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.
Any number of things never show up on the radar screen's of taxpayers, because of the invisibility of it, like incarceration expenses. I think most taxpayers think incarceration costs are being borne by the Chinese!
A homeless person, on a national average, costs taxpayers $42.5k a year. Yes, you bump into them at various places and you think: They sleep on the streets, forage through garbage bins, panhandle, and it doesn't cost us anything! What's not showing up on their radar screens? All those endless trips to the Emergency Room, hospitalization, Rehab, medicine!
I work in a LTC/Rehab facility and we get any number of homeless people coming to the facility for Rehab, and most are so innocent, they didn't even realize they were eligible for Medicaid or Disability, and social services which steer them towards an apartment, food stamps, free education/vocational training and an income.
And, now we have Obesity classified as a disease, and we get those come into the facility as well, as young as 22YO, too obese to tie their shoelaces, requiring extra-wide beds, extra-wide wheelchairs.
So true about the make-up of Welfare recipients, white people the beneficiaries as well as other races.
If we're going to talk about abuse of EBT cards, let's talk about a group that's been in the news lately - FLDS. A Man in the FLDS can legally marry one person, but because they believe in polygamy, they "spiritually" marry many more. These women then become mothers and according to the state of Utah, are now unwed mothers with children and they all qualify for food stamps. Here's one of the many articles lately on how they abused their EBT cards:
But guess who the second biggest group who abuses food stamps is. Hasidic Jews living in New York. They're another group who has only spiritual marriages, so when the wife has children, she is again considered an unwed mother with no income.
It's one thing when we see individual people needing welfare because they fell on hard times. But when we have whole groups of people here in the US deliberately defrauding the system, I think that tends to skew our view of welfare recipients in this country.
It may not be the general consensus, but at least most conservatives in the U.S. seem to believe that our safety net of human service programs is abused by the poor who want to stay poor and take advantage of the system.
What is the attitude in other countries where the safety net is far more comprehensive? Are those who use it seen as lazy? How or why does the general population continue to support it with their tax dollars unless they have a more positive view of those in need?
Attitudes have changed in some countries, and demographics have changed. In Scandinavia, it used to be considered a humanitarian necessity. When foreign guest-workers and refugees became numerous, suddenly an attitude developed that's similar to the US, about "them" squandering "our" money. You connect the dots to find the hidden word in the picture.
I don't see too many answers here that address your actual question, so I'll bite.
I live in the UK, which is has a liberal welfare state system (though that is changing by the day).
We aren't subject to the interpretation of the Protestant Work Ethic prevalent in America that views the poor as inherently flawed, so we have traditionally been more tolerant of those who have recourse to the welfare system. That having been said, there is growing tension between the increasingly strained working and middle classes and those who are on benefits for long periods of time, just like in the States. It has grown considerably worse as more and more migrants have come into the system.
What's sad is, the generosity of our system has made it quite easy to abuse for those who are so inclined; much more so than your scheme in the U.S. Immigrants, especially asylum seekers, do seem to be taking advantage. This is leading Conservatives to want to deeply cut programs across the board, caring less and less about native Brits who legitimately need support. The general populace, however, is still more supportive of at least British-born people who rely on the safety net than in your country.
We look at things a bit differently here to start with. While your country emphasises individuality and encourages upward mobility, we have a fairly pervasive phenomenon here known as "Tall Poppy Syndrome", in which we tend to resent people who try very hard to rise above their class. It can be argued that this also feeds into our tolerance of and willingness to support the poor.
We are also a bit more communally-minded, vestigial of our experience of the first and second world wars. We took quite a long time to recover after WWII so the wartime mindset of pitching in to support the entire community lasted well into the next generation. The influence of American culture on subsequent generations seems to be leading us more down the path of "every man for himself", so I doubt the attitudes I grew up with will last much longer, as our young adults come fully into socio-political power.
Thanks very much! This is just the kind of perspective I was hoping to read.
I don't see too many answers here that address your actual question, so I'll bite.
I live in the UK, which is has a liberal welfare state system (though that is changing by the day).
