Switch Theme:

Interesting analysis of America's Welfare State  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

As noted, a LOT of that state assistance goes to people who ARE working, and DO pay taxes. Obviously a large percentage of people in our society have annual income below the level where they owe Federal income tax, but all of those people pay other taxes, such as payroll tax, sales tax, meals tax, etc.

This is why "providers vs takers" is a false dichotomy. Everyone is paying into the system. Certainly some people pay more, and others get more out in terms of direct monetary support.

Of course, the folks who pay more in taxes are usually getting much more benefit from the other things our government provides. If you own a business you derive more benefit from government-maintained roads which allow your workers to get to work and their tasks more quickly and safely. You derive more benefit from health and safety inspections which keep your facilities from burning down, or keep your neighbors' building from burning down and taking yours with it. And from a legal system which makes it harder for people to rip off your business, and gives you protection in contract disputes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/30 01:55:41


Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
I broke my own rule... thanks for pointing that out.


Not a problem. Note that I'm not arguing there are no points at which the system actually works to discourage seeking employment or a higher income, just that such points are nowhere near as broad as that blog post claims, and are instead highly situational and quite difficult to resolve (as they involve the interplay of federal, state and even local government systems).

Yeah... those who are veterans on public assistance are very aware of that and play accordingly. Like I said earlier, do we want to foster an environment making it too easy to stay on govt assistance (not talking about the old, infirm, etc...) or have an environment to challenge those who can work/go to school while on the assistance.


Absolutely. I think just about everyone wants a system where anyone who can feasibly work is made into a useful and productive member of society, but actually making that happen is really, really difficult.

Did you live in US for some time? You have some really indepth knowledge in this...


Nah, I've just heard Americans talk about this for a long time. And my brain being what it is, all of that stuff sticks in my brain. At the same time I honest to God cannot remember what my wife and I agreed to call our firstborn child, if it's a boy. I think she's beginning to suspect, as well

So how would you distinguish from the providers vs. takers?


I think it's an impossible question, to be honest. I mean, consider a simple company. There's a girl who comes in every day, sits on the front desk and answers phones, maybe types up the minutes and stuff like that. It's a job you simply have to have in the company, but it's pretty close to unskilled work (does typing count as a skill in this day and age? I honestly don't know...) and so she gets minimum wage. She gets support, say rent assistance and childcare, so that what she gets from the government is far more than what she pays in. Is she a taker or a giver, I don't know.

Then consider some skilled professional in the company. He gets paid an excellent wage, because he's a skilled employee and a very hard working one. But he wouldn't have those skills if he didn't receive a scholarship to college, and lots of loans from the government. Is he a taker or a giver? I don't know.

And what about the guy who owns the company. He built the business from the ground up, but it included a generous start up loan from his state. Is he a taker of a giver? Once he's paid the loan back in full, does his status as a giver or taker change? What about when he dies suddenly, and his son takes over, and does nothing to expand the company, just leaves a manager in charge and draws on the profits every month, to fund his 'golfing trips' to Thailand. Is he a giver or a taker?

I honestly don't know, in any of those situations.

I don't know if it's unsustainable given that our revenue streams is enormous.

If there's a problem, its structural.


The revenue stream is enormous, but it isn't that large relative to GDP, either in comparison to other countries or relative to your own history.

Honestly, between the economic recovery and increased taxes you could fix the deficit without cutting anything. Just removing the Bush tax cuts will get you most of the way there. That's neither politically viable or a good idea (there's plenty of good places to cut funding) but we shouldn't go through this debate with anyone pretending that tax increases just cannot be considered at all.

Now you're just trying to take the fun out of this...


Me? Never...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JEB_Stuart wrote:
Come on Seb, lets be honest. "Tough" Aussies? That is offensive to all of us tough guys everywhere!


Bare in mind Blunden was talking about guys raised in Australia in the 1930s. They had to be tough.

Now we're at least as soft as you lot are.

