The wealth of the non-working

[Jaggy Bunnet]

There was a recent TV programme on Channel 4 in the UK. In it two wives swapped families for a week.

One was a mother of two from a family where both parents worked. The net income after tax of the couple was c£27k

The other was a mother of eight from a family where neither parent worked. The net income after tax, derived entirely from welfare benefits, was c£37.5k.

I was shocked at the level of benefits that were available. If it is possible to have that level of income without working, how do we ever expect people to get off benefits once they are on them? To replace the same level of income, both parents would need to find jobs paying above the national average wage (c£23k gross I think). As neither appeared to have any qualifications or particular skills, the chances of this must be very small. From their point of view, it makes no sense to take a lower paid job as they would receive no additional, and possibly less, income.

How can this possibly be a sensible model for the welfare state?

[Graham]

Some years ago, when I moved back to Ireland from Canada, I was on welfare for a couple of weeks while I looked for a job.

I was lucky enough to get a decent job fairly quickly but it was nearly two years before my salary increased to the point where I was earning nearly as much as I was getting on welfare.

Sometimes it was difficult to remember just why I was dragging my ass out of bed every morning, right enough,

Graham

[iain]

I didn't see the programme buts presumably the family of 8 were an extreme example rather than what the typical unemployed family gets from the state.

It seems a little disingenuous (though better TV) to compare a family that gets much higher than normal welfare payments with one that gets well below average wages.

Iain.

[Graham]

Another anecdote, if I may -

There was a report on the news the other days entitled "Welfare mom goes hungry to feed her child" or somesuch. (when did television news get so tabloid-y anyway?)

It as all very tragic - new mom and "significant other" being put up ina B&B by the state until they can be found a house - fed, housed and so on and they were being FORCED TO LIVE ON JUST OVER €200 A WEEK!!!!!!!

Needless to say both mom and dad smoked away throughout the interview. You could practically see the babies lungs seizing up. A pack of smokes runs about six euro - a pack each a day, that makes €84.

Hmm . . .

[Tony]

What you are witnessing is the flaw of socialism. I feel sorry for the people who have to endure the tyranny of having their hard earned money stolen from them and given to people undeserving of said money.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by iain
I didn't see the programme buts presumably the family of 8 were an extreme example rather than what the typical unemployed family gets from the state.

It seems a little disingenuous (though better TV) to compare a family that gets much higher than normal welfare payments with one that gets well below average wages.

Iain.

I would have thought that the level of benefits would be based on a set of rules so that one family with eight kids would get much the same as any other. Hopefully having eight kids is not typical!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony
What you are witnessing is the flaw of socialism. I feel sorry for the people who have to endure the tyranny of having their hard earned money stolen from them and given to people undeserving of said money.

I think its more of a problem wh the way the welfare benefits are disbursed.

We have basically the same programs here in the states, but with more limitations to encourage people to go to work.

The US is almost as "socialist" as England. Only difference really is that we dont have the universal healthcare.

[Dancing David]

Certainly not the way things are here in the US.

Of course we have a much much higher employment rate too.

From my damp sheets:

But then, we in the US don't care who starves, gets raped or abused because that is thier fate. Lets feed the children to the dogs, and when they become anti socials then we can lock them up. Lets have more homeless people and vulnerable children. Lets make more kids run away from home. It's not my kid, who cares?
Who cares that that girl had to runaway from an abusive home, she should have made better choices.
Who cares that that mother had to leave a man who was chocking her on a daily basis, she should have made better choices.
Who cares that that girl had a baby because she was raped, or becuase her parents didn't give her birth control.
As long as you can sit on your ass and drink your drink and drive your car, who cares, until you loose your job...

But hey , you should have made better choices.


Brought by you from the Council to End Adult Bedwetting

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

The US is almost as "socialist" as England. Only difference really is that we dont have the universal healthcare.

I thought they had higher income and sales taxes than we did. Is that untrue?

[MoeFaux]

I'm not at all surprised.
Welfare and unemployment do nothing to entice people to get back to work. It just creates a system where more and more people seek these government benefits to avoid working harder.
The governemnet should not be handing out money to people.

My own parents have lived off of the governement for the past 10 years. They have no will to go and seek employment, and it's another 20 years before they reach retirement age.

It's disgusting.

[Kodiak]

Would anyone have a problem with welfare if it only went to veterans (VA; soldier's pension), children and their mothers (WIC; pre- and neo-natal care), and the disabled (vocational training; assisted/group living)?

I wouldn't...

[Tmy]

Yeah they have higher taxes. Is that how your measuring socialism?? I alwyas see it as having a govt that sees to the basic needs of people who cant afford it on their own, and at the same time promots capotolism.

