U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:26 PM
 
39,855 posts, read 21,150,508 times
Reputation: 13198

Advertisements

"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning -- not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level are far from being hungry but an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money.

Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit "tax" on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire.

If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it?

The left's welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty.

Last edited by petch751; 03-23-2014 at 03:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,487,915 times
Reputation: 4572
Yes, this is a real problem. Benefits need to be available on some sort of sliding scale so as to always provide an incentive to earn more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:43 PM
 
7,342 posts, read 5,123,760 times
Reputation: 6426
I'll post this here too since it's more on topic:

This is true. A lot of people avoid finding jobs because they learn on interviews that the pay is less than what they receive in unemployment benefits. Also, people receiving welfare are afraid to work because they are afraid of losing their government subsidized life line. Why face all the unknowns with full-time employment when government checks seem to be a sure thing.

The government is taking away the incentive to work. Obamacare perpetuates this as you no longer need to work in order to have health insurance, which used to be some people's sole purpose for employment. Can't believe Biden touted this as something to be proud of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:44 PM
 
39,855 posts, read 21,150,508 times
Reputation: 13198
How long do politicians have to keep on promising heaven and delivering hell before people catch on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,487,915 times
Reputation: 4572
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylux View Post
I'll post this here too since it's more on topic:

This is true. A lot of people avoid finding jobs because they learn on interviews that the pay is less than what they receive in unemployment benefits. Also, people receiving welfare are afraid to work because they are afraid of losing their government subsidized life line. Why face all the unknowns with full-time employment when government checks seem to be a sure thing.

The government is taking away the incentive to work. Obamacare perpetuates this as you no longer need to work in order to have health insurance, which used to be some people's sole purpose for employment. Can't believe Biden touted this as something to be proud of.
I agree 100% about unemployment benefits. I think they should be capped at minimum wage x 40 per week. That being said, employers pay a percentage of employees' income into it and that corresponds with the allowed benefit so that's not necessarily fair.

As far as the latter point, about Obamacare, if these people really don't need to work for any reason other than health insurance and are not reliant on government it may not be a terrible thing and could help with unemployment. But there certainly can't be THAT many of those people and I'm certainly no fan of Obamacare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:49 PM
 
39,855 posts, read 21,150,508 times
Reputation: 13198
The government subsidizes idleness, making idleness more acceptable then idleness increases. The mainstream media hails widespread helplessness and promotes expanding big government and higher taxes to treat the problem.

As small businesses are taxed higher there are less opportunities to expand businesses. The marginal workers find it harder and harder to find jobs, so they resort to idleness and a welfare check.

Since getting money to do nothing is preferable than having to sweat for it, more and more people will fall into the welfare trap, guaranteeing democratic politicians ad infinitum. Income inequality has been on the rise since the early 70s. And what has increased right along with it?

The welfare state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,265 posts, read 1,304,345 times
Reputation: 753
Yeah Screw poor people, and I'd like to see you live in poverty for a week.

However, How about instead of once you reach above a certain level, you loose all benefits, benefits are only slowly tapered off until you reach $10,000 (to compromise, let's say to start as $6000 and end at $14,000). That way, people will be more willing to leave poverty, I think this is something the left and right WOULD support, as it would make people more willing to exceed earning $10,000, because they would not suddenly lose so many benefits, and govt assistance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,404 posts, read 8,069,680 times
Reputation: 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23 View Post
Yeah Screw poor people, and I'd like to see you live in poverty for a week.

However, How about instead of once you reach above a certain level, you loose all benefits, benefits are only slowly tapered off until you reach $10,000 (to compromise, let's say to start as $6000 and end at $14,000). That way, people will be more willing to leave poverty, I think this is something the left and right WOULD support, as it would make people more willing to exceed earning $10,000, because they would not suddenly lose so many benefits, and govt assistance.
Been there, done that. As a child I saw my parents not eat dinner so that us kids would have enough to eat. I saw them wear clothes that were worn out and patched so that us kids would have decent clothes for school. I remember my mother buying a gallon of real milk and then stretching it for days by mixing powdered milk into it.

There seems to be a misconception that people who despise the current welfare state were born with silver spoons in their mouths and trust funds in the bank. Some of us worked our butts off to rise above poverty, and we are the ones that really see how far down the welfare state has taken our formerly productive society.

All that being said, I could see some sort of sliding scale as long as it actually encouraged people to go back to work with educational programs that taught them basic skills. I'd still say it would need to be limited, though, as to how long you could collect benefits before you were cut off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 03:09 PM
 
39,855 posts, read 21,150,508 times
Reputation: 13198
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23 View Post
Yeah Screw poor people, and I'd like to see you live in poverty for a week.

However, How about instead of once you reach above a certain level, you loose all benefits, benefits are only slowly tapered off until you reach $10,000 (to compromise, let's say to start as $6000 and end at $14,000).

That way, people will be more willing to leave poverty, I think this is something the left and right WOULD support, as it would make people more willing to exceed earning $10,000, because they would not suddenly lose so many benefits, and govt assistance.
Hey I didn't set up the system to keep you in poverty... government, politicians did. Wow you are barking at the wrong people. And you want bigger government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 03:10 PM
 
39,654 posts, read 17,154,911 times
Reputation: 9093
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I agree 100% about unemployment benefits. I think they should be capped at minimum wage x 40 per week. That being said, employers pay a percentage of employees' income into it and that corresponds with the allowed benefit so that's not necessarily fair.

As far as the latter point, about Obamacare, if these people really don't need to work for any reason other than health insurance and are not reliant on government it may not be a terrible thing and could help with unemployment. But there certainly can't be THAT many of those people and I'm certainly no fan of Obamacare.
"That being said, employers pay a percentage of employees' income into it and that corresponds with the allowed benefit so that's not necessarily fair."

Today, because we have NOT generated as many jobs as need be, the states ran out of UI money some years ago and are in debt to to the fed billions of dollars each.

NC, I believe QUIT paying any more because they feel that they cannot pay back the fed AND pay UI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top