Anyhow, I just thought the quote was interesting. Gave a bit to think about, in terms of how different life was, and what an experience it would have been for anyone to live in a peaceful, gentle place, and then get pushed into war against a hardened, lethal and incredibly cruel fighting force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LoneLictor wrote:
I was joking. You supposedly tough Aussies ought to be more thick-skinned.


I... you....

Well played, sir. Well played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Didn't they recently do some simple math that shows what the Federal Government spends on welfare programs, and divided it between the number of people receiving welfare benefits?

I recall the number being something like $60,000 a year.

But of course the Government does not just write checks out to the recipients, they have a ton of Government workers with pensions and benefits, which eats up a lot of the funds on all levels.

I think the average welfare recipient gets around 10,000 a year. I know that a disabled person in Oregon gets something just shy of $9,000 in SSI or whatever, plus foodstamps I would guess for about another 1.000 a year?


No, just no. The administration of welfare does not chew up 5/6 of the total welfare budget, which is what it'd have to be for your numbers to make sense.

I think what someone has done, with the intent of deceiving you and others, is to take the total cost of welfare programs, about $725 billion, and divide by the number of people on unemployment insurance and various disability and age pensions, about 14 or 15 million. That'd give you something like your $60,000 per person figure.

Of course, they're ignoring that much of welfare doesn't go to unemployed people, but the working poor. There's about 45 million on food stamps, for instance. There's millions more receiving rent assistance, and childcare and all kinds of other benefits. And Medicaid, of course.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/11/30 03:11:06


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Revving Ravenwing Biker





Springfield, Oregon

That all makes sense, but it really does equal a lot of money.

 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
That all makes sense, but it really does equal a lot of money.


Absolutely. Welfare is really expensive. That's just how it is in any developed country.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Revving Ravenwing Biker





Springfield, Oregon

Still, wouldn't it be better to just take all the money budgeted for welfare programs and send out checks divided equally to those in need? Certainly the poor people would have more, and not be as poor then.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Well, we have to pay somebody to administer all the drug tests. Since all poor people are just spending the money on drugs.
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




I guess this is news to all of you, but us poor people have know forever about the welfare cliff. It's a rather frustrating negative feedback loop where making more money means you have less money.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
Well, we have to pay somebody to administer all the drug tests. Since all poor people are just spending the money on drugs.

Isn't that urban legend? ( I know you're being cheeky )

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine







 d-usa wrote:
Well, we have to pay somebody to administer all the drug tests. Since all poor people are just spending the money on drugs.


We ought to make all the Wall Street executives we bailed out take drug tests too.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Still, wouldn't it be better to just take all the money budgeted for welfare programs and send out checks divided equally to those in need? Certainly the poor people would have more, and not be as poor then.


I just explained admin isn't that expensive. It's like 4 or 5% of the total cost. And most of that is spent trying to figure out who should get money and who shouldn't.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 LoneLictor wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Well, we have to pay somebody to administer all the drug tests. Since all poor people are just spending the money on drugs.


We ought to make all the Wall Street executives we bailed out take drug tests too.


Heck, we introduced a few bills in Oklahoma that would require all elected officials to take drug tests since they also get taxpayer money. Who would have thought that they wouldn't pass that bill...
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote:
I'm just upset that this thread promised an interesting analysis, when really it's just a bunch of bs.

Seriously, anyone that talks about the welfare state but then forgets to acknowledge that all of these welfare programs subsidize Walmart and the like is just being awful. Without such programs a person would not be able to survive being paid what Walmart and others pay, and this fosters less dependence on entitlements for the villainous poor people than it does to the Walton family.

Wait... what?

So, people are poor because of Walmat?


No, that is not what I said. I do not understand how you could read what I wrote and come to that conclusion.

Let me rephrase it another way: WalMart does not pay its employees enough to survive on, and money spent to help their employees survive (such as welfare, subsidized housing, tax breaks, Headstart, Food Stamps, etc) is a subsidy to WalMart because they are able to pay their workers less than they otherwise would.

