Welfare

Originally posted by Gil
Yes, and the "poverty level" is at $15,000/yearly.

The thing that I found really dis-heartening when I was in college, there was a factory in town. Most High school kids dropped out of school at 16 to go to work in the factory. It paid like $9 an hour. Thier reasoning was this: "If I go to work in the factory now, by the time I'm 18 I'll be up to $11-12 an hour."
How do you convince kids in that environment that 'higher education' is important?
Click to expand...

Well... it's not important for everybody. Somebody's got to work in the factory.
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
FYI,...... the average ANNUAL household income in the US is $12,000 :eek:
Click to expand...

Say I make $40,000 a year. Then, my household income is $40,000. But say my wife makes nothing. Suddenly, my household average is down to $20,000. But wait - we have two kids. Bam! My household income is at $10,000. Your statistic means nothing.
 
Originally posted by milefile
*snip*..., you never hear about welfare success stories. They take what they need, use it wisely, and get back on their feet because they want to. It is humiliating for them to be on welfare, as it would be for me, and just want it to be over with.

*snip*
Click to expand...
See post #26 please :D
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Say I make $40,000 a year. Then, my household income is $40,000. But say my wife makes nothing. Suddenly, my household average is down to $20,000. But wait - we have two kids. Bam! My household income is at $10,000. Your statistic means nothing.
Click to expand...

last I checked,.... kids under 18 that dont pay rent,... dont count in those.........:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Gil
See post #26 please :D
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking of that post when I wrote mine. I got money from the government during college, too. I had a professor who told me he was on food stamps during his Doctorate studies. I don't think it's the same thing as being a complacent adult with no goals and no prospects taking money from the government. Getting help to achieve a very expensive goal is not like being paid to not work. You and I both worked our asses off to get through school. And when we were done with the government dole we had something to show for it. It hadn't become a way of life.
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
last I checked,.... kids under 18 that dont pay rent,... dont count in those.........:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Per capita and household statistics don't only take into account wage earners. Even if they only considered adults the figure is skewed and essentially meaningless. Twelve thousand dollars is ridiculously small. Think about it. The wealthiest nation in the world is riddled with poverty? I don't think so. A good example would be Kennilworth, IL, one of the wealthiest towns in America. The household income there is just under $50,000. Now these people drive Rolls' and live in Mansions. Their guest houses are bigger than my whole house. They have paid "help." There's no way their houshold income is $50,000 in real terms. My houshold income is more than that.




And that rolleyes smiley adds nothing to your post but a personal jab.
 
Welfare has helped more people and enabled more success stories than we will ever know. Because of the stigma and attitudes attatched to those that have received it. We are so rich that I can walk into downtown Philly and see 100's of homeless people..and no they do not choose to be that way , not all of them. I am constantly reminded of the inadequacy of our healthcare system every time time I have to think about my uncle who was mentally ill and had no one but family to care for him. RICH MY ASS ..sorry thats all I think about when I think of going to the hospital to identify his body after he jumped off a building. Ever see a human head after its swollen up to about 15 times its origional size ? The health care system used him all his life as an experiment and in the end his meds didn't work too well. I won't talk about the shock treatments and other methods that were controversial but considered the cutting edge at the time. What was it that Gil said about walking in another mans shoes ?
 
I thought the average income was around $100,000, but I guess that could just be of wage-earners. And that also includes people like the Rockafellers....
 
Yeah, those figures mean nothing. Just ignore them.

There are too many exaggerrated numbers in here, we don't need anymore considering 87.4 percent of "facts" are false.
 
Originally posted by ledhed
Welfare has helped more people and enabled more success stories than we will ever know. Because of the stigma and attitudes attatched to those that have received it. We are so rich that I can walk into downtown Philly and see 100's of homeless people..and no they do not choose to be that way , not all of them. I am constantly reminded of the inadequacy of our healthcare system every time time I have to think about my uncle who was mentally ill and had no one but family to care for him. RICH MY ASS ..sorry thats all I think about when I think of going to the hospital to identify his body after he jumped off a building. Ever see a human head after its swollen up to about 15 times its origional size ? The health care system used him all his life as an experiment and in the end his meds didn't work too well. I won't talk about the shock treatments and other methods that were controversial but considered the cutting edge at the time. What was it that Gil said about walking in another mans shoes ?
Click to expand...