I see that happening in the states. We do take care of most people. You dont see many true homeless or starving. WE even have a safetynet health care coverage. No one is turned away from ER rooms cause they dont have insurance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Would anyone have a problem with welfare if it only went to veterans (VA; soldier's pension), children and their mothers (WIC; pre- and neo-natal care), and the disabled (vocational training; assisted/group living)?

I wouldn't...


I don’t think I would either, depending on how the assistance was administered and how the program was operated.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


I thought they had higher income and sales taxes than we did. Is that untrue?

I dont know.

sales tax? we call it VAT and it runs at 17.5%.

We pay national insurance which runs at 11% of income and then after that income tax is deducted at around 20% or somesuch so income tax is roughly 28%.

Whats it like in the US?

This is not the only flaw of a very socialist society:

Lets say you leave school at 16. This is what you could soon be doing for a living:

A tube driver gets £32k
A fireman upto £22k (soon to be £26 due to recent strike action)
A soldier £12k but rising very well upto £40-50k as a srnt-major, plus you get food and accomodation etc.....
A random manual labourer £15-24k

Lets say you leave school at 18 and go on to do 3 years at university:

Build up debt of £15,000 grand.
Lose 5 years wages at oh, say, £15,000 on average after tax and you are £90,000 worse off than you would have been if you had left school at 16.

But graduates must get really well paid then?? NO! a typical graduate will get £15,000- less than half of what a tube driver will earn!!!

If I were 16, I would think very carefully about what my next step might be..............

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Tony


I thought they had higher income and sales taxes than we did. Is that untrue?

UK income tax rates:

Personal allowance (0%) - first £4,615
Starting rate (10%) - next £1,980
Basic rate (22%) - next £27,980
Higher rate (40%) - income above £34,515

One of the main differences is that there are far fewer deductions from income in the UK - basically only contributions to pension schemes are deductible in calculating taxable income for an employed person.

Sales tax (value added tax in the UK) is normally 17.5%, although lower rates (including 0%) apply to certain items such as foodstuffs, childrens clothes, books etc.

[Tmy]

Theres a lot of misunderstanding wh the US welafre systems. Theve gone thru many changes over the years, but people still think in terms of the old school hand out programs.

I donthave problems helping out someone whos down, bu at the same time its hard to draw the line on who gets what and how much.

Like the VA. I all for helping out vets who are injured. I do have a problem with people who never suffered any military time injuries, but they still are allowed to milk VA benes'.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Like the VA. I all for helping out vets who are injured. I do have a problem with people who never suffered any military time injuries, but they still are allowed to milk VA benes'.

IMO, a veteran is a veteran. Though some end up paying more than others, all risk the same.

[gnome]

I'd like to look at it from another angle...

One supposes that the amount of benefits received at least has something to do with the cost of living. If the amount of money offered by a new job is below the amount of welfare benefits, maybe it says something about the state of our economy; i.e., that wages are too low?

I'm not here to argue solutions or propose forcing wages higher... just trying to establish there may be a problem different than welfare benefits being too high.

Would anyone have a problem with welfare if it only went to veterans (VA; soldier's pension), children and their mothers (WIC; pre- and neo-natal care), and the disabled (vocational training; assisted/group living)?

I wouldn't...

Does AFDC count as "Children and their mothers?" ... I am suddenly wondering how different things are than what Kodiak proposes... anyone got stats on disbursement?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


IMO, a veteran is a veteran. Though some end up paying more than others, all risk the same.

Id be great if everyone in the country had healthcare too. But fiscally thats not a sound policy.

The VA is a mess right now. There are people outthere getting VA benes even thoughthey could easily get their own. If you dump them then the truly needy vets would be getting much better care with less of a tax burden.

Put patriotism aside for a second. Does it really make sense that soem guy who was in the army for a couple of years, during peace time, never got hurt or even came across any real danger. Fast forward 10 years later. The guy wants his wisdom teeth pulled, so he gets it done at the VA and the taxpayers pay for it. (even though he can easily get insurance thru his current job as an attorney) Does that really make sense.

Wouldnt you be pissed if your town taxes were going to provide insurance for every guy whos ever been a policeman in that town. Even if they left the job years ago.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Put patriotism aside for a second. Does it really make sense that soem guy who was in the army for a couple of years, during peace time, never got hurt or even came across any real danger. Fast forward 10 years later. The guy wants his wisdom teeth pulled, so he gets it done at the VA and the taxpayers pay for it. (even though he can easily get insurance thru his current job as an attorney) Does that really make sense.

Wouldnt you be pissed if your town taxes were going to provide insurance for every guy whos ever been a policeman in that town. Even if they left the job years ago.

Oops...misunderstanding. :(

When I suggested "(VA; soldier's pension)" in my post above, I meant "lifers" with a minimum 20 years service.