My larger point, and a point you obviously fail to understand because you would rather just blame poor people for being poor, is that many of our welfare programs that assist the poor assist other wealthy interests far more. But, of course I expect your answer to this problem to be that we just need MORE CAPITALISM so it literally does not matter.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/30 15:34:30


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Most unemployed people want a job and can't find one, and there are lots of people who have jobs that don't pay enough.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






I think a lot of people also misunderstand how the federal government actually "spends" money on welfare.

Welfare, IIRC, is a block grant program. Which means that each state recieves a certain amount of money (usually based on population, jobless rates, cost of living and other state based factors) from the federal government as a giant block of money.

That block of money is then administered by the state, and different states have different laws when in comes to welfare. In MD, for instance, you can only receive welfare for a few years, and you do not get additional funds for having more than 2 children. In CA, I believe, recipients simply get money based on number of children: more kids, more money.

So really, if you have an issue with the way welfare is being handled around you, check with your local state government. The Feds can institue certain policies as a "you must be this welfared" line, but states are free to go above that line (or below it if they don't mind sacrificing funds for certain things).
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

TheHammer wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote:
I'm just upset that this thread promised an interesting analysis, when really it's just a bunch of bs.

Seriously, anyone that talks about the welfare state but then forgets to acknowledge that all of these welfare programs subsidize Walmart and the like is just being awful. Without such programs a person would not be able to survive being paid what Walmart and others pay, and this fosters less dependence on entitlements for the villainous poor people than it does to the Walton family.

Wait... what?

So, people are poor because of Walmat?


No, that is not what I said. I do not understand how you could read what I wrote and come to that conclusion.

Let me rephrase it another way: WalMart does not pay its employees enough to survive on, and money spent to help their employees survive (such as welfare, subsidized housing, tax breaks, Headstart, Food Stamps, etc) is a subsidy to WalMart because they are able to pay their workers less than they otherwise would.

My larger point, and a point you obviously fail to understand because you would rather just blame poor people for being poor, is that many of our welfare programs that assist the poor assist other wealthy interests far more. But, of course I expect your answer to this problem to be that we just need MORE CAPITALISM so it literally does not matter.

Oh... I see now... (not sure why I didn't see it earlier... I was sick and drugged up Nyquil )

You're saying it's a classic catch-22.

I wasn't blaming the poor... nor do I blame big corporate (Walmart). The system exist today because we're a generous society AND we have a capitalist economic system. This is what we get.

I don't see welfare as a "corporate welfare" as you state.

The question I have, is can we create a system that encourage (through assistance... yes) to be better?

Maybe this is it... maybe, for all its worts, this is the best we can down. But, my question is, can we do better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 streamdragon wrote:
I think a lot of people also misunderstand how the federal government actually "spends" money on welfare.

Welfare, IIRC, is a block grant program. Which means that each state recieves a certain amount of money (usually based on population, jobless rates, cost of living and other state based factors) from the federal government as a giant block of money.

That block of money is then administered by the state, and different states have different laws when in comes to welfare. In MD, for instance, you can only receive welfare for a few years, and you do not get additional funds for having more than 2 children. In CA, I believe, recipients simply get money based on number of children: more kids, more money.

So really, if you have an issue with the way welfare is being handled around you, check with your local state government. The Feds can institue certain policies as a "you must be this welfared" line, but states are free to go above that line (or below it if they don't mind sacrificing funds for certain things).

The Rhode Island bit in that article was the only thing that jumped out at me. If true, it's an example that the States can do it better than the Feds.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/30 16:48:33


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

 d-usa wrote:
 LoneLictor wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Well, we have to pay somebody to administer all the drug tests. Since all poor people are just spending the money on drugs.


We ought to make all the Wall Street executives we bailed out take drug tests too.


Heck, we introduced a few bills in Oklahoma that would require all elected officials to take drug tests since they also get taxpayer money. Who would have thought that they wouldn't pass that bill...


Sounds like you need to kick some random drug testing on your state congress.

