Welfare and the Middle Class.

[Omnis]

This might not apply in the same sense to those not residing in the U.S., but, what are your opinions on welfare -- social or otherwise?

Welfare; n : governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need.

Welfare, in my opinion, is one of the contributions to the fall of the middle class, epsecially in the south florida tri-county area. What do people think of getting rid of the Welfare system? Are you in favor? Against? Welfare was introduced during the Great Depression, and, yes, it was needed, as the Middle Class was essentially obliterated. Do we still need it, though? Whose pockets should welfare come from? What happens when those on welfare become succesful enough to just be above the qualification for financial aid? Do they suffer more with aidless (small) equity than with aided poverty?

Could the money that goes into providing welfare be better utilized by putting it into paychecks (or just taking it off of the tax form alone)? That seems to be the big question to me.


Now, what are your thoughts?

 

[niky]

I'm pretty sure some people are going to come in and bash it to pieces. I only have one small thing to add before the carnage ensues:

I have a friend who had a hard time getting her start in the US. There was one year that she fell into the welfare dole. Afterwards, everything worked out, and she climbed back onto her feet. Now, she has a place to live, a decent car to drive and is now supporting three kids on a regular paycheck. In some cases, welfare does work.

In others it doesn't, but there's always some good and some bad in any system. The stronger your social services, the higher taxes are, the harder it is to become wealthy, but the easier it is to become financially secure. The less you allocate, the lower the taxes and the easier it is to achieve financial success (not security, success... they're two different things).

Which is better? It's most likely down to who you ask and how much they actually need those services.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

As I grow older, i'm starting to see more and more people who are on some kind of social service who don't deserve a penny of what they receive. People who claim disability from having bad hips, backs, etc, but then take their government money and go play baseball and watch TV when really their only disability is that they're fat and lazy.

Whats even worse is the fact that these people seem to pop out kids left and right. I live in a city that has the highest teen pregnancy in Canada, and everyday my girlfriend see's nothing but teens with strollers and fat stomachs sitting in line at the welfare office. (Her work is right beside it unfortuantly) In my opinion, if these people want welfare/assistance, they should be made to be on birth control. Basically, give them the shot everytime they pick up their check. If your too lazy to get a job, then your too lazy to raise a child properly, and unfortuantly this isn't my opinion, but what i've learned as every person I know on welfare has had their child/children taken away at some point by child services. One girl I know actually had the nerve to have another child after the first one was taken away (luckily her aunt took it as a foster parent) which was then taken away from her aswell! Her reason? "You can't afford to live in a nice apartment without a kid." Those words almost landed my fist in her mouth when I heard her say it.

Another problem I have with welfare is who they have choose who recieves it or not. When my dad was laid off from his job after 25 years, they denied him for assistance because they said he made too much money that year (even though he never recieved a severence because of an on going lawsuit). Meanwhile, a girl that worked for only 6 months and was fired because she didn't show up for her saturday shifts due to hang overs received unemployment/assistance right away with no problem. Where is the justification in that?! I believe that is proof enough that the system needs a complete overhaul and a rethinking of who deserves what more.

So in short, no, I don't believe we should get rid of welfare/assistance, but I do believe that whoever requests it should be forced to take birth control and in order to recieve it, stand before a panel of middle class, tax paying citizens who work 40+ hours a week just to make ends meet.

 

[Danoff]

Welfare was introduced during the Great Depression, and, yes, it was needed, as the Middle Class was essentially obliterated.

No, it was not needed. It did not help eliminate the depression in any way. What was needed was experience in economics - we have that now, but we sorely lacked it then.

I have a friend who had a hard time getting her start in the US. There was one year that she fell into the welfare dole. Afterwards, everything worked out, and she climbed back onto her feet. Now, she has a place to live, a decent car to drive and is now supporting three kids on a regular paycheck. In some cases, welfare does work.

That's not an example of welfare working, that's an example of someone in need of charity. Your assumption here is the government charity is better than private charity.

