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.
There is a thread about the recent trend, hating the rich. Anyway it has me to thinking, is it now VOGUE to COLLECT WELFARE?
Shouldn't we be upset about the welfare recipients, who claims they can not work, who provides no product, service, benefit to society and gets paid to do a whole lot of nothing, but these same people also who work under the table. Some even have business (of course non-reported income). Income: Welfare Checks, Food Stamps, Money From Business, Oh poor me money and assistance from family, Free medical insurance
Expenses:
electric (paid by government), government housing / Low or 0% interest rate on house
Federal, State, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Taxes Paid: 0% / $0.00
---------
Rich or Business people
Income: Revenue from Sales and Cash flow and dividends from investments
Expenses: Rent, Electric, Phone, Loan Expenses, Employee(s), Advertising / Promotional Exp, Medical Insurance, and the list goes on.
Pay Fed, State, Medicare, SS, taxes
And people are upset with the rich? . Most rich people worked hard and gave up a lot to get there and borrowing allot of money on their name and at their own risk. Also generally learn to live poor before becoming successful. Once successful some will spend on nice things others, continue to live an average life style. Regardless, whichever way they choose its their right. I don't see the rich demanding payment for nothing unlike the welfare recipient who (YOU and I) pay to do nothing. As for the WS bailout. yes, they dangled a pretty nice carrot but no one had to bite.
First, the issue of working under the table when collecting welfare. I have heard that this is reported but that social services does nothing about it. The reason social services does nothing about it is that it is "work count", the same reason they have stood in the way of placing available children for adoption - lack of conscious.
Comparing the rich to the welfare is really no comparison at all. You are leaving out too many others, all of those in the middle, the majority. We do have many of the working poor drawing benefits from social services and the fault is not theirs, often it is the fault of some of those rich people that you speak of not paying a living wage to their workers or providing other benefits that many take for granted. So, some of the rich, by exploding the working poor are equal or lesser to those drawing welfare because we supplement both lifestyles with our tax dollars.
Don't go the route that everyone needs to get a college education and then could make more money because we need people in those jobs and allowing more illegals in the country by claiming they are willing to do jobs Americans won't is not helping the problem. We already have people with college educations on welfare and we don't need more!
My view of "working under the table while collecting welfare" has changed a bit.
A good friend of mine, who is about 50-years old, is doing exactly that. But it's not as clear-cut a situation as one would imagine.
He was a career criminal until about 6 years ago, when he got shot twice in the head & left for dead. He survived and has, since that time, completely turned his life around, become a Christian, and has a 100% spot-free record for over 5 years.
He is also on some heavy-duty medication that is extremely expensive. Several thousand per month.
Because of getting shot in the head, he no longer operates at 100%. He has some short-term memory loss issues, and several other little quirks that would keep him from being fully employable in a career-type job. So he works at several menial jobs, mostly earning cash & gift cards & favors. He keeps busy, he keeps out of trouble, and he earns enough to pay the rent on his TINY little house. NONE of his "income" is reported.
Were he to work full-time (or nearly full-time) at a place like McDonalds, he would lose his medical benefits, and because his income would be LESS than the cost of his medications, he'd stop taking his medications. That would probably lead directly to his death.
So I don't know all the answers. It's complicated. But I do know that my friend is alive, and doing well - and oddly enough, it is because he is technically "breaking the law." Go figure.
My view of "working under the table while collecting welfare" has changed a bit.
A good friend of mine, who is about 50-years old, is doing exactly that. But it's not as clear-cut a situation as one would imagine.
He was a career criminal until about 6 years ago, when he got shot twice in the head & left for dead. He survived and has, since that time, completely turned his life around, become a Christian, and has a 100% spot-free record for over 5 years.
He is also on some heavy-duty medication that is extremely expensive. Several thousand per month.
Because of getting shot in the head, he no longer operates at 100%. He has some short-term memory loss issues, and several other little quirks that would keep him from being fully employable in a career-type job. So he works at several menial jobs, mostly earning cash & gift cards & favors. He keeps busy, he keeps out of trouble, and he earns enough to pay the rent on his TINY little house. NONE of his "income" is reported.
Were he to work full-time (or nearly full-time) at a place like McDonalds, he would lose his medical benefits, and because his income would be LESS than the cost of his medications, he'd stop taking his medications. That would probably lead directly to his death.
So I don't know all the answers. It's complicated. But I do know that my friend is alive, and doing well - and oddly enough, it is because he is technically "breaking the law." Go figure.
So, he is getting SSI because of a disability. Some income would not disqualify him from receiving SSI and Medicaid which is what I am assuming he receives now. I had thought, and maybe that is a state by state case, that they were letting some keep their Medicaid in order to get them working. Still I have to go with "breaking the law is breaking the law" and if he is caught, its going to create a serious problem for him. Isn't welfare fraud a crime?
My view of "working under the table while collecting welfare" has changed a bit.
A good friend of mine, who is about 50-years old, is doing exactly that. But it's not as clear-cut a situation as one would imagine.
