Now here is a good idea...

[deltex1]

BUSINESS / BUSINESS
Welfare payments to be slashed ¥74 billion to root out the comfortably poor
KYODO
JAN 28, 2013 SHARE
Welfare benefits will be slashed by ¥74 billion over a three-year period starting from fiscal 2013, after a government panel found that some people are making more on the dole than the average low-income person who is not spends on living costs, it was learned Sunday.

The decision to lower standard benefit payments by 6.5 percent was made by welfare minister Norihisa Tamura and Finance Minister Taro Aso. The reduction will hit in August.

Since the standard benefit payment provides the basis for determining other levels of public assistance, such as subsidies for school expenses, reducing it may also affect low-income earners even if they are not on welfare.

Tamura said after the meeting that he will implement the measures so the decision does not adversely affect such earners.

The actual amount doled out per household will be slashed by a maximum of 10 percent from the current level, which is based on age, number of family members and area of residence.

Welfare recipients hit a record high of 2.14 million in October 2012 and the state budget for benefits, including medical assistance, stood at around ¥2.8 trillion for fiscal 2012 ending in March.

Later Sunday, the government and ruling parties approved the fiscal 2013 budget proposal, with expenditures in the general account budget totaling ¥92.61 trillion. The Cabinet will sign off on the budget on Tuesday and send it to the Diet.

At the approval meeting, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for the swift enactment of the budget because it “will enable us to implement economic measures in a seamless manner and tackle major challenges, such as reconstruction (from the 2011 quake and tsunami) and disaster prevention.”

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...¥74-billion-to-root-out-the-comfortably-poor/
Welfare payments to be slashed ¥74 billion to root out the comfortably poor | The Japan Times (me too)

 

[jwoodie]

The hidden elephant in OUR room is automatic cost-of-living increases built into nearly every federal benefit program, which is equivalent to throwing gasoline on a fire that is already out of control. Cutting benefits is not only politically difficult, it is unfair to those who have made financial decisions based on their current incomes. For example, beneficiaries who are now able to afford $500 per month in rent might be forced out of their homes with nowhere else to go. Freezing benefits at their current levels, on the other hand, is a more humane approach which would still allow us to grow/inflate our way out of our deficits.

This is why those who favor ever increasing government spending are so opposed to restricting COLA's. They want the debate to be about cutting current benefits, since this is more easily opposed by such propaganda as "throwing granny over the cliff."

 

[deltex1]

I joined the USAF in 1959 with an eye toward a rewarding career...deferred benefits...and eventually retirement at an early age. It worked out great. Along the way I was joined by millions of non military folks who wanted the same deal...some without working for it. To me that's where we went wrong...too much for too many.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The hidden elephant in OUR room is automatic cost-of-living increases built into nearly every federal benefit program, which is equivalent to throwing gasoline on a fire that is already out of control. Cutting benefits is not only politically difficult, it is unfair to those who have made financial decisions based on their current incomes. For example, beneficiaries who are now able to afford $500 per month in rent might be forced out of their homes with nowhere else to go. Freezing benefits at their current levels, on the other hand, is a more humane approach which would still allow us to grow/inflate our way out of our deficits.

This is why those who favor ever increasing government spending are so opposed to restricting COLA's. They want the debate to be about cutting current benefits, since this is more easily opposed by such propaganda as "throwing granny over the cliff."

" Freezing benefits at their current levels, on the other hand, is a more humane approach which would still allow us to grow/inflate our way out of our deficits."


You're joking, right? Tell me you are. Do you really think that's sound policy?

 

[jwoodie]

Yes, I do. You, apparently, do not but are unable to articulate why not.

 

[Black_Label]

I joined the USAF in 1959 with an eye toward a rewarding career...deferred benefits...and eventually retirement at an early age. It worked out great. Along the way I was joined by millions of non military folks who wanted the same deal...some without working for it. To me that's where we went wrong...too much for too many.

So you joined just to get those world class government benefits, but are now trashing those that also get them?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Yes, I do. You, apparently, do not but are unable to articulate why not.

You want to force retirees to take the brunt of your plan to debase the currency. I would think that would be apparent from your post and need no explanation.

How do you think our creditors will react to being paid less than they loaned us? How stupid do you think they are?

 

[deltex1]

Not trashing all of them...just the ones who take advantage. I worked for mine...made less income for years...now "they" want big income, big retirement and big benefits...like disability...

Too much promised to too many...so GFY.

 

[g5000]

The hidden elephant in OUR room is automatic cost-of-living increases built into nearly every federal benefit program, which is equivalent to throwing gasoline on a fire that is already out of control. Cutting benefits is not only politically difficult, it is unfair to those who have made financial decisions based on their current incomes. For example, beneficiaries who are now able to afford $500 per month in rent might be forced out of their homes with nowhere else to go. Freezing benefits at their current levels, on the other hand, is a more humane approach which would still allow us to grow/inflate our way out of our deficits.

This is why those who favor ever increasing government spending are so opposed to restricting COLA's. They want the debate to be about cutting current benefits, since this is more easily opposed by such propaganda as "throwing granny over the cliff."

" Freezing benefits at their current levels, on the other hand, is a more humane approach which would still allow us to grow/inflate our way out of our deficits."


You're joking, right? Tell me you are. Do you really think that's sound policy?

Uh... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have not had sound fiscal policy for a very long time. That's precisely why we are in this mess.

All around the world, and over millennia, inflating your way out of debt is historically very popular. It worked well for us after WWII.

There are only a handful of ways to bring down sovereign debt.

1. Grow the economy. That's not going so well at the moment. A large factor inhibiting our ability to bounce back from recessions is the fact that a couple billion cheap laborers entered the world's work force in the late 80s and early 90s after the collapse of the USSR. China and India threw up their hands and dipped their toes into the capitalist pool. Then they dove in, at our expense. It is going to take a bit longer for equilibrium to be re-established and for wages to start to rise again, but there are definite signs we are getting there.

2. Internal devaluation. Basically, higher taxes and austerity. Democrats are all about the higher taxes part, Republicans are all about the austerity part.

3. External devaluation. Inflation. Printing money. Which is what the Fed has been doing like its going out of style for the past four years. Inflation is a way to default without technically defaulting. This option is historically the most popular option. But it can quickly get away from you and send your economy into thermonuclear meltdown.

4. Renegotiate with creditors for a lower interest rate. This is what Greece and Spain and Italy and Ireland, et al. have been trying to do since 2009. But things are different for us. As the world's reserve currency, we get to set our own interest rates. And since the Fed has already set them at near zero percent interest, we are kind of at an impasse here. The Fed has seriously considered negative interest rates, and I have no doubt if things get worse they will go that route. But the inevitable rise in interest rates is going to inflict some serious pain on us. Were it to happen any time soon, we would see unemployment quickly rise to double digits.

5. Default. Tell our external creditors we are giving them a haircut, and then kiss our credit worthiness goodbye. Also, our continued reserve currency status would be seriously questioned.

6. Dammit. I always forget one. It's on the tip of my tongue. Shit.

 

[rightwinger]

Suffering is the only way these people will learn

 

[jwoodie]

Yes, I do. You, apparently, do not but are unable to articulate why not.

You want to force retirees to take the brunt of your plan to debase the currency. I would think that would be apparent from your post and need no explanation.

How do you think our creditors will react to being paid less than they loaned us? How stupid do you think they are?

Study the asymptotic curve and get back to me...