Could the money that goes into providing welfare be better utilized by putting it into paychecks (or just taking it off of the tax form alone)?

The government is bad at everything it does. It overspends on the military, the space program, research, police, healthcare, public education, welfare, social security, border containment, post office, even the DMV is terrible. Name me a government program that is successful and I'll point out that it hasn't been around long enough to suck yet.

Some of those services wouldn't and shouldn't be provided by private industry. The military, for example, cannot be provided by private industry (though we can and do contract out bits and pieces). Police is also best kept to the government - this is because a private industry with enough police and military power could overthrow the government and eliminate everyone's rights overnight. The government definitely has it's place in society.

But that place should be kept to a minimum. One thing that is clear from historical evidence is that private industry is a hell of a lot better and managing charity work than the government - and Americans give generously to private charity in spite of the fact that they already gave in the form of tax dollars.

Take away government charity and you'll have millions of people who feel guilty for not having contributed (as opposed to now where you have millions of people who feel like they've done their part by paying their taxes). The money will flow even greater to charity if the government stays out of it.

Until then, we're wasting money.

Oh, and there's already a topic or two on welfare.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21396&highlight=welfare

 

[a6m5]

No need for birth control, send your babies to Japan. We need them. Seriously though, I don't know about Canada, but in country like Japan, where the population growth has pretty much stopped, government will welcome an oppotunity to fund babies. (I don't mean anything by this)

On the topic(before danoff shows up. ), I think we need it. People who abuses the welfare does upset me very much. Everytime I hear about someone trying to collect unemployment, just so they can have paid vacation, that upsets me too. But in a bigger picture, I believe it is helping our society and/or economy. I certainly feel more secure knowing that if I ever get in a bind, government will not watch me starve.

Edit: Darn it. He was already here!

 

[Omnis]

No, it was not needed. It did not help eliminate the depression in any way. What was needed was experience in economics - we have that now, but we sorely lacked it then.

Oh, and there's already a topic or two on welfare.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21396&highlight=welfare

Sorry bout that. I searched, but nothing came up. If a moderator would like to merge the topics, feel free to do so.

Anyway, even if it wasn't needed, the GD is still (probably) the best justification for its introduction. But, if it wasn't needed then, why is it needed now?

 

[YSSMAN]

My biggest beef with our current welfare system: Helping out our illegal friends from Mexico when they come to the US. Cross the border, drop a baby, get to stay and live off my taxes for the rest of their lives.

I don't like welfare, but given that I have had some expirience with it through my Mother, I can't say it isn't necessary. She lost her job with Amway after 20 years to some 6-month entry for some pretty stupid reasons (I will choose not to get into that), and thus she had to take a pay cut with her new job, making half as much as what she did before.

We were on welfare for a year (including medicaid), but afterwards things got sorted out, she was placed into a better job, and thus we took ourselves off the system.

There are cases where it was needed, and there are others where it isn't. Sadly it is a case-by-case scenario, I doubt the Feds have the time or the resources to sort everything out that way...

 

[Danoff]

I don't like welfare, but given that I have had some expirience with it through my Mother, I can't say it isn't necessary.

Charity does not equal government.

 

[Omnis]

Charity does not equal government.

Yeah. Can't we get rid of false-philanthropy?

 

[FoolKiller]

Is it just me or is every "welfare is good because" example a story of someone who had some bad luck, didn't give up, and eventually got themselves back on their feet?

How about my cousin who goes straight to bingo with her welfare check? Or how about people like Hilary Swank's mother in Million Dollar Baby who got upset about being given a house because now she wouldn't get her welfare check anymore? What about the people that swear that the only jobs they can find pay less than welfare so they stay on welfare? What about the people that use drugs and drink, etc?

These good stories are people that would have found a way anyway without welfare. The fact that they didn't give up shows that and a simple private charity would have helped them do the same.

The "trouble" with private charities is that they will discriminate who they give their money to. They refuse to help addictions. This allows only those who actually have a chance to succeed with a little help to succeed and those that won't don't waste anyone's money.

