Welfare and the Middle Class.

[FoolKiller]

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.

Why do we have both? You could remove one and raise the other and still have enough extra for those that don't use these institutions to come out with more as well.

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.

You know their kids went, "BUT DAD!!!"

Stay... forever!

The curse of the opinion forums.

One of us. One of us.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

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.

"Hello Government Right Hand, let me introduce you to Government Left Hand"...

I used the term "welfare" to include both handouts and discounts, when discussing the relative pay of welfare and minimum wage.

 

[Danoff]

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.

Given that people contribute so much now, I don't see why it would suddenly become a problem if they had MORE money.

 

[TheCracker]

But what i'm saying is that you just can't rely on the general population to voluntarely support those (and i'm talking about genuine cases - not the liggers) who can't support themselves. Sure, when time are good you might find that people to be supprisingly charitable, but what happens when times are hard across the board? will people be quite as happy to part with their hard earned?

I'm sure the uber rich give huge proportions of their wealth to charity - good on them for doing so - but you'll find that 15% of several billion is still probably more than they could possibly spend on themselves. I bet they get healthy tax-breaks for doing so too

I wasn't talking about the very very rich anyway, more so those who are comfortably well-off, those who don't worry about paying the bills etc.

 

[FoolKiller]

but what happens when times are hard across the board?

Then there will be less money even coming in from taxes and welfare recipients will be cut short as well. Whether it is private or publicly funded hard times across the board means everyone gets less, even the poor.

 

[Swift]

I wasn't talking about the very very rich anyway, more so those who are comfortably well-off, those who don't worry about paying the bills etc.

Who do you think donated umpteen million to aid in the Tsunami's and earthquakes in Southeast Asia. Or the billion+ dollars for Katrina relief?

People do give. People just don't like giving to crackheads

 

[TheCracker]

Who do you think donated umpteen million to aid in the Tsunami's and earthquakes in Southeast Asia. Or the billion+ dollars for Katrina relief?

People do give. People just don't like giving to crackheads

People seem to find it easier to give to those who live in a different continent, whose circumstances suddenly change for the worse. They just don't like the idea of giving to those who live in the next 'low income' suburb to theirs. Labelling everyone on Welfare as 'crackheads' would appear to support my argument and shows a real lack of understanding. Why are people crackheads? perhaps their enviroment took them down that route. Anyway, there are as many rich crackheads or heroin addicts as there are poverty stricken ones.

 

[Swift]

People seem to find it easier to give to those who live in a different continent, whose circumstances suddenly change for the worse. They just don't like the idea of giving to those who live in the next 'low income' suburb to theirs. Labelling everyone on Welfare as 'crackheads' would appear to support my argument and shows a real lack of understanding. Why are people crackheads? perhaps their enviroment took them down that route. Anyway, there are as many rich crackheads or heroin addicts as there are poverty stricken ones.

Obviously, I don't mean that all people in financial trouble are crack heads. Nor did I even imply that. Also, you made a great point for me NOT to feel sorry for people stupid enough, that's right, stupid enough to do drugs.

It's actually very simple. People ARE sympathetic and do like to help others. I go and give food to homeless people on a pretty regular basis. As do a lot of people that I know.

But we HATE the thought of being taken advantage of. Hence we have the national distain for the welfare system. Because the working people know for a fact that there are those abusing the system. Now, obviously, there are people that are not abusing the system, but unfortunately we tend to focus on people doing wrong not right.

 

[Delirious]

I don't know enough about welfare to contribute, but I have had plenty of people at work (Kroger, Cashier) who have told me after I had a foodstamp or WIC order...

"I wish they'd stop wasting our tax money"

"I wish they'd get a job so my money doesn't go to them"

"Taxes wouldn't be so high if we'd stop giving out that much money to these people"

I've had people with over 400 dollars on a foodstamp card.

I've seen wic orders that would have cost them at least 150 to 350 dollars (baby formula is expensive) and they still have more WIC tickets for the month!

Not to hi-jack the thread, but what are your thoughts on WIC/foodstamps? It is in a sense, welfare...only for food and baby needs.

 

[Swift]

Not to hi-jack the thread, but what are your thoughts on WIC/foodstamps? It is in a sense, welfare...only for food and baby needs.

