The Welfare & Benefits System

[champion]

The federal government exists to protect and serve its people. To maintain this idea, the country's poorest citizens should be provided with some financial assistance. I don't pay income taxes quite yet, but if and when I do, I understand that some of my money goes to other people that are poor. That's okay with me. It sounds great from an ideological standpoint to talk up the idea of picking yourself up by your bootstraps, fending for yourself, etc, but that's more of a selfish fantasy than an accurate plan for solving the country's problems. I'm aware of some of the abuses within the welfare-receiving community, and think those should be dealt with accordingly. But overall I think providing welfare to the country's poorest is in America's best interests.

[Hamtaro]

I don't feel that it is particularly good policy to take money from someone in Indiana, and funnel it to someone in California, nor do I think it's good policy to take money from Texas and give it to someone in Michigan.

Ironically, despite our unemployment issue, we actually give more than we get for welfare. I can rest assured knowing that we're not receiving money from Texas or anywhere else for welfare.

Random states, maybe a bad example. Wouldn't you prefer it if you knew you didn't have to send money to D.C. only to have them hold it hostage or give it to someone clear across the country?

I completely agree with you, actually. I'd rather have Michigan tax dollars put to work here rebuilding the city of Detroit than sent to some drug addict hundreds of miles away. Each state should be responsible for maintaining the safety net for its own citizens. I'm perfectly fine with paying for unemployment and food stamps for good, honest people in my own state, though.

 

I only wanted to point out that we aren't getting any welfare money because Michigan has an unjustifiably bad reputation in certain social aspects. I feel obligated to point out that weren't not so bad as the media portrays us to be.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I guess the pride of working for a days wages have vanished these days in favour of "I'm not working when I can get more or less the same amount for free". I just feel sorry for those who actually want to work but struggle in the job market. They get tarred with the same brush as those who make it a lifestyle choice.

I think if they would only receive the same amount (plus enough to counter the loss of council tax benefit plus everything else social security payments are designed to cover for), then fine, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. At worst, they're gaining on-the-job experience, they're building skills and gaining a reference so they can eventually aim for a better paid job. But I think honestly, this only applies for a minority of JSA applicants; indeed the contract you sign in order to receive JSA makes the above scenario unpermissable anyway.

 

To claim JSA you have to be actively searching for full-time (defined 42hrs/wk) paid work. The national minimum wage is £4.98 for under 20s and £6.08 for 21 and above. An average JSA claimant can expect only about £55/wk. Council tax obviously varies from area to area, but generally that means about 12 hours of work will see you earning about the same amount as someone receives on JSA if you're above 20 years old.

 

Now, let's take an arbitrary number and say 20% of the adult population are currently on JSA (which is around about the correct figure for under-24s). Am I seriously to believe that a fifth of the adult population would rather sit on their ass all day and do nothing than work 12 hours a week? I live in one of the most impoverished parts of Lancashire and that's a picture even I don't recognise.

 

I'm not doubting there are those in society who would rather do nothing all day, while others toil to improve their circumstances. They're a waste of space and frankly deserve no sympathy. But for the vast majority of people, £55 a week barely covers food, let alone being able to live a life descript of any real value. So I think it's too far to say "the pride of working for a days wage [has] vanished", when the vast majority of people on JSA think a life on JSA isn't a life worth living.

[Fat_Slug]

One thing that irks me about the UK system is that no money until 18 if you choose to leave school at 16.

Right now my 17 year old's course has ended, so I am getting no money from him as he is not working. He can't claim gov help till he is 18, and has unable to find work as of yet, and no college courses suitable for him.

As he has left college I get no child benefit, and no help from the government like council tax, etc as they say he should be in work/college.

Even apprentiships have turned him down.

 

So basically he/we are in a rock and a hard place. No gov help as he is under 18, no jobs available and nothing suitable college wise.