I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 LoneLictor wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Well, we have to pay somebody to administer all the drug tests. Since all poor people are just spending the money on drugs.


We ought to make all the Wall Street executives we bailed out take drug tests too.


Heck, we introduced a few bills in Oklahoma that would require all elected officials to take drug tests since they also get taxpayer money. Who would have thought that they wouldn't pass that bill...


Sounds like you need to kick some random drug testing on your state congress.

I'd do it for all political offices.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/30/us/tax-burden.html?hp

This interesting article goes some insight into the pattern of tax and redistribution in the USA.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Kilkrazy wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/30/us/tax-burden.html?hp

This interesting article goes some insight into the pattern of tax and redistribution in the USA.

Good find!

Still looking at it... Not sure what I think about that last graph (But the distribution of the tax burden has become less progressive.), not sitting right with me. Probably more due to wealth isn't taxed the same way as income and/or wealthy take advantage of loopholes/exemptions galore. It's still progressive...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Yes, it is to do with taxation on earned income versus capital gains or inheritance, and so on.

They are saying it is less progressive than it used to be, though still progressive.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




It's kind of crazy because if you where making a system designed to keep people poor, you would give people money to let them have a livable income, then strip away money as they try to get ahead. trapping them on a treadmill where they can't get anywhere.

Then on the other had. It's not that hard to fix the welfare cliff. You just have to stop taking away benefits when people make money or scale the removal differently.
   
Made in us
Revving Ravenwing Biker





Springfield, Oregon

*continues to play dumb* but why don't we just give all the poor people like $40,000 a year, then they would not be poor anymore, and we would finally win the war on poverty..

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Following is just my personal observation of the welfare system. It's not based on an article or analysis by an "expert" or crackpot. Don't get too wrung out over it.

Maybe this is just a Fresno, CA thing, but often times when I go to a grocery store I see some people (usually with their pajamas on) with a basket full of groceries, and by full I mean soaring over the top of the basket. Half the time they don't speak any English, hand over their food stamps, WIC or whatever and sometimes pay little to nothing for their basket of goodies. It's not just necessities either--it's soda, candy, expensive cuts of meat, ect. I've been in lines before with eggs, milk and some fruit and paid more than some of these people with a full basket of groceries.

I have some stories.

Last Sunday this happened: lady spoke little English, surrounded by three rowdy kids that kept bumping into me. She had some kind of meat that was $6.99/lb. Something I would never comfortably pay for. She used her WIC vouchers and got out with $17 with her full basket of groceries. She paid the $17 with a debit card--an account possibly supplemented by welfare? Who knows. To make matters worse she had an iPhone 5. That's just my most recent experience. This happens all the time. And to think my paycheck is ripped to support these people makes me a little heated, I do say.


Also have three co-workers that were hired back in 2008 under some kind of Obama work program, where the government paid for their salaries for the first year just to get them some work. Not sure how that worked.

Two of the co-workers who are on welfare, both minorities of course. One has 3 kids and is 22, the other has 2 kids and his 28. They've been on welfare for the 3 years I've known them. They get free daycare, free medical treatment and a check in the mail. Last year management tried to get them to sign up for the company's medical and dental plan since they work full time and have for years. They said that they don't want to pay for it . Management can't make them, so once again the tax money's got their back. Both of them have been at the entry position since they've worked here, going on four years. They say that they don't want to move up because they'll lose some of their welfare benefits. Their husbands don't pay for medical or dental either. I'm really not sure how they get away with this. Like I said, must be a Fresno thing. They also have the latest iPhones. Tough life. Should I mention they get free phones and free phone service courtesy of welfare?

The third co-worker is 29 with 5 kids, also a minority. She has since been fired because she took 1-2 sick days per week and was always late. Took about a year to fire her because the company wanted to have sufficient proof and didn't want to get sued for discrimination. I remember one Christmas she was here she was waiting on her welfare check because she said that she "had to buy a gameboy for each of her kids." Not sure which gameboy it was because they're always changing, but it was the newest one at that time. She also had the latest iPhone.

