It was a suggested example of an alternative way the government could provide food/clothing etc to the poor, not a comprehensive replacement system.
Right. So we have one system for making transfer payments for rent and bills, and another for providing food and clothes. And this duplication is going to save money?
How could private charity possibly work effectively and not be subject to the same problems? Free goods being taken advantage of occurs regardless of the source being government or private. Regardless, that's simply not true.
Private charities are totally different. They don't have rules handed down to them from a centralized organization telling them how they can behave (do I really need to convince you of the ineffectiveness of central planning).
Private charities can simply weed out people who appear non genuine based on intuition and local knowledge. They are not expected to "guarantee" anything, so it is much harder for people to abuse them. If a private charity turns someone away, they have to keep trying other charities until they can convince someone that they are deserving.
With a government organization aimed at guaranteeing everyone has food and clothing, its very hard to turn anyone away if there is even a slight chance that they do need it. Unlike with private charity run by volunteers, employees of a government agency have no incentive to deny undeserving people goods since they are motivated by wages which they get either way.
Most people don't have the will to attempt to obtain large quantities of simple food and clothing from facilities intended to assist the poor.
People do have the will to obtain simple food and clothing from such facilities. To ensure people can afford enough food and clothes for the week, you're looking at nearly $100 per person, that's a huge saving to the average household, even if they don't
need it. If you can just walk in and pick it up for free (especially since they are basic items you'd buy anyway), why on earth wouldn't you? I know I would. It's no more hassle than picking them up from the supermarket, and IT'S FREE!
Don't underestimate how cheap even some wealthy people are. Even if you put in a few hurdles (which costs more money), a lot of people will go to great lengths to get something for free.
People are also less likely to feel guilty about taking advantage of it compared to stealing from charity, because after all it is paid for by their taxes and many people feel ripped off by the tax system anyway.
I don't see how it's so ridiculous to make attempts at devising a more effective/less harmful version of the current system, particularly with it having such a destructive effect on Indigenous communities. You are well aware the welfare state isn't going away for decades at least.
There's nothing wrong with trying, but so far all your ideas have been retarded.
Edit: And I know about the 30/30 system. It would be much more efficient and less costly, but the money would still be abused in the same way. Providing the poor with regular payments generally just doesn't seem to have any positive impact on their standard of living.
30-30 totally changes the incentive structure. Yes people still receive a regular payment, but instead of losing 50-60% of each dollar they earn if they go from welfare to work (as they do now), they would only loose 30%.
Your attempts to devise something better are admirable I guess, but the basic problem is welfare doesn't work. Replacing money with goods does not change the basic problem of welfare, because goods can always be converted to money.
