Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She's young, so it's too soon to tell. However, my gosh, did you really even READ her post? She's had job after job after job, but either quit them or lost them (a combo of both). The minute his "disabled" wife actually got a job, the husband quit his to "focus on working out" to lose 20 pounds to join the Navy, which apparently he then didn't join. He wouldn't even take the time to renew the paperwork for food stamps.
Apparently neither of these two young, and I suspect healthy, adults can manage to work full time, because the wages she's reporting are FAR below minimum wage.
She's never been homeless, according to her long rant - though they did eventually get evicted due to non payment of rent, they immediately moved into a new apartment - which is good I guess, since neither of their families would let them move in with them. Why, I wonder?
Though she doesn't qualify as disabled, which tells me that, well - she's not actually disabled - she expects employers to give her time off EVERY MONTH while she's on her period. What?
I don't blame you if you didn't read every word of her post. It took me awhile to dissect it myself but when I did - wow....talk about dysfunctional thinking...
Quote:
It IS the governments job!! What else you pay taxes for? It is their job to provide a healthy environment where every one can have at least a job and healthcare and education!
Guess what - the government provides housing, but it's up to the residents to keep that housing in a "healthy" condition - which they notoriously don't. Why is that? If people aren't even working, why is it impossible to keep the house clean?
I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's the government's job to provide a job for everyone who can work. Besides that, the poster we're discussing has HAD numerous jobs, and so has her husband - jobs that they either quit or are terminated from - over and over again. The problem isn't the job opportunities - it's the work ethic.
If her figures are accurate, she and her husband both qualify for Medicaid. That's FREE HEALTHCARE.
She also received a free education for at least 13 years. It is not the government's responsibility to pay for her college education, though there are many government programs which can offset those costs considerably.
Quote:
That's the basis for every healthy society. A country should take care of ALL its citizens, not only a few!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him (or her) drink. Our country provides great opportunities to people - but the government cannot guarantee that everyone takes advantage of those opportunities. Heck, she and her husband wouldn't even take the time to renew their application for food stamps (ie, free food) - what on earth makes you think they will have the follow through for other opportunities in life?
The benefits are pretty sparse, these days, after so many federal budget cuts. And some people fall through the cracks and don't qualify, as an earlier poster made clear. I know a number of people with medical disabilities who were turned away by Social Security disability program, because their disabilities weren't on the approved list of medical conditions. Also, if someone becomes disabled while self-employed, they don't qualify for SS disability benefits, in most cases. The self-employment tax most "independent contractors" pay isn't enough to count toward earning SS benefits of any kind. I imagine that in better-funded "safety net" systems, the agencies don't nickel-and-dime applicants as much as they do in the US. Welfare benefits are finite, now, too. You only get them for a fixed period of time, and then you're expected to find a job and get off the rolls, even if the only available jobs are minimum wage and don't pay enough to pay for rent in your area, let alone food and utilities.
What are you talking about? My husband is an independent contractor (self employed) and he pays both the EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE sides of social security taxes - in other words, 12 percent, not 6 percent like employees pay. And those tax payments go directly to his SS benefits, even though he received a letter four years ago saying that he had reached the maximum level of SS benefits - so now, he is not even paying for HIMSELF, but for everyone else - including you.
By the way - NEWS FLASH, anyone looking for a job! - today, in supposedly low income and low cost of living Texas, my husband and I passed a sign on a local Taco Bell advertising an asst manager position starting at $35,000 and a manager position starting at $50,000. I am sure both of these positions have benefits such as health insurance, vacation, etc.
Turnover rates in fast food are about 400 percent, so it should take someone about 6 months to become an assistant manager and about 2 years to become a manager. Of course, that person would have to actually go to work, be reliable, and be driven to succeed on their own - not sitting around wondering why the rest of their graduating class is passing them by.
Context is so important for correct reading comprehension! I was posting for comparison's sake, and to refute a poster's claim that the US has "generous" assistance programs. The European posters here don't know all these details, nor do some Americans, clearly. 6 months of unemployment during periods of high unemployment certainly isn't enough! It's completely unrealistic. During a strong economy it might be enough, but not during a major recession. Do you even hear yourself? It does mean the US doesn't provide enough. The US has been hit with several economic setbacks in one decade, and hasn't recovered. (Did you read that part of my post?). This has resulted in major cutbacks to these assistance programs. Obama had the right idea with his initiative to make Community College education free to the unemployed who need to get job training, but the problem is, there's no money to pay for that in the budget.
During the height of the recession I believe the federal government extended unemployment benefits beyond the standard 26 weeks to as long as 99 weeks to millions of newly unemployed Americans at that time since the government realized this recession was quite severe.
That is close to 2 years and I think that is quite generous, but necessary, especially back in 2009 and 2010. But the cord does need to cut as some point. The US, like most nations had setbacks in the last decade but the U.S. government most certainly responded with controversial stimulus's and (QE) quantitative easing measures that would hopefully kick the economy into high gear, and it did work to some degree, but it came with a price of more accumulated debt.
Also in regards to assistance programs (I assume you mean food stamps, etc.) being cut back - it's not that the government can't afford, it just that many just don't like what they're seeing as too many are becoming comfortable with assistance especially since the worse of the crisis is over.