 

Also sick pay needs to be looked at- I earn £250/£350 pw as a bus driver, but last month I had a operation that will mean I am off sick till at least the end of March. I am having to survive on £81 pw, with no gov help as far as looking after my 14 year old, as I am employed, and potentially earning too much to claim tax credits. So I am having to cope on £169/£259 pw less money. That on top of no money for eldest son means a poor household here. Be glad to get back to work

[aspeeder]

All this really is just an ill of socialism. But don't worry, I'm greedy, mean and evil for wanting to keep more of what I earn. I'm part of the 48% of Americans that actually pay income tax.

I call bullshit on this statistic. The "only x% of americans pay income tax, the rest are just lazy/illegals/leeches" argument is flawed and deceitful. Everyone who's not tax dodging, and that's a large majority of americans, is paying income taxes. It just so happens that the way our system is set up that if they make below a certain threshold that what they payed gets refunded. So everyone does pay income taxes, your bullshit statistic is just saying that 48% of americans (If that's actually the case, you have no citation) actually make enough money so that they don't have to get refunded to get by.

 

As I posted in another thread, I think it's a crime that most people considered "poor" in America are very rich compared to the majority of the world. You pay for cable every month? Why am I paying for your food then?

Seriously? Cable costs like what, 30-50 dollars a month? According to this that's maybe enough money to feed a single adult female for a week on a "thrifty" (Most likely nutritionally deficient) diet. And don't even get me started on paying for internet, any sort of job outside of basic service industry jobs that don't pay anywhere close to a living wage damn near require a decent internet connection. And I'm damn proud that the poor (Which, need I remind you is a RELATIVE term that varies from society to society) in America are better off than the poor in Uzbekistan, or the Congo, or Vietnam. If you seriously expect me to sit by and let the lowest tier of our society fall into that sort of rut while corporations are having some of the most profitable quarters in our nation's history then you are sadly mistaken.

[sees_all1]

All this really is just an ill of socialism. But don't worry, I'm greedy, mean and evil for wanting to keep more of what I earn. I'm part of the 48% of Americans that actually pay income tax.

I call bullshit on this statistic. The "only x% of americans pay income tax, the rest are just lazy/illegals/leeches" argument is flawed and deceitful. Everyone who's not tax dodging, and that's a large majority of americans, is paying income taxes. It just so happens that the way our system is set up that if they make below a certain threshold that what they payed gets refunded. So everyone does pay income taxes, your bullshit statistic is just saying that 48% of americans (If that's actually the case, you have no citation) actually make enough money so that they don't have to get refunded to get by.

Sorry, I got my statistic wrong. It is somewhere between 48.5% and 51% that pay no income taxes. My bad. :rolleyes:

http://nation.foxnews.com/taxes/2012/02/22/percentage-americans-who-pay-no-income-tax-hits-495

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/

 

Also, 30% of Americans make money under the tax system, i.e. get more in rebates than they withhold.

 

 

As I posted in another thread, I think it's a crime that most people considered "poor" in America are very rich compared to the majority of the world. You pay for cable every month? Why am I paying for your food then?

Seriously? Cable costs like what, 30-50 dollars a month? According to this that's maybe enough money to feed a single adult female for a week on a "thrifty" (Most likely nutritionally deficient) diet. And don't even get me started on paying for internet, any sort of job outside of basic service industry jobs that don't pay anywhere close to a living wage damn near require a decent internet connection. And I'm damn proud that the poor (Which, need I remind you is a RELATIVE term that varies from society to society) in America are better off than the poor in Uzbekistan, or the Congo, or Vietnam. If you seriously expect me to sit by and let the lowest tier of our society fall into that sort of rut while corporations are having some of the most profitable quarters in our nation's history then you are sadly mistaken.

What you can't seem to grasp is when I say that the federal government has no role in welfare, I'm not saying there shouldn't be welfare. What I know right now is that the federal government does a piss poor job in managing money, and welfare should be left up to states, counties, cities, towns and communities. I'm also advocating for charity. I want to know who my money is going to, and let me be the judge if someone is able to work or not. Why do we need a central government to collect and redistribute money?

[The Dark Lord]

That still sounds like horseshit. Does it incorporate people who don't work a job because they are full-time students or children?