We aren't subject to the interpretation of the Protestant Work Ethic prevalent in America that views the poor as inherently flawed, so we have traditionally been more tolerant of those who have recourse to the welfare system. That having been said, there is growing tension between the increasingly strained working and middle classes and those who are on benefits for long periods of time, just like in the States. It has grown considerably worse as more and more migrants have come into the system.
What's sad is, the generosity of our system has made it quite easy to abuse for those who are so inclined; much more so than your scheme in the U.S. Immigrants, especially asylum seekers, do seem to be taking advantage. This is leading Conservatives to want to deeply cut programs across the board, caring less and less about native Brits who legitimately need support. The general populace, however, is still more supportive of at least British-born people who rely on the safety net than in your country.
We look at things a bit differently here to start with. While your country emphasises individuality and encourages upward mobility, we have a fairly pervasive phenomenon here known as "Tall Poppy Syndrome", in which we tend to resent people who try very hard to rise above their class. It can be argued that this also feeds into our tolerance of and willingness to support the poor.
We are also a bit more communally-minded, vestigial of our experience of the first and second world wars. We took quite a long time to recover after WWII so the wartime mindset of pitching in to support the entire community lasted well into the next generation. The influence of American culture on subsequent generations seems to be leading us more down the path of "every man for himself", so I doubt the attitudes I grew up with will last much longer, as our young adults come fully into socio-political power.
I have to state that considering what England's wretched poor lived like 100 years ago it is a fairly recent tradition.
I don't see too many answers here that address your actual question, so I'll bite.
I'll take a swing as well, then.
I grew up in Denmark, and the prevailing attitude was that as a society, we had zero excuse for anyone to be without life's necessities - one of our patriotic songs describe how we're truly rich "when few have too much yet fewer too little". There's a solid safety net.
On the other hand, a lot of the support offered is there to propel people. University tuition is free and there's a stipend - but it's expected that you put those skills to use and become a productive member of society. You owe. Childcare may be covered, but that's with the understanding that it makes it easier for you to hold down a job. If you're unemployed long-term, you'll be enrolled in classes (some of them good, some of them not so much) to improve your chances of landing a job. Not voluntarily, either - miss class, and benefits are cut.
There's no shame in running into a temporary setback and have the public funds tide you over until you get back on your feet. It happens.
But the feeling towards able-bodied people who remain on public support long-time is mostly pity - they really are somewhat looked down upon. Assumptions about substance abuse or mental acuity will be made. Friends and family will make comments. And those openly exploiting the system are met with anger. (Inasmuch as Danes show public emotions, which isn't a whole lot.)
An example: In my late teens, I had a six-month break between high school and military enrollment. I decided to test out the welfare state and walked in to possibly get some of those amazing payouts everyone was rambling about. One week later I was wielding a chainsaw in the ice-cold rain, maintaining the city's fir forests and wondering what the heck I'd been thinking. There was a clear expectation of a quid pro quo - I had disposable time and the city had trees that needed felling, and in the process I could gain some marketable skills, so no whining and get out there.
Hearing people talking about how having 3 squares, a roof over ones head and a cellphone somehow keeps people from wanting to improve themselves - I saw that in a very small minority. Having the basic needs covered triggers the need for self-realization in most people.
I've seen and listened to people spend a large part of their time trying to get on some disability. They spend break times discussing their ailments that gets them time off, symptoms, which doctors that work for them, " 'cause they are paying them, so those doctors should do what they are being paid to do". If not, they find another doctor who will.
The Holy Grail is to have some disability that dispenses good drugs, is chronic, is easy to claim and impossible to disprove.
Race has nothing to do with character. These particular people would be drags to any group that has the misfortune to include them. I don't know how pervasive this type of person is, but from talking to disgruntled social workers, the number isn't a small percentage.
I don't have answers, but I know that a few of these bad players cost more in insurance than the rest of the company that I worked for combined. There were legitimate cases of medical need including cancers. These few still outspent them. Then we wonder why medical is so high?
The guy involved with the wildlife refuge occupation who was shot in Oregon was pulling in 100K a year by taking in numerous foster children then having them help him on his ranch.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,505,417 times
Reputation: 12187
A lot of the problem with SSDI abuse is that it takes forever to get on it when you are disabled that once people get it they don't go back to work even if they can because if you get injured again you have to wait a year. If you don't have family to help you out you are basically homeless while you wait.
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.