That's a sad story. But nonetheless, there are pathetic losers who abuse the welfare system. People who point them out go to great lengths do differentiate between them and those who actually benefit in a constructive way from welfare. But the above post, and others, seem so insistent on lumping everything into one big group. Why?
 
We have the salvation army. People don't die when they get a hard break in life. They can go to the salvation army (if they aren't drunk) and get cleaned up, get some sleep and then go find a job. I've heard of supermarkes with signs in the entrance that say "You're hired!, inquire for details".

If you're going to have principles you should maintain them regardless of the status of your luck. If I were down on my luck I would feel no more entitled to your money than I do now... and I would not take it.

I've worked my way through college on a part time salary of $1400 per month. I also supported my wife who was a full time student. I lived in a nice neighborhood. I spent carefully.

Nobody is entitled to my earnings, and I am entitled to nobody else's!
 
👍
A lot of this discussion is irrelevant until you consider the underlying idea(l)s of what you see as the role of society and government.

As danoff implies, I don't think it should be the government's job to be some kind of public insurance company; there to support every person who is in difficulty; there to insulate every citizen against real life. While I cannot see myself taking it except under the most extreme circumstances, I don't have a problem with limited-length welfare benefits which are used strictly as a safety net for people who are truly caught out. But there would have to be very clear rules that put the burden of good effort on the recipient.

1) Mandatory and periodic drug testing, including alcohol and tobacco.

2) No additional money if you conceive a child while on welfare.

3) You must maintain a job of some kind, and prove it, including filing tax returns.

I don't begrudge Gil his aid. I didn't begrudge the unknown tenant with the threadbare but clean subsidized house. People like that are an investment that will pay off for society... but that doesn't mean every person is such an investment. For the system to work, there needs to be a strong set of criteria to be met, and they need to be arranged in such a way as to encourage self-improvement and independence.

For a woman to have been living in subsidized housing for 20 years or more is clear proof that the conception of the government as provider and protector is too deeply ingrained. The government must protect each individual's rights, but it is under no obligation and in fact should not be considered as protection from all bad things in life.

I lived in St. Louis in the late '80s, when for several years running there was drought. The Mississippi was very low, and barge traffic was almost at a standstill because of it. The government took it upon themselves to offer the river tug operators and crews relief and subsidies. Almost to a man, they instantly refused, most saying something like "What for? It's part of this damn business." I remember wanting to go shake each and every one of their hands.
 
I'm going to come in from left-field here...

Personally, I think that the taxation system has a lot to do with permanent welfare.

Firstly, people on welfare don't pay taxes. Whilst this isn't wrong, it works as a disincentive to get a new job, because you go back into the taxation system, and have to give x% back to the government. Often this means that people on the lowest-paid jobs can return to work and be less well off than they were on welfare, which is plain wrong.

You could cure this with a phased reintroduction of taxation, so in the first three months, no tax. Second three months 50% tax. Thereafter 100% tax. (I'm talking about percentage of taxation, not percentage of earnings!!).

This works for the new employee because (a) being on welfare they are likely to have amassed some debts, and (b) it's like a "welcome back to work" bonus.

Secondly, I'd like to see a real streamlining of the taxation system as a whole. I think that having multiple taxation bands acts as a disincentive to employees to work harder, because they are likely to be promoted into a job with higher pay and higher tax, which leads them to have similar disposable income. This is plain wrong. It's also a problem for employers, who have to cope with giving their employees massive pay rises in order to counteract this problem.

But then I have a real problem with taxation as a whole, because I pay so much tax, and I really can't see that I get anything like the benefit I should for the amount I'm paying.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Per capita and household statistics don't only take into account wage earners. Even if they only considered adults the figure is skewed and essentially meaningless. Twelve thousand dollars is ridiculously small. Think about it. The wealthiest nation in the world is riddled with poverty? I don't think so. A good example would be Kennilworth, IL, one of the wealthiest towns in America. The household income there is just under $50,000. Now these people drive Rolls' and live in Mansions. Their guest houses are bigger than my whole house. They have paid "help."
Click to expand...


I got to thinkin about that statement and now I demand an explaination.

Where did you get that # (50,000)? Cause compairing an annual houshold of 50,000, to rolls royces and mansions,...... just aint workin out in my head.

I'm one person,... making approx $30,000 yr. I own a $100k house, a 25k vehicle, a 10k motorcycle, and another 10k in assets. So, my average household income is $30,000,... I know 100% for a fact, that with only 20,000 more a year, I couldt afford a Rolls and a Mansion,.... not even close. SO, how do these other people pull it off?

$12,000 is rediculously small? That may be an indication of your ignorence concerning poverty. Do you know how many thousands of households in the urban communities have multiple children with no real financial support? Fathers in jail, or if the kids are lucky, he's not and works 80 hours a week to support a family of 9?

Originally posted by milefile

There's no way their houshold income is $50,000 in real terms. My houshold income is more than that.
Click to expand...

So WTF? Now your contradicting yourself? Your income is more than that? Think about how average your life is,.... then subtract 75% of all your money,... add three kids to your life,.... then tell me the figures are skewed and meaningless.

Now, I'm no expert,... but common scence, concerning that above, is all thats needed. Maybe you should concentrate more on that, instead of trying to debunk every-single-friggin-word that comes out of my mouth.

I'm done today,.... I'm sure you'll report this as antagonistic.

:rolleyes:
 
RER:

For what it's worth, nobody (including milefile) has reported your post. But lighten up a little, anyway.

There are a lot of figures flying around here and little supporting any of them. What milefile is saying is that the "pre capita" figures are different from "household" figures and the two are being confused, making the comparison meaningless. He's not contradicting himself.
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
I got to thinkin about that statement and now I demand an explaination.

Where did you get that # (50,000)? Cause compairing an annual houshold of 50,000, to rolls royces and mansions,...... just aint workin out in my head.

I'm one person,... making approx $30,000 yr. I own a $100k house, a 25k vehicle, a 10k motorcycle, and another 10k in assets. So, my average household income is $30,000,... I know 100% for a fact, that with only 20,000 more a year, I couldt afford a Rolls and a Mansion,.... not even close. SO, how do these other people pull it off?

$12,000 is rediculously small? That may be an indication of your ignorence concerning poverty. Do you know how many thousands of households in the urban communities have multiple children with no real financial support? Fathers in jail, or if the kids are lucky, he's not and works 80 hours a week to support a family of 9?



So WTF? Now your contradicting yourself? Your income is more than that? Think about how average your life is,.... then subtract 75% of all your money,... add three kids to your life,.... then tell me the figures are skewed and meaningless.

Now, I'm no expert,... but common scence, concerning that above, is all thats needed. Maybe you should concentrate more on that, instead of trying to debunk every-single-friggin-word that comes out of my mouth.

I'm done today,.... I'm sure you'll report this as antagonistic.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Household income takes into account two things:

1. Total household income.
2. The household.

Total household income is the amount of annual pay for all wage earners in the house. To define what a household is lets regurgitate the idea in M5's post, which you dismissed: if a family of four lives in the house, and only the father works, and he makes $200,000 a year, then the household income is $50,000.

If you live alone and make $30,000, then your household income is $30,000. But if you had a wife who didn't work, it'd be $15,000. Add a kid, $10,000.

Your assests and debt don't count in this statistic. It's a misleading number for all but economists and those with specialized knowledge.

And when I alluded to my household income I forgot to count the baby. It's actually less than it was 36 days ago.
 