[Giordano]

I want to know who my money is going to, and let me be the judge if someone is able to work or not. Why do we need a central government to collect and redistribute money?

Please explain to me, how this is practical. :mellow:

 

If you're worried about wasteful tax spending, welfare is the least of your worries. How about the overspending on the military-industrial complex, corporatations' tax breaks, or money spent on the Drug War? Seems like welfare is the least of all the 'evils' here.

[obfuscator]

I'm pro government welfare, and pro-charity, etc. I think we should help poor people as much as possible.

 

But I'm sorry, if you can afford cable, you don't need welfare.

 

As for internet, it is a useful tool that is almost becoming a necessity, so I don't mind that.

[sees_all1]

I want to know who my money is going to, and let me be the judge if someone is able to work or not. Why do we need a central government to collect and redistribute money?

Please explain to me, how this is practical. :mellow:

I have virtually no control over Washington Bureaucrats. I can't vote out the representatives from the other 49 states, or even in the 6 districts in Indiana. I can't fly to D.C. to protest, I have a job.

Locally, it's much easier to be involved with policies, the government is much more accountable.

 

As for the "let me be the judge," the other half of this is charity. Before I give, I vet. I make sure they're not going to waste my money, and if I find out I was scammed, I don't give to them again.

I'm not going to let people in my community freeze or starve. I'm not saying there shouldn't be welfare. I'm saying that we don't need the central government to take our money and redistribute it.

 

If you're worried about wasteful tax spending, welfare is the least of your worries. How about the overspending on the military-industrial complex, corporatations' tax breaks, or money spent on the Drug War? Seems like welfare is the least of all the 'evils' here.

You're not making a good argument when you have to change the subject.

[Locke_Superbus]

That still sounds like horseshit. Does it incorporate people who don't work a job because they are full-time students or children?

 

libertarians dont let little things like facts get in the way of the magical invisible hand of the free market, facts are regulations on ideas, regulations are always bad because less freedom therefore facts must be discarded.

[Ginger_Warrior]

You can have your taxes go to social security payments (which, god forbid I remind you, you might need to fall back on at some difficult time in your own life), and *shock* give to charities which aim to reduce joblessness. At the same time.

 

It's incredible, I know. But please stop pretending as though there's enough generosity in the world for charities alone to foot the bill when there's mass unemployment, as there currently is. They're having a hard enough time keeping afloat themselves as government grants get slashed left, right and centre, let alone provide for so many other people who just so happen to fit your own personal criteria.

[sees_all1]

That still sounds like horseshit. Does it incorporate people who don't work a job because they are full-time students or children?

That percentage is households. So if you're a student, you'd be counted under your household, which is likely your parents. Children aren't the heads of households either, so they get lumped in with their parents.

 

You can have your taxes go to social security payments (which, god forbid I remind you, you might need to fall back on at some difficult time in your own life), and *shock* give to charities which aim to reduce joblessness. At the same time.

Social security contributions are not the same as income tax. And I don't worry about social security, because I'll never see that money again anyway. Another failure of the central government is borrowing against social security, so in a few more years it'll be bankrupt.

 

People were donating to charity long before government decided to step in. People still are donating to charity. Why do we need to send our money away to a central government so they can redistribute it?

 

You can have your taxes go to social security payments (which, god forbid I remind you, you might need to fall back on at some difficult time in your own life), and *shock* give to charities which aim to reduce joblessness. At the same time.

Social security contributions are not the same as income tax. And I don't worry about social security, because I'll never see that money again anyway. Another failure of the central government is borrowing against social security, so in a few more years it'll be bankrupt.

 

People were donating to charity long before government decided to step in. People still are donating to charity. Why do we need to send our money away to a central government so they can redistribute it?

Edited March 14, 2012 by Will_H
Merged posts

[Jonanananas]

You can have your taxes go to social security payments (which, god forbid I remind you, you might need to fall back on at some difficult time in your own life), and *shock* give to charities which aim to reduce joblessness. At the same time.

