Stoking the Fire
I was so happy to see that Friday’s posting generated some conversation. Please keep the comments coming! That’s why blogs are so hot. “User-generated content” in Web 2.0 terms, or in other words: it’s interactive, you can talk back!
So, in order to keep the conversation rolling, let me introduce you to Death & Taxes: 2007.
What is it? I’ll let the author explain this beautiful creation:
“Death and Taxes” is a representational graph of the federal discretionary budget. The amount of money that is spent at the discretion of your elected representatives in Congress. Basically, your federal income taxes. The data is from the President’s annual budget proposal but it must pass both the House and Senate before it goes into effect. While “Death and Taxes” contains an enormous amount of information, the purpose of the graph is to generate questions. The right questions. Your taxes are being spent in your name and mostly likely you are unaware exactly what they are used for. This “Death and Taxes” will hopefully answer that “what” question. The next question that should be asked is “why”?
In my posting last week I hoped to imply this very question. “Why have we spent $469 billion on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq but only $ _____.___ on (your favorite cause)?”
More relevent to this blog… “Why do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on traditional homeless services, like shelters and case management, but neglect to simply build affordable housing?”
My suggestions are the following:
- the myth of “rugged Individualism” as a core cultural value in the US
- the general concept of “affordable housing” is usually limited to the infamous “public housing projects” and all of the ugly connotations that conjures up
- we tend to blame the homeless for being homeless; ignoring the mentally ill, the abused, the people who work two jobs and still can’t pay the rent
- there is the unspoken belief that the poor are somehow less deserving, morally or otherwise
What am I missing? Any other suggestions? …or better yet, maybe you can explain the decision makers’ logic behind the spending?
The picture below is from the Death & Taxes website’s forum, where the author created a simple graph showing how entitlements figure into the total budget.
Perhaps because our government doesn’t think outside the box?
For instance, just throwing this idea out for size (not my own), what if our government matched a required parental contribution into a small “social security” fund for their newborns that generated compounded interest until said offspring reached retirement age?
A small contribution at birth would be significant by age 67, as long as the government wasn’t using these funds for its discretionary purposes – and the money was required to be deposited by parents/care-givers by the child’s 1st birthday.
It would also encourage people to secure their future through other plans (401K, etc.) when they can see the magic of compounded interest.
Stipulations would be that parents couldn’t access this money, nor could the offspring until full retirement age was reached – and it would be mandatory program. Anyone who has ever struggled with paying the bills versus saving a dollar can appreciate that necessity.
This sounds too simplistic, I’m sure. A lot of issues would have to be addressed, such as “birth” contributions for those who simply couldn’t afford it. But, it would still probably be more cost efficient than the present social security system in which contributions aren’t made until age 18 or older?
As with any program of such magnitude, it would need honing and tweaking, yet, it IS thinking outside the box about how to provide for citizens’ needs without additional taxes and withholdings.
I think this also begs the question, where does GSH funding come from?
Regarding our funding, please check out the Good Shepherd Housing website’s ‘Highlights
‘ page.
Basically it breaks down like this:
16% Government Grants
30% Donations, Foundations & Special Grants
54% Program Revenue (ie. tenant rent payments)