For some reason people have a problem with the idea of only helping those that wish to help themselves.

 

[Swift]

My father's mother was on welfare for a time. She was one of the last people stricken with Polio. For that I can almost see it. But it's still an unfair drawn on the rest of the people that are working.

It quite literally is theft. Since it's not like food stamps where you have to use it for food. They just give them money that's it. No checking where they spent it, or making sure they get the "needed" materials for survival. Just, cash money. Yeah, that's fair how?

The people that make it from the welfare level would've made it if it wasn't for welfare, as Foolkiller has said. So welfare is truly a self defeating concept. Why? Because you don't respect what you don't earn. Simple as that.

 

[Danoff]

Can anyone honestly say that they'd rather their money went to the US welfare system than the Salvation Army? The Red Cross (which is largely private)?

Who was on hand after Katrina? The government? The Salvation Army and Red Cross were handing out water and food before the government knew there was a hurricane. Then, in it's infinite wisdom, the government turned them away.


So what do you think? Wouldn't you rather your money went to a private charity like the red cross or salvation army?

 

[a6m5]

So what do you think? Wouldn't you rather your money went to a private charity like the red cross or salvation army?

Private sectors sounds OK by me. But I still think people should be mandated to chip in. Like insurance, if you aren't supporting it, you shouldn't get it.

 

[Swift]

So what do you think? Wouldn't you rather your money went to a private charity like the red cross or salvation army?

Think that if the Welfare system disappeared(this would lower taxes) and this would make it possible for other groups like the Red Cross and Salvation Army to exist and help people. That sounds much better then giving my money to a drug addict.

 

[Swift]

Sorry bout that. I searched, but nothing came up. If a moderator would like to merge the topics, feel free to do so.

Anyway, even if it wasn't needed, the GD is still (probably) the best justification for its introduction. But, if it wasn't needed then, why is it needed now?

Nah, that's about a 3 year old thread and most of the people that posted in it aren't active anymore.

 

[niky]

The thing is, the problem is in the people who qualify for welfare, and how eligibility is determined. It's not a problem with the concept of welfare per se, just with how it is implemented.

As to whether private or public charity is better, let me just state: public charity gives you a regular dole, private charity seriously depends on the weather. But if the private charity gives you three meals and a palce to sleep while you're getting back on your feet, I don't see why not.

I'm not going to get into that argument, thank you.

And like I've said: People's opinion on welfare will depend entirely on whether they've ever needed it or not, as seen from the posts so far. And it will depend on your cultural background and age. To whit: I bet you don't hear many Swedes complaining about the money they pour into social services, seeing as the all benefit from it in the end. To them, it's a sort of insurance.

The only difference between having the government handle your welfare and social security benefits or just saving up and doing it yourself is that you don't have to think about it yourself when you retire or are debilitated.

 

[Omnis]

Doesn't all of Sweden get return on their given aid? Only the American poor benefit from welfare.

 

[niky]

Guess you have to file Chapter 11 to enjoy all that America has to offer, then.

 

[FoolKiller]

So what do you think? Wouldn't you rather your money went to a private charity like the red cross or salvation army?

This inspired a thought: If the government is going to require wealth redistribution (which I disagree with completely) then have it go to private charities and the like. This would mean removing FEMA and the like and having these kinds of organizations taking the lead.

These groups are more efficient and honestly care. It isn't a job for most of them, they volunteered to help. They want to take care of these individuals.

Of course this idea would go over about as well as privatized social security. But hey, it was a thought.

 

[Mark T]

I manage a Lettings office in the South East of England and around 70% of the tenants that we have receive housing benefit and have 2 or more children. Most of them don't have partners/husbands and will also recieve other benefits such as income support. The problem is that these people will most likely never go back to work. Most of them go on to have other children so they will probably be parenting until they are very close to a retirement age. So it means that most of there life they will be receiving benefits (including reduced council tax etc) for the majority of there at a huge cost to the tax payer.