Social security contributions are not the same as income tax. And I don't worry about social security, because I'll never see that money again anyway. Another failure of the central government is borrowing against social security, so in a few more years it'll be bankrupt.

 

People were donating to charity long before government decided to step in. People still are donating to charity. Why do we need to send our money away to a central government so they can redistribute it?

 

Because charity doesn't guarantee that everyone in need will get money?

[aspeeder]

All this really is just an ill of socialism. But don't worry, I'm greedy, mean and evil for wanting to keep more of what I earn. I'm part of the 48% of Americans that actually pay income tax.

I call bullshit on this statistic. The "only x% of americans pay income tax, the rest are just lazy/illegals/leeches" argument is flawed and deceitful. Everyone who's not tax dodging, and that's a large majority of americans, is paying income taxes. It just so happens that the way our system is set up that if they make below a certain threshold that what they payed gets refunded. So everyone does pay income taxes, your bullshit statistic is just saying that 48% of americans (If that's actually the case, you have no citation) actually make enough money so that they don't have to get refunded to get by.

Sorry, I got my statistic wrong. It is somewhere between 48.5% and 51% that pay no income taxes. My bad.

http://nation.foxnews.com/taxes/2012/02/22/percentage-americans-who-pay-no-income-tax-hits-495

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/

 

Also, 30% of Americans make money under the tax system, i.e. get more in rebates than they withhold.

Well congratulations on actually getting your facts right, however you still ignored the actual point of my argument that this whole argument is disingenuous. ~50% of Americans don't have their income taxes refunded because they make enough damn money that they can get by comfortably without that rebate. All Americans who aren't breaking the law do pay into the system, just some of them are in a bad enough situation that they get some back.

 

As I posted in another thread, I think it's a crime that most people considered "poor" in America are very rich compared to the majority of the world. You pay for cable every month? Why am I paying for your food then?

Seriously? Cable costs like what, 30-50 dollars a month? According to this that's maybe enough money to feed a single adult female for a week on a "thrifty" (Most likely nutritionally deficient) diet. And don't even get me started on paying for internet, any sort of job outside of basic service industry jobs that don't pay anywhere close to a living wage damn near require a decent internet connection. And I'm damn proud that the poor (Which, need I remind you is a RELATIVE term that varies from society to society) in America are better off than the poor in Uzbekistan, or the Congo, or Vietnam. If you seriously expect me to sit by and let the lowest tier of our society fall into that sort of rut while corporations are having some of the most profitable quarters in our nation's history then you are sadly mistaken.

What you can't seem to grasp is when I say that the federal government has no role in welfare, I'm not saying there shouldn't be welfare. What I know right now is that the federal government does a piss poor job in managing money, and welfare should be left up to states, counties, cities, towns and communities. I'm also advocating for charity. I want to know who my money is going to, and let me be the judge if someone is able to work or not. Why do we need a central government to collect and redistribute money?

Sorry, but charities do not cut it. Yes they are a good and vital part of our society, but because the organizations can set up the rules as to who gets the charity and who doesn't it leaves many citizens still vulnerable. The problem is that many who are ostracized from society at large: trans people, gay homeless youth, religious minorities, etc. are usually the ones most likely to be deemed unworthy by the charities since so many of them are run by religious organizations. Also, good luck in tracking down the thousands of people on welfare in your state alone (Which, I might add, has some of the most stringent welfare criteria) by yourself just to find whether you deem them worthy of basic needs. I'm sorry, but one person's moral code should not be the criterion for another person's well being. Also your whole "federal government doesn't do it well" is just some old states rights arguments,

clears up quite well.

 

Oh, and more on this "my money" fallacy. Once you pay someone the money, it's no longer yours. You know, the same that if I went to get a Chick-Fill-A then "my" money would be used to support anti-gay campaigns because I paid my money to someone else. I have no say in what happens to money I once owned other than deciding where to spend it, that's why you get discounts on your income taxes by giving to charity. Think about this, the Catholic church is so pissed that it's going to be paying for women's contraception (Even though at the same time it's paying for Erectile Dysfunction pills, go figure), but they aren't making any damn fuss about the fact that the wages they pay employees might to towards contraception, or sex toys, or gay porn, or whatever else they might find offensive; that's because it's not their damn money anymore.

