfare system

[ray245]

This is an idea I have been thinking for quite some time. One of the biggest rhetoric used against welfare is the idea that the government is taking away your money to benefit someone else. This often works because society is generally opposed to the "loss of control" over their finances, and people would not see the potential long term benefits that could be gained by increased taxations.

So perhaps there could be a policy whereby people can chose to opt-in for increased welfare, at the expense of increased income tax for example. People who chose to opt-in for such a system will receive greater amount of welfare benefits, including more support when you are unemployed. The logic of such a policy is essentially the same as an insurance policy, but it will cover areas that insurance companies will not cover. More importantly, it will not have a profit-driven agenda that will often exclude people from buying such a policy.

By giving the people a more direct choice in deciding whether they would want additional welfare support, such a policy will allow people to see the benefits of increased taxations. People will see that they are the ones that can benefit from such a policy, and this isn't a case of government taking away their money to benefit others.

I'm not sure what to think about this idea. This could just be a stupid idea.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You are thinking too logically about this.
Logic doesn't really apply to Republicans.

Your idea hinges on offsetting the increases with increases to TAXES!
Even with a 100% voluntary system, the GOP would never ever go along with such an idea, because it still raises taxes.

[Beowulf]

You can't raise enough money by increasing the income taxes on those most likely to end up on welfare to be able to pay for it.

[ray245]

You can't raise enough money by increasing the income taxes on those most likely to end up on welfare to be able to pay for it.

I'm mostly talking about those that don't necessary need welfare to survive, but those that have a hard time paying for the children's college education.

Such a policy is aimed primarily at reducing tuition fees in public university and etc.

[energiewende]

This is an idea I have been thinking for quite some time. One of the biggest rhetoric used against welfare is the idea that the government is taking away your money to benefit someone else. This often works because society is generally opposed to the "loss of control" over their finances, and people would not see the potential long term benefits that could be gained by increased taxations.

So perhaps there could be a policy whereby people can chose to opt-in for increased welfare, at the expense of increased income tax for example. People who chose to opt-in for such a system will receive greater amount of welfare benefits, including more support when you are unemployed. The logic of such a policy is essentially the same as an insurance policy, but it will cover areas that insurance companies will not cover. More importantly, it will not have a profit-driven agenda that will often exclude people from buying such a policy.

By giving the people a more direct choice in deciding whether they would want additional welfare support, such a policy will allow people to see the benefits of increased taxations. People will see that they are the ones that can benefit from such a policy, and this isn't a case of government taking away their money to benefit others.

I'm not sure what to think about this idea. This could just be a stupid idea.

There is some definitional ambiguity here.

One possibility is that you are proposing to tie payments to contributions (at least actuarially), which is fine and this used to exist and be called Unemployment Insurance. You can probably still buy it but the market has shrunk since the government's entry. The difference (I'd say the problem, but it only may be a problem depending on your PoV) is that the middle classes and above would simply save money in a bank account in case they lose their jobs, the working poor would receive very little from a pool of only other working poor people, and the long term unemployed would be uninsurable.

If you mean something like retaining current system, but offering double benefits/double tax to everyone, then it would clearly be in the interests of some (long term claimants) and clearly not in the interests of others (high income people with savings). So you'd get a lot of people opting in who claim a lot of money but don't pay much into the system, and very few opting in who claim little money but pay a lot. So the net effect is just to increase spending on welfare without increasing revenue.

[Patroklos]

As you have worded it you are basically advocating a ponzi scheme based on the described input to output. Government welfare works by taxing people they expect to never need it to pay for those who do which they can do as there is direct link to what you pay and what you get. There is no expectation that the middle class or weathy will make anything direct money wise from their participation (while they are wealthy or middle class anyway, which the vast majority will remain). In your case everyone can expect to seek payout eventually and for far more than they put in. Even SS, which does break out taxes to it from the rest, doesn't pay out as you describe.

You system would work if you sold it to those who constantly talk about wanting to be taxed more to support welfare but aren't. They would basically be giving you a charitable contribution while opting out of ever using the charity. If you wanted to do this as a private venture you could invest that money to try to grow the endowment so to speak to increase payout to recipient for every dollar of donation, but that involves risk as well as holding a significant part of the money aside.

Including the government in this is just duplication of effort without the underpinning of a limitless payout resources for claims. If you made this a private or semi private enterprise it would work based on the number of claimants vs the number of people you get to donate just like any other charity.