The USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

OBSERVATIONS I won't make a huge point out of it, but I still feel the need to remark that a tax system is an inherent part of welfare programs. How to obtain the funds for a program can have a significant effect. Since taxation also gives very important incentives. But like I said, I have no intent in tying you up to this constantly, since it would need a separate debate. P1: I contend that crime is a problem. I have certain doubts on the issue of crime being related to poverty, but I'll let my opponent have it, since it isn't the main issue. P2: My opponent makes a grave mistake here, turning around cause and consequence. People aren't unproductive because they're poor, they're poor because they are unproductive. To support this claim, 2 notes, linked to each other: 1. An employer can never pay an employee more than the worth he produces. The reason for this is that if the employer would pay more than what the employee produces, he wouldn't make a profit any longer, but a loss. First of all it is the goal of almost all employers to make a profit, second, a company simply can't keep operating for long when they suffer losses. 2. Taking point 1 into account, if people would be unproductive because they're poor, the poor would be totally unable to get rid of the living situation defined as poor. Since they can't earn more than they produce, they can't get out of the 'poor' category and hence can't get more productive. It is quite clear that this totally isn't the case, poor people are able to make a better living over time. (for this, I'd like to refer to statistical claims by T. Sowell, who pointed out that almost nobody stays all his life - in fact not even a decade - in the same income brackets) So hereby I state that people are poor because they are unproductive. (the contrary of what my opponent claimed) P3: I oppose this claim, my opponent just stated this by fiat. While there certainly will be people who fit into the description, there is nowhere any indication whatsoever that we're not talking about a minuscule group which wouldn't be representative enough to take into account. One could argue that the second form exists, cause they have a direct disadvantage since they pay for it. But if you opt to argue the second form this way, it would make the tax system a relevant part of the whole plan (especially since Pro claims that he won't cause the second type of resentment), but he wanted to stay clear of it. So either tax system gets involved, cause it would become relevant or my opponent has to support his claim (for the second type of resentment) with a different reasoning. SOLUTION/PLAN (of the Pro side) I take note of this plan and I suppose Pro will defend this plan and the criticism I'll offer concerning that plan. Since rounds are limited, I'll elaborate two cases against it in 1 round. If the proposing side wants his plan to be passed, it is only fair to expect him to refute both ways of thought in a decent manner. S1: This plan actually rewards having a lower income. Whether your personal input is 760 a month or 800 a month. So as long as you can't obtain an income that is more than the minimum wage, you're better off doing as little working effort as possible. (as long as you're entitled to the services mentioned in your plan, naturally) Second, there is moral hazard (the risk that they spend the money on other things than agreed on), especially since the following-up happens only 4-6 times a year, numerous expenses can be hard to check. Third, the whole is subject to personal input and fluctuations. People do have different preferences, by default they're the best judges themselves on how it's best to spend their money to obtain maximal 'utility' (satisfaction). Also, different advisers will give different advice, so there is no equal treatment. Fourth, people willing to deny themselves more than the default, risk getting punished by the way this system works. For example the food. If a person holds less value to his food and hence buys the cheaper products, if this allows the person to stay within his budget, he doesn't get the financial support. Furthermore, if the person spends the saved money on something he does value a lot, but isn't part of the necessities (eg: cigarettes), the person gets punished for it. S2: Limitations are quite artificial, nothing either of us can do about that. I could go argue for different terms, but I wouldn't know on what basis (since there isn't much basis for such a debate right now), so I'll just leave this be. The essential part of S2 is that it includes limits of use. S3: This assumes that people don't eat healthy because they don't know how to. However, the media communicates quite regularly on the problems of certain foods and the better alternatives for it. Also, the nutritious values are almost always communicated by the package. (especially the 'not so healthy' foods, but that is a personal impression) H1: The control on their budget can prove an incentive to steal/commit crimes. Since they aren't free to use their own official resources the way they like, they can only obtain certain goods with money that the control doesn't know of, crime can prove the way out to that money. Besides that, it gives a clear incentive towards moonlighting, since the more people earn in this system, the less support they get and it is a 1:1 relation, so there is no net gain for them at all. H2: Again the assumption is made that people actually want to eat healthier but aren't able to do so for a reason (2 mentioned by my opponent: lack of money, lack of knowledge). It may very well be that they simply don't want the healthier food. So either they won't eat healthier because of the plan, or if you force them to, the loss of liberty over ones own live can lead to unhappiness, which may lead just as well to reduced productivity. "The cost of losing your job is bigger" this statement appears incompatible with H3 where actually a closing of the gap between poor and rich is assumed. Also, the wealth gap isn't the threat itself. Only if people get stuck in the situation, an upraise is what one risk, because there is no other way in that case to have upward social mobility. However, that upward (and downward) mobility does exist. (as mentioned earlier) SECOND APPROACH The second route to turn this down is that such a system can't increase welfare of the state. We can't know the preferences of the people. The only way we learn their preferences at a given time is by the way they act. This means that any adviser can't decide on priorities like quality and abundance of food, transport etc. the only way he could learn what those people want is by observing what they choose. But he can't improve it, cause they choose already the things they prefer the most. For the same reason, there is no objective criterion to accept a higher real GDP as a good thing, since it will inevitably involve a trade-off with something different. It can very well be that people actually prefer more leisure time or a more moderate workload instead. And again, the only reason we can learn about these preferences (at a given time) is by observing how people act. If some people eat unhealthy food, we learn that they prefer it above the alternatives, forcing them to healthy food would actually reduce their well-being. Likewise, the fact that some people don't take extra measures to be more productive, learns us that they prefer to be less productive than their full potential, because they prefer other things above extra productivity. (like the unhealthy food for example) Even the fact that less crime at this cost (the cost - in the broad sense - of the plan that is) is good is a mere assumption that you can't know for sure. It might very well be that not having the plan and so having more crime (if that really gets reduced by this plan of course) is preferred.