It's not hijacking the thread because as you said it's a source of welfare.

Honestly, I don't like it. But I could tolerate it simply because it's NOT cash. You have to buy food with it. I can deal with that. You have a much harder time abusing something like that. Now, I know people sometimes trade foodstamps for other things. But at least you can't trade them for cash, technically.

So, I could tolerate it as people need food. But I still don't see a direct need for it.

 

[Danoff]

But what i'm saying is that you just can't rely on the general population to voluntarely support those (and i'm talking about genuine cases - not the liggers) who can't support themselves. Sure, when time are good you might find that people to be supprisingly charitable, but what happens when times are hard across the board? will people be quite as happy to part with their hard earned?

When times are tough you want private charities that have built up an endowment of money. When rich folks donate billions, the charities are able to use the interest off of that money to provide an indefinite source of charity money.

The government, on the otherhand, goes into debt when times are tough and we end up paying interest for borrowing the money.

Private charity wins again.

 

[TheCracker]

But we HATE the thought of being taken advantage of. Hence we have the national distain for the welfare system. Because the working people know for a fact that there are those abusing the system. Now, obviously, there are people that are not abusing the system, but unfortunately we tend to focus on people doing wrong not right.

It's pretty much the same over here. There are obviously so many people abusing the system and making a decent (better than me) standard of living of it - which is totally missing the point of the welfare system. Welfare should alow people to live above the poverty line - not in the lap of luxury, not so they won't be motivated to get off their arses and find a job.

It's the fault of the authorities for badly designing the system in the first place - It should be for the worthy not the greedy or lazy. But i still think welfare has a place in modern society - maybe i'm being too idealistic?

When times are tough you want private charities that have built up an endowment of money. When rich folks donate billions, the charities are able to use the interest off of that money to provide an indefinite source of charity money.

The government, on the otherhand, goes into debt when times are tough and we end up paying interest for borrowing the money.

Private charity wins again.

The money built up by private charities is all well and good when it comes to a crisis - a time when a sudden large injection of cash is needed. But when it comes to the constant steady supply of monies needed to fund welfare you can't rely on an unpredicable source of money like charitable donations. When times are lean the charities themselves would find themselves in debt as well. The constant out-flow of cash would mean that no meaningful build up of interest would be possible.

 

[Danoff]

It's pretty much the same over here. There are obviously so many people abusing the system and making a decent (better than me) standard of living of it - which is totally missing the point of the welfare system. Welfare should alow people to live above the poverty line - not in the lap of luxury, not so they won't be motivated to get off their arses and find a job.

It's the fault of the authorities for badly designing the system in the first place - It should be for the worthy not the greedy or lazy. But i still think welfare has a place in modern society - maybe i'm being too idealistic?

Definitely too idealistic for government work. Given the notorious overspending and incompetence of government operations I'd say government sponsored charity is doomed to exactly these kinds of problems. Private charities on the otherhand...

 

[niky]

Ah... and here we come to the infallibility of private charity. Which is possibly applicable in the case of some, but when a charity becomes big enough, with a large enough beaurecracy and enough money, inneficiency and corruption are bound to set in.

Take Rotary (I'm not familiar enough with other philanthropic organizations to make a comment on them). Their capital generation is very good, and they support a lot of good causes. Not just the "feed the beggar" kind, but honest-to-goodness community building and life-changing contributions, like providing clean water for communities, livelihood and educational opportunities, etcetera.

A terrific example of private charity, right? For the most part. The entire India group has been recently banned from receiving such grants (don't know whether this has been lifted or not) due to corruption. Ah, good check and balance, right? Maybe. One club here in the Philippines is the subject of much controversy and debate, as one person made enough off of the grants to open a school. Under the name of Rotary, maybe, but she keeps all the profit.

My brother's just come back from a mission to a supposedly "depressed" area. What's depressing is, these high-profile squatters and marginalized people are receiving from so many different charities, it's crazy. No real house, no job, but cable TV and three squares a day. Huh. Definitely living the high life.

While maybe fifty kilometers south of there, you have really poor people, farmers who can't eke out enough from the land to feed their families, with no access to clean drinking water or medical services. What does charity, either private or public, do for them? (To note, public charity can't do much because ours is over-extended and underfunded.)