This is just stuff I see in the wild. Who knows what else is going on.

I think welfare can be good, but primarily I think there needs to be a limit on how long you can collect. I mean, does it ever end? These people showing up in their pajamas, buying whatever the hell they want, refusing to pay for their own health insurance and basically discouraged to move up in the work force because they'll lose their welfare benefits does not seem like the right answer. I could be wrong. I lived in South Carolina for 7 years and never saw any of this kind of stuff.

I know a lot of people here on Dakka are in full support of welfare, but have you guys ever actually experienced this kind of stuff? Sure, it's helping a lot of people, but it's also making and keeping a lot of people very lazy beings.

I RIDE FOR DOOMTHUMBS! 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

I've seen that stuff... and worst.

But, the trouble is, how do you address that without STOMPING over those who truly needs this system?

There will always be people who will game the system... it's just a fact of life.

Just like athletes will always push the envelop on performance enhancing drugs... that's just the way it is.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 whembly wrote:
I've seen that stuff... and worst.

But, the trouble is, how do you address that without STOMPING over those who truly needs this system?

There will always be people who will game the system... it's just a fact of life.

Just like athletes will always push the envelop on performance enhancing drugs... that's just the way it is.

True. That's why I think there needs to be a limit on how long you can collect. If you know you can continue to collect this stuff with seemingly no end, where's your motivation to get up off your ass and make something happen? There's nothing to make happen when the government is making it happen for you. It's disabling.

I RIDE FOR DOOMTHUMBS! 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




Actually Lt. cold brings up another broken thing about welfare. They give out a lot of food support, but what you need is money for rent or to fix your car. That's why you have people in ratty clothes buying really expensive food.

I don't know if limiting benefits to 5 years would help. Generally 5 years on welfare dosen't change the circumstances that put you on welfare. (This is especially true with the aforementioned welfare cliff.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/30 19:40:04


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Perhaps they should limit the food items the stamps can be redeemed for, don't allow them to purchase expensive food items or junk food(or severely limit the amount they can buy) and absolutely no Alcohol or Ciggs would be funded. No direct cash should be given out. Instead give them vouchers for any service they might need, such as car repair or rent. Something they can only use for a real need.

And a random sampling of people on welfare would be investigated each year to ensure they aren't abusing the system. The potential of getting busted might reduce the abuse in the system.

There can't be any incentive to remain on Welfare. You should always be worse off then if you had a job. Keep them from starving, but only just. That way they would have a reason to better their condition.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre





Richmond, VA

I've seen the nonsense were a girl was not coming to work to stay part time so she could get her government money.

I mean, deliberately telling your supervisor she can't work or she won't get her other check?

Desert Hunters of Vior'la The Purge Iron Hands Adepts of Pestilence Tallaran Desert Raiders Grey Knight Teleport Assault Force
Lt. Coldfire wrote:Seems to me that you should be refereeing and handing out red cards--like a boss.

 Peregrine wrote:
SCREEE I'M A SEAGULL SCREE SCREEEE!!!!!
 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




 juraigamer wrote:
I've seen the nonsense were a girl was not coming to work to stay part time so she could get her government money.

I mean, deliberately telling your supervisor she can't work or she won't get her other check?


This is why the welfare cliff is such a problem. She could lose a lot of benefits from working more. Things work different from state to state, but she would most likely see aid reduced by the amount of money she makes, That's a net loss when you take into account gas and other expenses that come from working. She might also be kicked out of other benefit programs by moving to full time maybe lose her health care. The incentive is to work as little as you can because your not going to start making progress till you get way up there.

Lots of people are saying things should be more restive so we don't accidentally give money to someone who dosen't need it, but that feels like the problem not the fix. The welfare cliff only exist because we are trying to keep the money form thous who don't need it. If we didn't cutoff welfare, at these different levels, then there would be no reason not to work harder and make more money. Other restrictions also cause problems.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I like the whole "they are on welfare, of course they are a minority" class/race superiority thing going in one of these posts...
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: