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.
I'm not really comfortable with demonizing and singling out "the poor"--they're people and fellow citizens just like the rest of us. Now, if your point is that recipients of government money shouldn't be wasting it, however that's defined, then we also need to be talking about people receiving Social Security benefits (retirement, disability, or survivor benefits), Medicare and Medicaid coverage, student loans, Pell Grants, WIC, Small Business Administration grants, disabled veteran benefits, firefighter/EMT training benefits, refugee benefits, farm loans, reimbursement for expenses related to international terrorism, federally-backed flood insurance coverage, and the rest of the 1328 federal benefit programs listed here. If requirements could be standardized and applied consistently across government beneficiaries, I think the argument would be a lot stronger.
You don't seem to be differential as to an earned benefit or not.
Sorry, I don't understand the comment--could you clarify?
You lumped earned and unearned programs together. I don't think you're advocating that we restrict what people on social security retirement do with their money since they paid in to begin with. SSDI is insurance that was also paid into and similar could be said about veterans benefits.
I think you meant if we were going to do one we should do the others but you weren't actually advocating that. If you were please let us know.
Well, until just the last couple of years, people receiving Social Security retirement benefits received much more than they paid in, and current Medicare beneficiaries will still continue to receive much more in benefits than they paid in, so at least a portion of those benefits might be considered unearned. But yes, I did lump all of the government programs together, simply for argument's sake.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it does set off my alarm bells when a group is presented as "other" and has different restrictions or expectations placed on them. If we consider only "unearned" benefits, why would we not ban college loan/Pell Grant recipients from playing the lottery, if we are going to ban welfare recipients?
The logistical difficulties that others have pointed out make this a moot question, I think. But it's been interesting to think about and discuss!
If we consider only "unearned" benefits, why would we not ban college loan/Pell Grant recipients from playing the lottery, if we are going to ban welfare recipients?
The logistical difficulties that others have pointed out make this a moot question, I think. But it's been interesting to think about and discuss!
There is certainly a BIG difference in these benefits. Not only that some are "earned", like GCharlotte pointed out (including veteran benefits!), but some of them are paid back, like student loans and small business loans. The point is that people receiving food stamps and welfare are by definition unable to provide for themselves the basic of human necessities, such as food and shelter. The government provides these basic necessities for survival, many times for the survival of their offspring. To take this money given for this reason from taxpayers, and use towards gambling or other vices that a large number of those taxpayers are financially unable to partake in, is a disgrace.
But yes, as far as other "unearned" benefits, they, too, should be restricted to be used for what they are allocated for. Pell Grants are written straight to the college that is being attended, Medicaid checks are given straight to a physician, WIC is given straight to a retailer for certain products, flood insurance checks need proof of costs/expenses. Any where there is room for government money allocated for certain things being spent on non intended things, I am ALL for tightening.... including (and especially) when bailout money to the big banks were being spent on undeserved bonuses and fancy executive trips.
Location: Danville, VA - 3rd Capital of the Confederacy!
203 posts, read 412,914 times
Reputation: 334
You win a few ... you lose a few ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfflyernc
... until just the last couple of years, people receiving Social Security retirement benefits received much more than they paid in, and current Medicare beneficiaries will still continue to receive much more in benefits than they paid in, so at least a portion of those benefits might be considered unearned ...
The only way any recipient of Social Security or Medicare will ever receive "much more than they paid in" is if they retire as early as possible, and then live a very long time afterwards. And to derive accurate figures with respect to the alleged "difference" between what you want to consider "earned" and what you want to consider "unearned" -- even in those few instances -- you would need to compute how much the "inflation" factor has multiplied a particular individual's FICA "contributions" throughout the course of their work history, and then compute how much they got back after retirement.
Obviously, since the complete data necessary to finalize such a computation wouldn't be available until after that particular Social Security recipient has died, it becomes moot to attempt to label any Social Security recipient's lottery ticket purchases at any point in time as "earned" or "unearned" benefits.
Additionally, since the payoff rate of most State Lotteries typically runs between 20% and 30%, the State consistently earns 70% to 80% gross profit on lottery ticket sales (less commissions and various other ticket sales related expenses along the way).
With respect to those who invest in lottery tickets, regardless of where they got the money to purchase those lottery tickets, IF THEY SHOULD HAPPEN TO WIN (i.e., made a GOOD "investment"), they are expected to pay taxes on their winnings.
And if they WIN LARGE AMOUNTS, a percentage of their winnings is automatically withheld to cover estimated taxes, both at Federal and State level (in most States).
And if that's the case, then in fairness, ALL Lottery Ticket Investors who LOST (i.e., made BAD "investments") should be ENTITLED to a tax deduction for the cost of all those LOSING lottery tickets they bought over the course of the year.
The only way any recipient of Social Security or Medicare will ever receive "much more than they paid in" is if they retire as early as possible, and then live a very long time afterwards. And to derive accurate figures with respect to the alleged "difference" between what you want to consider "earned" and what you want to consider "unearned" -- even in those few instances -- you would need to compute how much the "inflation" factor has multiplied a particular individual's FICA "contributions" throughout the course of their work history, and then compute how much they got back after retirement.
We're getting a little off-topic about the lottery, but it's amazing the number of people who don't know that until very recently, people did indeed receive more in SS and Medicare benefits than they paid in, even accounting for inflation. (It still can happen now, but it tends to take longer.) Here's a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor about this topic, which contains the following statement (empasis mine):
"It’s true that workers fork over Social Security and Medicare taxes every payday. But under current law, over their lifetimes most Americans will get back substantially more from these programs then (sic) they’ve paid in, even after accounting for inflation and adjusting for interest you might have earned if you’d kept the money."
And here is a link to the source document supporting this claim (PDF), a 2012 study by the Urban Institute. I can provide other sources if this one isn't enough. I assure you, I'm not making this up.
This may shock you but in olden days people who received welfare were not even allowed to own a TV. I think we should go back to the days when people that needed food went to a central location and picked it up. That would leave out junk food and many other abuses.
I also think that if so many were not buying groceries with food stamps the cost of food would go down because most of us cannot afford to buy the things people on welfare buy. This is a corrupt government and it needs to be fixed so we the people can get back to living again. I do not mind to pay for things people need, but I am tired of paying for food stamps so people can trade them in for drugs AND IT IS HAPPENING.
If a person has the money to buy a lottery ticket, they can afford to spend THAT money buying food.
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.
You win a few ... you lose a few ...