Whether we like to face it or not, there is a growing entitlement mentality in this country that expects the US to mirror "utopia" western Europe on providing long extended assistance to their citizens on every measure in terms of free housing, free post high school education, "free" health insurance, years of unemployment benefits, etc. so that causes others not to try. I guess we have a different mentality on the extent in which government should be providing for their citizens and for how long.
Speaking of which, does being a member of the EU give every EU citizen a 'safety net'?
I have always been under the impression that only about half of the European countries in Europe might have that safety net. I can't imagine places like Poland or Bulgaria to have them, but maybe I'm wrong?
In another country? Yes and no. You can't just move your residence from a country to another and start collecting subsidies. You are eligible though if you have worked in said country for at least 18-24 months and are a permanent resident in the future as well. This doesn't apply to the Nordic Countries where you are eligible for social security the day you move.
I don't know about Bulgaria, but Poland has a pretty good safety net, at least for an ex-communist state. The unemployment subsidies, free healthcare, adequate pensions, free schools... they're all there.
I don't know about Bulgaria, but Poland has a pretty good safety net, at least for an ex-communist state. The unemployment subsidies, free healthcare, adequate pensions, free schools... they're all there.
Poland's taxes for SS and pensions are considerably higher than that of the US. Money's got to come from somewhere. For the self employed, the percentage of their income that they pay in social security ALONE is about 20 percent (compared to 12 percent in the US).
Unemployment benefits are limited to between 6 to 18 months. In the US, during the recession, unemployment could be paid out for up to 73 weeks, but it is now back down to 6 months.
Then let's not pretend all those "safety nets" in any country (including the US) are free.
Like I said earlier, government cannot create wealth. Only working people create wealth. Therefore the fewer people working to create wealth, the more fragile and unstable any economy becomes.
In another country? Yes and no. You can't just move your residence from a country to another and start collecting subsidies. You are eligible though if you have worked in said country for at least 18-24 months and are a permanent resident in the future as well. This doesn't apply to the Nordic Countries where you are eligible for social security the day you move.
The deal between the US and Nordic countries concerning social security is that if a US citizen works in a Nordic country, they don't have to pay SS into TWO governments. This eliminates double taxation for social security.
However, generally speaking, an immigrant from the US to a Nordic country does NOT automatically qualify for other all or even most other social programs - the day they move or four or five years later. (I didn't look up all Nordic countries - only Denmark - so if the programs differ elsewhere, just let me know and provide the source.)
Quote:
NOTE: In addition to retirement, disability and survivors benefits, Danish Social Security taxes cover several other programs including unemployment, sickness, maternity, medical, work accident, and family allowance benefits.As a result, workers exempted from Danish Social Security coverage by the agreement pay no Social Security taxes for these programs and generally cannot receive benefits from them. If the agreement exempts you from Danish coverage, you and your employer may wish to arrange for alternative benefit protection.
Note that the above link is discussing employees and the self employed only. In other words, people who are working. You can't just up and move to Denmark as a disabled person or someone over age 65 and expect to begin receiving disability or a pension. I realize you didn't say this specifically but I wanted to clarify that.
Quote:
Disability (anticipatory) pension (income-tested): The insured has an assessed, permanent reduced working capacity and cannot assure his or her own subsistence from any kind of paid work. (No pension is awarded if it is likely that the insured's assessed working capacity can be improved through rehabilitation or other measures.). Must have at least three years of residence from ages 15 to 65 (Danish nationals) or at least 10 years of residence or be covered by a reciprocal agreement (foreign nationals).
Quote:
Universal old-age basic pension (earnings-tested): 68,556 kroner a year is paid for unmarried, married, or cohabiting pensioners with at least 40 years of residence in Denmark before the pensionable age.
This is a great time to discuss something that many Americans may not understand, regarding the famous "paid maternity leave" in Nordic and other European countries. Please do not assume that workers are paid their normal salary during that leave. Percentages and time frames vary, but just keep in mind that workers who qualify (and not all workers qualify) are generally paid a percentage of their former income and sometimes those percentages are pretty low. Plus, remember that your taxes have already been consistently and significantly higher in order to pay those benefits - and you will pay those higher taxes as long as you are working - long after you've had a child and taken that leave. So you or some other taxpayer are definitely paying for that leave.
Now - to clarify, I don't believe that the US has the best system in all circumstances for all people. But I also don't believe that any country can claim that lofty position. I think we can all probably look objectively at other first world countries for ideas on ways we can improve our current social systems.
Last edited by KathrynAragon; 03-30-2015 at 06:02 AM..
The deal between the US and Nordic countries concerning social security is that if a US citizen works in a Nordic country, they don't have to pay SS into TWO governments. This eliminates double taxation for social security.
However, generally speaking, an immigrant from the US to a Nordic country does NOT automatically qualify for other all or even most other social programs - the day they move or four or five years later. (I didn't look up all Nordic countries - only Denmark - so if the programs differ elsewhere, just let me know and provide the source.)
Oh, no no. I meant another Nordic citizen moving into another Nordic country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does mean the US doesn't provide enough. The US has been hit with several economic setbacks in one decade, and hasn't recovered. (Did you read that part of my post?). This has resulted in major cutbacks to these assistance programs. Obama had the right idea with his initiative to make Community College education free to the unemployed who need to get job training, but the problem is, there's no money to pay for that in the budget.