He was a career criminal until about 6 years ago, when he got shot twice in the head & left for dead. He survived and has, since that time, completely turned his life around, become a Christian, and has a 100% spot-free record for over 5 years.
He is also on some heavy-duty medication that is extremely expensive. Several thousand per month.
Because of getting shot in the head, he no longer operates at 100%. He has some short-term memory loss issues, and several other little quirks that would keep him from being fully employable in a career-type job. So he works at several menial jobs, mostly earning cash & gift cards & favors. He keeps busy, he keeps out of trouble, and he earns enough to pay the rent on his TINY little house. NONE of his "income" is reported.
Were he to work full-time (or nearly full-time) at a place like McDonalds, he would lose his medical benefits, and because his income would be LESS than the cost of his medications, he'd stop taking his medications. That would probably lead directly to his death.
So I don't know all the answers. It's complicated. But I do know that my friend is alive, and doing well - and oddly enough, it is because he is technically "breaking the law." Go figure.
I dont want to pay for a career criminals health insurance because he was hurt in his career choice & cant be a criminal anymore. Welfare is NOT disability for criminals for crying out loud.
So, he is getting SSI because of a disability. Some income would not disqualify him from receiving SSI and Medicaid which is what I am assuming he receives now. I had thought, and maybe that is a state by state case, that they were letting some keep their Medicaid in order to get them working. Still I have to go with "breaking the law is breaking the law" and if he is caught, its going to create a serious problem for him. Isn't welfare fraud a crime?
I cannot answer your question regarding state-by-state inconsistencies in these laws.
What I am saying is that, though I wish it wasn't, this is a very complicated issue.
In a way, I'm looking at this and wondering, "which is the lesser of two evils" (kind of like most of our Presidential Elections). Is it better for him to just sit at home doing nothing, get bored, and likely get into trouble with the law again - all for the sake of not "breaking the law"? Or is it better for him to be a busy, fairly productive and law-abiding citizen, even though (oddly enough) it means he's "breaking the law"?
There is a thread about the recent trend, hating the rich. Anyway it has me to thinking, is it now VOGUE to COLLECT WELFARE?
Shouldn't we be upset about the welfare recipients, who claims they can not work, who provides no product, service, benefit to society and gets paid to do a whole lot of nothing, but these same people also who work under the table. Some even have business (of course non-reported income). Income: Welfare Checks, Food Stamps, Money From Business, Oh poor me money and assistance from family, Free medical insurance
Expenses:
electric (paid by government), government housing / Low or 0% interest rate on house
Federal, State, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Taxes Paid: 0% / $0.00
---------
Rich or Business people
Income: Revenue from Sales and Cash flow and dividends from investments
Expenses: Rent, Electric, Phone, Loan Expenses, Employee(s), Advertising / Promotional Exp, Medical Insurance, and the list goes on.
Pay Fed, State, Medicare, SS, taxes
And people are upset with the rich? . Most rich people worked hard and gave up a lot to get there and borrowing allot of money on their name and at their own risk. Also generally learn to live poor before becoming successful. Once successful some will spend on nice things others, continue to live an average life style. Regardless, whichever way they choose its their right. I don't see the rich demanding payment for nothing unlike the welfare recipient who (YOU and I) pay to do nothing. As for the WS bailout. yes, they dangled a pretty nice carrot but no one had to bite.
Personally I think it should be a criminal offense, its stealing to work under the table while on welfare period. I also dont think we should punish people for sucess. Everyone should be taxed fairly & equally. Nobody should get a free ride. That said the real blood suckers are the elected officials themselves. We cut funding for education but not state paychecks or welfare? Screw the children as long as state workers & welfare people can eat.
I cannot answer your question regarding state-by-state inconsistencies in these laws.
What I am saying is that, though I wish it wasn't, this is a very complicated issue.
In a way, I'm looking at this and wondering, "which is the lesser of two evils" (kind of like most of our Presidential Elections). Is it better for him to just sit at home doing nothing, get bored, and likely get into trouble with the law again - all for the sake of not "breaking the law"? Or is it better for him to be a busy, fairly productive and law-abiding citizen, even though (oddly enough) it means he's "breaking the law"?
It's weird.
Its better for him to be busy taking care of himself & not taking money from a society he didnt contribute to isnt it? Isnt this like an insurance company taking money from policy holders & then paying claims for people without a policy?
Its better for him to be busy taking care of himself & not taking money from a society he didnt contribute to isnt it? Isnt this like an insurance company taking money from policy holders & then paying claims for people without a policy?
No, not really.
Again, these "fall through the cracks" situations are not as easily defined and decided as we/I would like them to be.
The thing that is "unfair" is that we (who paid taxes) are paying for them (not paying taxes).
How "fair" & "equal" is that???
How is that not being "special" to a certain group???
So in that... how is that not discrimination???
Discrimination = grouping people / special treatment to a select group pf people.
Now... that unfair treatment is done to the tax payers who have to use their own hard earned money for food while non-tax payers & welfare recipients gets *free food paid by tax payers* BUT that "luxury" is not extended to the *other* group (tax payers).
Unfair??? Unequal??? "That" is discrimination.
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.