Again, it's not the concept per se, merely the execution of such. I've seen cases where charity or welfare can work, and countless cases where it doesn't. Where it is abused, in general, is where there's enough excess capital to support a non-working class. Where it is really needed is where everyone is poor (such as the Great Depression and the immediate post-war period, and in many third-world rural areas).

Where you see welfare and charity abuse, that's mainly where the general populace is rich enough to support such a sub-class. That sub-class will exist whether you have public charity or not, because private charities are pretty much strong enough to support them too. My argument for government charities (given that, yes, they are inefficient) is that they are forced to regard all their constituents, and not just the media-worthy ones.

 

[ledhed]

private charity has not a will not ever take the place of a good Government social program...can you imagine reling on a private charity or charities for Social security ? I know my program gets some funding from private charities but its a drop in the bucket compared to the government grants .

IMO the government should turn over ALL its social programs to private non profit groups that work on the local level . just handle the collection of the cash and grant it right out based on merit . They would save trillions .

 

[FoolKiller]

Ah... and here we come to the infallibility of private charity. Which is possibly applicable in the case of some, but when a charity becomes big enough, with a large enough beaurecracy and enough money, inneficiency and corruption are bound to set in.

No one here claimed that private charity was infallible, just more effective and better. Nothing is infallible.

I don't think the size of the charity is what can determine whether it will become corrupt. The Red Cross/Crescent is international, probably the largest charity in the world, and have yet to have any corruption problems I know of. The same goes for the Salvation Army and Kosair Shriners. These are three of four charities I will give to without hesitation. The fourth is a local children's charity that has firefighters go out to major intersections once a year and raise money. It is the largest local charity in Kentucky.

On the otherhand a local radio personality is sitting in jail awaiting his trial for faking a terminal disease and putting together a charity with just himself and his mother. They made off with a few hundred thousand dollars worth of local money over the past five years or so. He got caught because he played the con for too long without his medical condition ever getting worse and then forgot to leave his house one day in his wheelchair.

Plus having private charities is only a risk for corruption when you have no oversight, and they will always have oversight. Their books are looked over and and all accounts are checked. There must be a certain percentage of all incoming monies sent to the described recepients in order to be considered a non-profit charity.

You will always have theives and con men, but they are not an actual charity. A private charity that does what they say they are doing will always be more efficient than any publicly run charity.

private charity has not a will not ever take the place of a good Government social program

I have yet to see one of these.

 

[Danoff]

private charity has not a will not ever take the place of a good Government social program...can you imagine reling on a private charity or charities for Social security ?

I can't imagine relying on anyone else (government or private) to provide me with my existance.

I know my program gets some funding from private charities but its a drop in the bucket compared to the government grants .

So the 38 (or whatever it was) billion that went to the gates foundation is a drop in the bucket? What about the billions donated to the red cross?

IMO the government should turn over ALL its social programs to private non profit groups that work on the local level . just handle the collection of the cash and grant it right out based on merit . They would save trillions .

That would help with the current situation.

The money built up by private charities is all well and good when it comes to a crisis - a time when a sudden large injection of cash is needed. But when it comes to the constant steady supply of monies needed to fund welfare you can't rely on an unpredicable source of money like charitable donations. When times are lean the charities themselves would find themselves in debt as well. The constant out-flow of cash would mean that no meaningful build up of interest would be possible.

You missed my point. Once private charities get enough money in the bank, they can get a very steady supply of interest (steadier than tax money), had have an outflow and inflow more regular and predictible than government charity. The only thing they can't do is spend more money than they have - which is what keeps them efficient.

Large private charities have a steady inflow of money independent of donators, and can respond well when times are bad for everyone.

 

[niky]

I have yet to see one of these.

Much as I'm on the other side, that's a good point.

The problem, again, with large private charities, is that they still don't have enough money to cover all problem areas, and, as I said, are just as prone to misallocate funds as government charity, and they have a very narrow and limited focus.

And while government charity alone is often underfunded, they do spread the money out a little more over wider area. And therein lies their problem. They need to cover so much that the bureacracy needed to handle so many concerns eats up a lot of that money. But the same is true of any nationwide organization.

