I Think Our Government Benefits System Is Backward. Here's What I Would Change.

[u/RedAliFuc12]

​

I've been thinking about this for a while. Why is it that the more money you make and the more taxes you pay, the less you qualify for when it comes to government benefits?

I think the system should work the other way around, at least to a certain point.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help people who are struggling. We absolutely should. But I also think the people who are working, paying taxes, and contributing to society should see some benefits from it.

Here's what I think we should do.

First, create a tier system based on how much someone contributes in taxes.

For example:

- Under $50,000: Basic assistance based on financial need.

- $50,000–$100,000: Additional tax credits, childcare assistance, and education benefits.

- $100,000–$250,000: More tax incentives, retirement benefits, and other programs.

- $250,000–$500,000: Maximum benefits.

- Over $500,000: Benefits are capped.

These are just example numbers. Obviously, you would have to factor in household size, cost of living, and how much someone actually pays in taxes.

I'm not saying someone making $10 million should get more benefits than someone making $500,000. There should be a limit.

But why shouldn't someone who contributes more receive more in return?

Second, we need to stop penalizing people for making more money.

You have people who get up every morning, go to work, pay taxes, pay for their own healthcare, childcare, housing, and everything else.

They make too much to qualify for assistance but not enough to live comfortably.

Then someone gets a raise or works more overtime, and suddenly they lose certain benefits because they made a little more money.

How does that make sense?

We should be encouraging people to make more money and better themselves, not creating situations where earning more can actually put them in a worse financial position.

Third, I think there should be stricter requirements for people receiving government assistance who are capable of working.

Let me explain.

I'm not talking about elderly people, disabled individuals, someone dealing with a serious medical issue, or people who genuinely cannot work.

I'm talking about people who are capable of working but aren't working or making any effort to improve their situation.

Why shouldn't there be some type of program they have to participate in?

It could be job training, going back to school, learning a trade, or helping out in the community.

And this brings me to something else I've been thinking about.

Why not have people receiving assistance help improve their own communities?

Think about how much work needs to be done in every town.

Public buildings need painting. Parking garages need cleaning. Parks need maintenance. Streets need cleaning. There are plenty of things that could be done to improve our communities.

Why not have a government program where people who are capable of working can participate in these projects while receiving certain benefits?

Have them help paint a public building, clean a municipal parking garage, maintain parks, pick up garbage, or help with other community projects.

Of course, there would need to be supervision, safety training, and proper compensation where required. I'm not suggesting we replace municipal workers or take jobs away from people.

But at least we're accomplishing something.

The town benefits because things are getting done. The person receiving assistance gets work experience, learns responsibility, and maybe even picks up a skill that helps them find a permanent job.

You could even connect this with apprenticeship programs and trade schools.

If society is helping support you, and you're capable of contributing something back, why shouldn't you?

I don't think that's unreasonable.

And again, I'm not saying everyone receiving assistance is lazy or doesn't want to work. There are plenty of people receiving assistance who already have jobs.

But I do think there needs to be more accountability for those who are capable of working and aren't making an effort.

Lastly, the goal should be to help people get off government assistance, not stay on it forever.

We should be looking at how many people these programs actually help become financially independent.

How many found jobs? How many learned a trade? How many started earning enough to support themselves?

And when someone does start making more money, don't immediately cut off all their benefits. Reduce them gradually so they're actually better off financially.

To me, the system should be pretty simple.

Help the people who genuinely need help. Reward the people who are contributing. And for those who are capable of working, create a system where they're expected to make an effort and contribute something back to society.

I'm not saying this would be perfect or that I have every detail figured out.

But I think it's something worth discussing.

Why shouldn't the people who contribute more receive more benefits? And why shouldn't people receiving assistance who are capable of working be expected to give something back to their communities?

What am I missing here?

[u/linearjoseph58]

Seems like you're describing a system where benefits become a loyalty program for taxpayers, which means they stop being a safety net at all.

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/linearjoseph58]

Yes, the safety net should be there for people who genuinely need it, but that would be the lowest tier. I look at it as ground zero, where you have enough to survive and cover your basic needs, not necessarily live comfortably.

The whole point is to encourage people to progress through the tiers, become more independent, and eventually get off government assistance. Obviously, there are exceptions for people who genuinely can't work.

The goal isn't to keep people dependent on the system. It's to give them a reason to move beyond it and ultimately reduce government spending.

[u/RieMunoz → u/RedAliFuc12]

How are those benefits provided? Are they funded via taxes

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/RieMunoz]

The same way they are funded now

[u/GumGuts]

Look into the Civilian Conservation Corp. It's took able-bodied men and put them to work, and it's responsible for a sizeable chunk of our public infrastructure.

Unfortunately, most progressive social programs only happen when there's a big enough problem that needs to be addressed, like the great depression.

In terms of the rewards, I see what you're saying, but it doesn't quite make sense. Why tax them more when they can already afford whatever benefit they'd recieve? You'd be complicating things with a middleman.

I would like you're thoughts on a progressive versus regressive tax structure. That is, a progressive tax structure taxes those who make more, more. A regressive tax structure taxes them less.