The problem with benefits in my area is the amount of single mums under the age of 20. My town (Clacton-on-Sea) has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the county. If they were to remove housing benefit the number of teenage pregnancies would fall because the young mums would realise that they either have to get a job, rent accommodation and pay for a babysitter or they would have to continue living with parents.

Benefits in the UK are given out far too easily, all you really need is a National Insurance number. The system is being abused by too many people and once again it's really too late to stop it.

 

[TheCracker]

Think that if the Welfare system disappeared(this would lower taxes) and this would make it possible for other groups like the Red Cross and Salvation Army to exist and help people. That sounds much better then giving my money to a drug addict.

Do you seriously think that money saved on lowering taxes would mean people would give that money to charity? No, people are far too greedy, given the chance they'd spend it on a nice new home cinema system instead and **** charitable organisations.

Some govenment taxes should go to the needy. Govenment is there for every citizen. I'm not saying that welfare is perfect, it's always going to be abused by some but what do you expect those who genuinely can't work to do? - starve? turn to crime? sell their kids to medical science?

 

[FoolKiller]

Some govenment taxes should go to the needy.

Why should it be the money that others have worked for? Can I go and steal people's money as long as I admit to it and then give it to the needy?

Govenment is there for every citizen.

But government is making me be there for every citizen, whether I want to or not. If I want to help my sick grandma who can't work that is wonderful. If I don't want to help the drug addict up the road that is fine. Unfortunately the government makes me do both without asking first.

 

[TheCracker]

Why should it be the money that others have worked for? Can I go and steal people's money as long as I admit to it and then give it to the needy?

No, that's stealing and society frowns on it. You give your taxes to the government (involuntary i know) - but that's the basis of modern society.

You don't mind your money being 'stolen' to pay for roads you'll never drive on, or for missiles that will never be fired, or Government organisations that you'll never even hear of?

But government is making me be there for every citizen, whether I want to or not. If I want to help my sick grandma who can't work that is wonderful. If I don't want to help the drug addict up the road that is fine. Unfortunately the government makes me do both without asking first.

That's what living in a 'society' does for you. I'm sure you'll find the pros outway the cons.

 

[Famine]

If they were to remove housing benefit the number of teenage pregnancies would fall because the young mums would realise that they either have to get a job, rent accommodation and pay for a babysitter or they would have to continue living with parents.

Only the Daily Mail would get all crotchety because "it's the babies that suffer in the long-run - why should these innocents be punished for the mistakes of their parents?" and there'd be a rapid government cave-in as Smiler saw votes disappearing.

If you have a kid, it's your problem to deal with it, not mine. If you become pregnant by accident, it's your problem to deal with your decision to have sex in the first place, not mine. If you were "not a willing participant" then abort/adopt. If you were "not a willing participant" and decide to keep it then it's still your problem to deal with your decision, not mine - though the perpetrator should also deal with it, as it was their decision, and not anyone else.

There is no persuasive argument to say that if you get knocked up, you should get a free house. It's your decision to try for a kid, or just to have sex, or just to keep the child rather than abort it or have it put up for adoption. They are ALL your decision and not any other person in the country's.

Do you seriously think that money saved on lowering taxes would mean people would give that money to charity? No, people are far too greedy, given the chance they'd spend it on a nice new home cinema system instead and **** charitable organisations.

To an extent, you're right. But it's mainly the people who are on the take out of the system in the first place - and their new home cinema system comes on 6 month interest free credit and only forty-ninety-twelve easy payments of eleventy pounds.

BBC Comic Relief/Red Nose Day in 2005 alone raised £65 million - that's a little more than a pound for every person in the UK. BBC Children in Need raises £30 million overall every year. And these are just two of the thousands of registered charities in the UK alone. For the 2004 tsunami, the people of the UK (not the government) gave £330 million, to give to people the Daily Mail would kick out of the UK if they ever showed their faces at Dover.

People are far more generous than you give credit - but you're right that there's a cultural pocket of takers, and these are the people you're giving involuntary charity to simply by taxation.