[sees_all1]

You can have your taxes go to social security payments (which, god forbid I remind you, you might need to fall back on at some difficult time in your own life), and *shock* give to charities which aim to reduce joblessness. At the same time.

Social security contributions are not the same as income tax. And I don't worry about social security, because I'll never see that money again anyway. Another failure of the central government is borrowing against social security, so in a few more years it'll be bankrupt.

 

People were donating to charity long before government decided to step in. People still are donating to charity. Why do we need to send our money away to a central government so they can redistribute it?

 

Because charity doesn't guarantee that everyone in need will get money?

Nor does government.

 

The very existence and formation of a centralized welfare system is proof enough that charity alone does not do enough.

Not really. Progressives have been pushing for socialism in America for about a hundred years. I'd call the Department of Education a complete waste but it's existence doesn't mean there wouldn't be schools without it.

[Giordano]

Well See's All, you seem to be very, very, very, very, very, very idealistic. Hell, I too wish all my tax went for appropriate funding and helped people as it should. But it is not like that and it never will be.

 

 

On the side note, the 'big centralized' government (in general, not just the US government) is here to stay. I believe we are moving into a new era of ancien regime, in sense, that won't be unbroken for hundreds of years.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need. Where on Earth do you get the impression otherwise? :unsure:

[obfuscator]

 

Oh, and more on this "my money" fallacy. Once you pay someone the money, it's no longer yours. You know, the same that if I went to get a Chick-Fill-A then "my" money would be used to support anti-gay campaigns because I paid my money to someone else. I have no say in what happens to money I once owned other than deciding where to spend it, that's why you get discounts on your income taxes by giving to charity. Think about this, the Catholic church is so pissed that it's going to be paying for women's contraception (Even though at the same time it's paying for Erectile Dysfunction pills, go figure), but they aren't making any damn fuss about the fact that the wages they pay employees might to towards contraception, or sex toys, or gay porn, or whatever else they might find offensive; that's because it's not their damn money anymore.

 

Just a note on this: ED pills aren't against any Catholic moral as they aren't contraception. They're a medical treatment, and that's why there's no outrage.

 

I know that wasn't the main point of your post, I just thought I'd clear it up.

[aspeeder]

Oh, and more on this "my money" fallacy. Once you pay someone the money, it's no longer yours. You know, the same that if I went to get a Chick-Fill-A then "my" money would be used to support anti-gay campaigns because I paid my money to someone else. I have no say in what happens to money I once owned other than deciding where to spend it, that's why you get discounts on your income taxes by giving to charity. Think about this, the Catholic church is so pissed that it's going to be paying for women's contraception (Even though at the same time it's paying for Erectile Dysfunction pills, go figure), but they aren't making any damn fuss about the fact that the wages they pay employees might to towards contraception, or sex toys, or gay porn, or whatever else they might find offensive; that's because it's not their damn money anymore.

 

Just a note on this: ED pills aren't against any Catholic moral as they aren't contraception. They're a medical treatment, and that's why there's no outrage.

 

I know that wasn't the main point of your post, I just thought I'd clear it up.

I get that, I was more worried about the implication of "paying someone to have sex" than with Catholic dogma in this case, since I'm pretty sure no one would argue against the fact that ED pills are largely used to help with intercourse/masturbation and they are covered by insurance.

[obfuscator]

Oh, and more on this "my money" fallacy. Once you pay someone the money, it's no longer yours. You know, the same that if I went to get a Chick-Fill-A then "my" money would be used to support anti-gay campaigns because I paid my money to someone else. I have no say in what happens to money I once owned other than deciding where to spend it, that's why you get discounts on your income taxes by giving to charity. Think about this, the Catholic church is so pissed that it's going to be paying for women's contraception (Even though at the same time it's paying for Erectile Dysfunction pills, go figure), but they aren't making any damn fuss about the fact that the wages they pay employees might to towards contraception, or sex toys, or gay porn, or whatever else they might find offensive; that's because it's not their damn money anymore.