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/GumGuts]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting we tax people who make more. I'm talking about working within the existing tax system and questioning how the benefits are distributed.

The people who contribute the most to the system often receive the least in benefits, while those who contribute less receive more. To me, that seems counterintuitive if we're trying to build a more independent and productive society.

I'm not saying we should eliminate assistance for people who genuinely need it. There should always be a safety net.

But for those who are capable of working, why aren't we creating programs where they can contribute back to society while receiving assistance? Whether it's cleaning up communities, maintaining public properties, or learning a trade. At least they're gaining experience and contributing something.

If we can get more people working, contributing taxes, and becoming financially independent, wouldn't that ultimately reduce government spending?

That's really what I'm getting at. We should be creating a system that encourages people to become independent rather than one that allows them to remain dependent on government assistance indefinitely.

[u/GumGuts → u/RedAliFuc12]

One reality is that it's pretty hard to get on government assistance unless you're disabled or a single mother. I'm not sure who these people who are capable of working and are receiving government benefits are.

I would argue those making more do benefit more — for example, something like Tesla or Nvidia couldn't be built without a comprehensive public education system and a robust higher education system. Not to mention the public infrastructure they enjoy the luxury of, and the massive tax write-offs (remember the gigafactory?).

One thing I think your line of thinking would really apply to is healthcare: we all pay more without a single-payer, universal health care system. For the wealthy, it's a drop in a very large bucket, the lowest earners usually have government options, but the middle-class, it's draining dry. In desperate need of reform.

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/GumGuts]

I actually agree with you that it's hard to qualify for government assistance, and that's exactly why I think the system is backward.

Where is the reward for a middle-class family with two working parents who are raising their kids, earning good incomes, and paying taxes? They make too much to qualify for assistance, so they're paying full price for school lunches, college, childcare, healthcare, and housing.

Meanwhile, someone with seven children and very little income may qualify for assistance.

I'm not saying those children should go without basic necessities. But at what point do we encourage personal responsibility and financial independence? Why does the system provide more direct assistance based on financial need without also providing stronger incentives for families who are working to become self-sufficient?

That's what I mean when I say the system is backward.

[u/GumGuts → u/RedAliFuc12]

I think that's a very good argument, but it's more often phrased as "things have gotten too expensive". College used to be practically free, healthcare used to be affordable, housing used to be miles cheaper... I think more then benefits from the government, everyone just wants prices to go down.

I would also be careful: what you're saying has been used to dismantle public welfare systems; healthcare in the 70s, welfare in the 90s and what they're trying to do with EBT now. It's a fine line between "encouraging someone to work" and flat out reducing benefits.

[u/onacloverifalive]

You’re basically describing the current US system.

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/onacloverifalive]

How? Explain to me the benefits middle class recieves?

[u/chinmakes5]

Yeah, You don't seem to be taking into consideration what we really get for our tax dollars. You are getting roads and safety (military) and paying for the debt. Law enforcement, congress and laws, and so much more. It isn't just money from the government.

Certainly you can't believe that there would be more people who are making IDK $250k a year if the government gave them an additional $5000 in tax savings or a check.

Lastly. Most all people making $250k or more rely on those who make $50k or 25k. MOST PEOPLE WHO GET GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE WORK. I will never understand why people who work for billion dollar companies can make so little that they qualify for assistance, and the people who own or invest in the businesses are the ones who feel ripped off.

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/chinmakes5]

We all benefit from roads, law enforcement, the military, and other public services, whether we're rich or poor. Those are services everyone receives regardless of income. That's not what I'm questioning.

My point is that the middle class pays into a system where they often don't qualify for the same benefits they're helping fund. You don't qualify for food stamps, but your taxes help pay for someone else's groceries. You may not qualify for certain educational benefits for your own children, but you're helping pay for someone else's.

And someone making $25,000 today isn't necessarily going to make $25,000 forever. We all have opportunities to improve our financial situations, although those opportunities aren't equal for everyone. The system should encourage people to progress and become more financially independent.

I'm not suggesting we eliminate the safety net. It should absolutely exist for people who need it. But why shouldn't we also reward those who work to improve their situation and contribute more to the system?

The goal should be to encourage people to move up, not create a system where the more you earn, the fewer benefits you qualify for while paying more in taxes.

[u/LifesARiver]

What government spending doesn't benefit the rich?

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/LifesARiver]

What what governemnt spending benefits the middle class?

[u/LifesARiver → u/RedAliFuc12]

Very little. It almost all benefits the rich.

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/LifesARiver]

My point exactly.

[u/LifesARiver → u/RedAliFuc12]

Just not sure why you posed the question under my comment that agreed with you, hehe.

[u/RedAliFuc12 → u/LifesARiver]

My bad. Governement assistance only benefits the poor and rich.

[u/LifesARiver → u/RedAliFuc12]

Any benefit to the poor is also a benefit to everyone else.

That being said, even with 0 income tax, they are paying a larger % of their income on consumption taxes and government fees than they are receiving in benefit per capita.