Because you only understand the number, $12,000, after M5, Duke, and myself explained it to you. When you posted it you meant something totally different, and that's what I commented on, not the artificial statistic you just had explained to you.
 
Statistics are used to advance an argument. Statistics can be skewed much like words to mean whatever the user wants them to mean. Ergo sum statistics are meaningless. What defines a poor person ? Answer that without attatching a number to it. In society today welfare is a necessity. Until and unless everyone is on the same page you will have inequality wether it is in reguard to education , social standing, oppurtunity, etc . It will still be all men are created equal then some become more equal than others. Who is responsible when a man for no lack of effort can not be responsible for himself or his family ? You can not eat words or philosophy. beleifs will not sustain you or put clothes on your back. when is someone truly poor ?
 
Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
"Statistics are like a lamp post to the drunk: more for leaning on than for illumination."
Click to expand...

For people with narrow perspectives, yes. For others, however, they are a useful tool. They are meant to show things in certain ways, not the one and only way. Just because most of us lack the perspective to be open to what a statistic can offer doesn't make them bad.
 
The term "All men are created equal" has to be the most misinterpereted term in American history.

"Created equal" means equal in terms of the law and inherent rights. For example, rich people and poor people, educated and uneducated, have an equal right to free speech. That is guaranteed under the terms of the Constitution.

What that does not mean is that all men have equal power to use that free speech. I can freely share my political views to the best of my ability, but that doesn't grant me the right to broadcast my own infomercial unless I am personally rich enough to afford the airtime. Ross Perot, on the other hand, can afford it. That's why he was on national television and I wasn't.

The same thing holds true to the for the pursuit of "happiness". A poor person is born with the same right here as a rich person has. The fact that a poor person may not meet the criteria required (be it education, or whatever) for that pursuit is irrelevant to the issue, and not the intent of the "created equal" wording. The Constitution guarantees equal permission to all persons, but cannot and does not guarantee equal ability or chance at satisfying this pursuit.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
The term "All men are created equal" has to be the most misinterpereted term in American history.

"Created equal" means equal in terms of the law and inherent rights. For example, rich people and poor people, educated and uneducated, have an equal right to free speech. That is guaranteed under the terms of the Constitution.

What that does not mean is that all men have equal power to use that free speech. I can freely share my political views to the best of my ability, but that doesn't grant me the right to broadcast my own infomercial unless I am personally rich enough to afford the airtime. Ross Perot, on the other hand, can afford it. That's why he was on national television and I wasn't.

The same thing holds true to the for the pursuit of "happiness". A poor person is born with the same right here as a rich person has. The fact that a poor person may not meet the criteria required (be it education, or whatever) for that pursuit is irrelevant to the issue, and not the intent of the "created equal" wording. The Constitution guarantees equal permission to all persons, but cannot and does not guarantee equal ability or chance at satisfying this pursuit.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't mean all men are "the same," which many think it does.
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
last I checked,.... kids under 18 that dont pay rent,... dont count in those.........:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the rolling eyes smiley - I hope you see my point despite rolling your eyes so much.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Thanks for the rolling eyes smiley - I hope you see my point despite rolling your eyes so much.
Click to expand...


np. And yes, I have seen the light. I'm stupid, it's probably better if you ignore me,.... reading my posts has been knocking down IQ's left and right. It's for your own good.
 

Similar threads

Cristobal1234
Porsche 911 (992) GT3 R 2023
Replies
2
Views
3K
alvitoxde123
alvitoxde123
NissanSkylineN1
  • Locked
US and Iran Make Breakthrough Nuclear Deal
6 7 8
Replies
217
Views
8K
Famine
Famine
GBalao888
Make your bold predictions for Forza Motorsport (8)'s launch content
2
Replies
43
Views
10K
GBalao888
GBalao888
Dotini
Global Energy Crisis
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Eunos_Cosmo
Eunos_Cosmo
TeaKanji
Impreza Spec C Tuning Primer for Dirt & Snow
Replies
5
Views
12K
TheKrzysiek
T

Latest Posts

Back