 

Just a note on this: ED pills aren't against any Catholic moral as they aren't contraception. They're a medical treatment, and that's why there's no outrage.

 

I know that wasn't the main point of your post, I just thought I'd clear it up.

I get that, I was more worried in this case about the implication of "paying someone to have sex" than with Catholic dogma in this case, since I'm pretty sure no one would argue against the fact that ED pills are largely used to help with intercourse/masturbation and they are covered by insurance.

 

I don't think the church in particular cares if it's paying people to have sex (obviously preferably within the confines of marriage), it's more about paying for things it considers immoral. I think in that way the religious feeling on the issue is separate from the right-wing stance on it where they object to paying for any kind of sexual aid in the first place.

[aspeeder]

Agreed, I do disagree with you on the contraception debate but that's another thing entirely, it was just the most recent and well-known example I could think of. Hope I didn't derail too badly.

[obfuscator]

Yes, I know :P Just though I'd clarify.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Now, let's take an arbitrary number and say 20% of the adult population are currently on JSA (which is around about the correct figure for under-24s). Am I seriously to believe that a fifth of the adult population would rather sit on their ass all day and do nothing than work 12 hours a week? I live in one of the most impoverished parts of Lancashire and that's a picture even I don't recognise.

 

I'm not doubting there are those in society who would rather do nothing all day, while others toil to improve their circumstances. They're a waste of space and frankly deserve no sympathy. But for the vast majority of people, £55 a week barely covers food, let alone being able to live a life descript of any real value. So I think it's too far to say "the pride of working for a days wage [has] vanished", when the vast majority of people on JSA think a life on JSA isn't a life worth living.

 

It's not just JSA. The long term are on other benefits, many of them claiming sickness benefits they seldom are entitled to. Others pump out kids at high rates to claim as many benefits as possible. The problem is the system is a little too generous instead of being the last line of defence. It encourages them not to work.

 

Just to compare, I live on a council estate near Liverpool and trust me you'll see them. They're the same families who pull up at the school gates wearing pyjamas (yes, you read that correctly) while driving 4x4's, BMW's and Audi's. I know some of these families and none of them in their households work "offically". Those that do are doing cash in hand jobs or work that's a little on the wrong side of the law.

[Ginger_Warrior]

No, it is on the wrong side of the law since it's concealing income from the taxman. As said, I'm not denying that those people exist, I live in a poor area myself and I can give you the names of people I feel the same about from my own childhood. They're a total waste of time and resources and I've got no sympathy for them, and I wish people every luck in routing them out and bringing them to justice, and giving their unfortunate children a brighter future where getting a job isn't something the government hassles you into doing, it's an aspiration for you to improve your quality of life.

 

But faced between two choices: 1) Slash the 'safety net' so full of holes that, yes, "wasters" don't receive anything but genuine people don't receive enough to get by either; or 2) Keep the safety net so that people who are made redundant/become ill/experience hardship have something to fall back on, and accept the inevitable evil that people will abuse that system. I'll choose the latter everytime, and I'm thankful that two of the three major political parties in this country feel the same way as I do. Carry on giving to those who need it, but become more efficient about stopping those who won't give anything back to society and be more careful about institutionalising people into a life on benefits.

 

I'll ask you though: If the main grievance in the British general public is that taxpayers like me and (presumably) you are paying for "scroungers" to live a life of excess, why is this government increasing the threshold for Working Tax Credit from 16 hours to 24 hours from this April onwards? They are actually working for their welfare, and many of the people who'll lose out on this change have legitimate reasons for not being able to work more than 23 hours a week. What sense does it make to punish them when they have made an effort to go out, get a job and improve their circumstances? What kind of message does that send to the people we both mutually feel are undeserving of benefit in the first place because they don't sincerely want to get a job?