 

[TheCracker]

BBC Comic Relief/Red Nose Day in 2005 alone raised £65 million - that's a little more than a pound for every person in the UK. BBC Children in Need raises £30 million overall every year. And these are just two of the thousands of registered charities in the UK alone. For the 2004 tsunami, the people of the UK (not the government) gave £330 million, to give to people the Daily Mail would kick out of the UK if they ever showed their faces at Dover.

People are far more generous than you give credit - but you're right that there's a cultural pocket of takers, and these are the people you're giving involuntary charity to simply by taxation.

People are generous, but that £425 million that the kind people of GB gave to these charities last year would run our 'Social Services' for what, a week or so?

The richer people are, the greedier and less charitable they seem to become.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, that's stealing and society frowns on it. You give your taxes to the government (involuntary i know) - but that's the basis of modern society.

How is involuntarily giving money to someone not the same as being stolen from? I will involuntarily give my money to a mugger, it is still theft.

You don't mind your money being 'stolen' to pay for roads you'll never drive on, or for missiles that will never be fired, or Government organisations that you'll never even hear of?

Actually, I would voluntarily hand them that money. If they held bake sales to raise money for that I would buy a whole plate of cookies. Infrastructure and defense is what a government is for. Societies survived for years without welfare. Heck, the US went over 100 years without it.

That's what living in a 'society' does for you. I'm sure you'll find the pros outway the cons.

Which is why I happily live in the US. If I found the cons to be too heavy I would quickly search for somewhere else to go.

 

[Famine]

People are generous, but that £425 million that the kind people of GB gave to these charities last year would run our 'Social Services' for what, a week or so?

Which is rather the point...

The richer people are, the greedier and less charitable they seem to become.

I find it to be the other way round.

In fact... the world's richest man has given to charity the equivalent of a third of his net worth in the last 6 years.
The world's second richest man has given to charity 85% of his net worth.
The world's fourth richest man administers the world's largest charity and drives a Volvo 240.
We'll ignore the fifth - Lakshmi Mittal (as will Tony Blair - he'll deny ever having heard of him).
The world's sixth richest man has given over $800 billion to charity.

And so on. It's not the act of a greedy man to give 85% of everything he owns to charity. I'm sure someone will point out that 15% of umpty-billion is still umpty-billion, but then 85% of umpty-billion is also still 85% of umpty billion. It represents a colossal donation to charity.


Incidentally, welcome to the Opinions forum. Stay a while. Stay... forever!

 

[Swift]

Do you seriously think that money saved on lowering taxes would mean people would give that money to charity? No, people are far too greedy, given the chance they'd spend it on a nice new home cinema system instead and **** charitable organisations.

Yes, I know that I would personally and a lot of other people. But when the government taxes me and then hits my commission twice as hard, it makes it difficult to give more. Period.

Some govenment taxes should go to the needy. Govenment is there for every citizen. I'm not saying that welfare is perfect, it's always going to be abused by some but what do you expect those who genuinely can't work to do? - starve? turn to crime? sell their kids to medical science?

What is your definition of needy?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

What about the people that swear that the only jobs they can find pay less than welfare so they stay on welfare?

This is what winds me up about welfare. Why (when we have a minimum wage) are there any jobs that pay less than welfare? Welfare should be no more than 70% of net income on minimum wage.

I have a problem with anything that disincentivises personal effort.

 

[Mark T]

This is what winds me up about welfare. Why (when we have a minimum wage) are there any jobs that pay less than welfare? Welfare should be no more than 70% of net income on minimum wage.

I have a problem with anything that disincentivises personal effort.

When somebody recieves benefits they also get discounts on council tax. One property that I manage at the moment has two unemployed tenants in residence. There rent is £740 every four weeks. They recieve about £670 from housing benefit and they top up £70, they pay £7 a month council tax on a band D house. I can't see there outgoings being anymore than £300 a month. What amazed me was that they had Sky TV installed recently.