It's actually best if you have private charities coordinating with local government (instead of national) units who can ID hotspots and needs for them.

I can't imagine relying on anyone else (government or private) to provide me with my existance.

Of course, because you're outside the demographic. Neither can I, actually. Neither can a lot of people... there are some people who feel ashamed of being on the public dole, but who actually need it... it would be nice if there was a way to make sure that only those kinds of people got support... 💡

And while the whole point of this thread is whether or not the oppressed middle class (which we all are... those of us who don't own an Enzo) should actually support lazy welfare cases involuntarily, I'd like to point out that taxes are paid in a strictly capitalistic fashion, as payment for services. And if you don't like the big "miscellaneous" fee tacked onto your paycheck, what's left is still a damn sight more than what some people get in countries that don't take so much out of their monthly paycheck.

And how much of your tax goes to them? (I'm sure someone will bring the numbers up... ) There are countries which actually have better social services (supposedly) than the US on a similar taxation scheme. But then again, it could also have something to do with the percentage of the population that actually need those services.

If you want to live in America, be willing to pay the price.

 

[Danoff]

Of course, because you're outside the demographic. Neither can I, actually. Neither can a lot of people... there are some people who feel ashamed of being on the public dole, but who actually need it... it would be nice if there was a way to make sure that only those kinds of people got support... 💡

It would be nice if we didn't force others to support them 💡. If people care about the needy (which they do), they can voluntarily contribute however much they feel is appropriate (and they do).

I'd like to point out that taxes are paid in a strictly capitalistic fashion, as payment for services. And if you don't like the big "miscellaneous" fee tacked onto your paycheck, what's left is still a damn sight more than what some people get in countries that don't take so much out of their monthly paycheck.

Capitalism: Don't like the service, don't pay for it.
Government: Don't like the service, pay for it anyway or we'll show up with guns.

If you want to live in America, be willing to pay the price.

That line of reasoning is paper thin and can be used to justify any and everything.

 

[niky]

What it means is: No one's forcing you to pay the taxes. You're paying the tax to live in America. If you don't want to pay it, you either stop making American money, or move somewhere else where they won't pay as much attention.

I remember in a previous thread where we were talking about the poor, immigration and the lack of natural resources in some areas.

To whit: You complained that we aren't actually dangerously using up resources. There's land enough and soil resources enough for everyone. The world isn't overcrowded.

To which I said: People in developing countries have no access to easily farmable or arable lands. Yes, there's a lack of resources there.

To which you said: They don't have to live there. (or something to that effect, to which I said: too poor to move... but that's now beside the point)

Which comes back down to the question of welfare: If you don't want to subsidize freeloading welfare cases, then don't subscribe to the system that creates and harbors them. It's relatively easy to pull up roots and emigrate. Your meager dollar savings go a looooong way in other places, and tax collection in those places isn't as strict as in the US.

In closing: Government is a capital service. You're paying, basically, for the right to live in that country, and to earn in that currency. Same as with all Governments. It's a virtual monopoly per area, ineffective, yes, and corrupt, yes... most monopolies are, but you can actually pull up stakes and move house if you don't like the Government in your area (as long as you can afford it). Of course, to subscribe to another Government costs money and time, and most people don't feel like going to the trouble of doing it.

Otherwise, a lot of people would be Dutch by now... or Jamaican.

 

[Omnis]

...Or Caymanian. Haha.

If you don't want to subsidize freeloading welfare cases, then don't subscribe to the system that creates and harbors them.

Or vote to change the system that creates and harbors them. America isn't a fascist nation. I think it can be done.

 

[niky]

Ah... but with everyone getting a chance to vote, fat chance it'll be changed... There are some disadvantages to living in a democracy. If you're outnumbered by the guys who don't think the way you do, you're out of luck. (Not that there's much of an alternative to it anyway...)

 

[Omnis]

It can't be that hard. Ask people, "Do poor people have the right to recieve money from your paycheck?" I bet they'll say no. There's no justice in communism. How can there be laws protecting things that are unjust?

edit: You don't even have to mention poor people. The concept is the same. I'm sure this isn't revolutionary amongst you guys, but it's just weird that nothing is going on with it in the governmental political world.

 

[niky]

Ahhh... but it depends on how certain people view social security, retirement benefits, pension plans and healthcare. The vote may not be as clear-cut as you may think.

Like I've said, none of you guys... actually, that includes me, is in the demographic that would likely need such help, or who actually think that far into the future. Thus, you don't really want it. Older people who are watching the cost-of-living go up and the value of their pensions going down, who have to sell off the possessions they worked decades to acquire, might not agree.

 

[Omnis]

Well, I'm just talking about social welfare, not SS and retirement stuff.

 

[FoolKiller]

In closing: Government is a capital service. You're paying, basically, for the right to live in that country, and to earn in that currency. Same as with all Governments. It's a virtual monopoly per area, ineffective, yes, and corrupt, yes... most monopolies are, but you can actually pull up stakes and move house if you don't like the Government in your area (as long as you can afford it). Of course, to subscribe to another Government costs money and time, and most people don't feel like going to the trouble of doing it.

But our government was not originally designed this way. As was pointed out earlier welfare, social security, etc was created in the great depression. That would be well over 100 years after the US government was formed without any kind of welfare system.

Those who are opposed to welfare are really only wishing things would go back to the way they were. Would it be fair to tell people that are welfare dependant to just leave because this is not how America was originally envisioned? No, because you coud argue that change came out of necessity. Well, I no longer see any great depression and, as danoff pointed out, factors that had nothing to do with welfare are what pulled us out of the great depression. So, it was a failed experiment from day one that has only been kept around for political reasons.

Like I've said, none of you guys... actually, that includes me, is in the demographic that would likely need such help, or who actually think that far into the future. Thus, you don't really want it. Older people who are watching the cost-of-living go up and the value of their pensions going down, who have to sell off the possessions they worked decades to acquire, might not agree.

These are examples of what happens when you don't think ahead to save for retirement. It isn't as if the information is hard to find. Heck, it is harder to avoid than it is to find. I can't turn my TV on without hearing about credit scores and investments and how you need to prepare for retirement. If you plan properly you can have your retirement actually increase at the same rate as the cost of living, if not faster.

But of course because some people don't do that I am told that I have to fund their retirement. That sounds fair.

The answer to welfatre and social security and all the like is a simple matter of education. If people learned that they could live extremely comfortable lives until the day they died by doing certain things and were told exactly how to do it then they wouldn't try to live off of Welfare and wouldn't have to worry about retitrement and then what would be left would help those that need it due to unforseen circumstances, although they would be better helped by private charities (but that is a whole other thread).

 

[niky]

Although the US government wasn't originally formed as a capital service, and merely as a united policy-making body for the states seceding from the Empire, the moment you start paying taxes, it becomes a capital service.

Good point about fiscal planning. And yes, of course, lots of people should do it, but don't.

Personally, I still feel it's a question of how welfare is run rather than that it exists at all. But then, we'll probably never agree on that... I will agree that welfare, and any charity, for that matter, is too easy to abuse.

 

[FoolKiller]

Although the US government wasn't originally formed as a capital service, and merely as a united policy-making body for the states seceding from the Empire, the moment you start paying taxes, it becomes a capital service.

Taxes were always paid, just not from income. Originally taxes were only paid through tariffs. You were essentially punished for using products that did not help grow the economy. That way if you bought a foreign good you were still putting money in to the economy. Income tax became a way to "balance" the class system by redistributing income. That of course gets me all the way back to the fact that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is no different than taking from anyone to give to anyone selse. You are still taking and giving, the amount the person has to lose is inconsequential.

Good point about fiscal planning. And yes, of course, lots of people should do it, but don't.

As they say, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Education is the key, especially economics. A good bit of education and you would see people wanting welfare removed or it just becoming an unnecesary system.

Personally, I still feel it's a question of how welfare is run rather than that it exists at all. But then, we'll probably never agree on that...

Probably not.

 

[niky]

At least we can agree on that.

"Teaching a man to fish" is catching on. Besides government education programs and technical education, many charities and governments in the third world are looking at micro-financing, bootstrapping small businesses and cottage industries as a means of uplifting people, rather than just making them reliant on charity.