Sorry for mix-up.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by gnome
I'd like to look at it from another angle...

One supposes that the amount of benefits received at least has something to do with the cost of living. If the amount of money offered by a new job is below the amount of welfare benefits, maybe it says something about the state of our economy; i.e., that wages are too low?

I'm not here to argue solutions or propose forcing wages higher... just trying to establish there may be a problem different than welfare benefits being too high.

Or maybe the wages are only too low if you want to have eight children? If you restricted the number of children you had to the number you could afford to provide for (as opposed to the amount the state will provide for) maybe the wages are sufficient?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by gnome
Does AFDC count as "Children and their mothers?" ... I am suddenly wondering how different things are than what Kodiak proposes... anyone got stats on disbursement?

If AFDC hands out cash, then I have a problem with it.

WIC and pre/neo-natal care would use coupons/vouchers that must be used in a specific/controlled way.

[Supercharts]

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/12/01/skattoecd_en/arkiv/tab-2000-12-13-01-en.html

[gnome]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Or maybe the wages are only too low if you want to have eight children? If you restricted the number of children you had to the number you could afford to provide for (as opposed to the amount the state will provide for) maybe the wages are sufficient?

I'm in a hundred percent agreement. But I'm at a loss as to what to do within the context of welfare to a parent having more children than they can afford...

Cutting them off is just punishing the children, but paying it out just perpetuates the problem. Anyone got any bright ideas?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by gnome

Cutting them off is just punishing the children, but paying it out just perpetuates the problem. Anyone got any bright ideas?

couldnt you just have your balls cut off?
/python

[Graham]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Or maybe the wages are only too low if you want to have eight children? If you restricted the number of children you had to the number you could afford to provide for (as opposed to the amount the state will provide for) maybe the wages are sufficient?

I think you have something there, alright. State benefits are generally allocated on a per-person-in-family basis. Therefore someone with eight kids gets far more than someone with two.

Jobs, (unfotunately!) don't work that way. If I had of been a single person with no children (at the time, I had three) I would have been far better off working than on welfare.

If someone has eight children, though, you can't just give them enough money for four and let the other four starve, you know?

Similarly with Kodiak's idea - you can't just give welfare to the mom and children in a family and let the father "starve or get a job". Obviously the family will just stretch the payments to feed him too and again you have children going hungry.

Incidentally, there are some people on welfare who use it as it is supposed to be used - as a safety net. People who have been paying their taxes for years but lose their jobs or whatever. Those people deserve benefits that provide a reasonable standard of living, IMO. I sometimes think thought that those are the people who really suffer when welfare is "tightened up". Chancers and welfare bums will just find some other way to mooch off the system.

Graham

[Alaric]

Ive never had a real problem with Welfare-but I do think that healthy guys should have to work for it. Workfare. Seems like a better solution and keeps them in the "work=money" frame of mind.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


If AFDC hands out cash, then I have a problem with it.

WIC and pre/neo-natal care would use coupons/vouchers that must be used in a specific/controlled way.

Lets be realistic. There has to me some cash involved. It'd be an expensive red tape nightmare to gave coupons for everything.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


Lets be realistic. There has to me some cash involved. It'd be an expensive red tape nightmare to gave coupons for everything.

Who said for "everything"?

Special food stamps specifically for baby/child products like formula, baby food, dairy products, diapers, cereal, juice boxes, and lunch meat.

A special medicare card specifically for pediatrics and pre/neo-natal medical care.

[Tmy]

Welfare sort of does that. Food stamps comes to mind. Ive a little familar wh how alot of these programs and how they work. In my state I feel the base welfare program works well. Where I see the biggest waste of money: DISABILITY!!!!!! Just personally Ive seen so much fraud or suspected fraud when it comes to Social Security disability. Thats a huge tax money pit.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Would anyone have a problem with welfare if it only went to veterans (VA; soldier's pension), children and their mothers (WIC; pre- and neo-natal care), and the disabled (vocational training; assisted/group living)?

I wouldn't...

Funny those are the only people who get welfare in America, and it requires a lot to get it too!

The only people who you haven't mentioned are the elderly poor, they can qualify for Medicaid but they very rarely get cash benefits. They qualify if they can't pay thier medical bills and have no other means to pay thier bills. But there are now cp-pays and deducatibles as well.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tmy
Welfare sort of does that. Food stamps comes to mind. Ive a little familar wh how alot of these programs and how they work. In my state I feel the base welfare program works well. Where I see the biggest waste of money: DISABILITY!!!!!! Just personally Ive seen so much fraud or suspected fraud when it comes to Social Security disability. Thats a huge tax money pit.

That may be but I worked with disabled adults for twelve years, and it aint so easy to get SSDI if you have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The standard is really rough here in the Midwest, it is even difficult to get disability for back pain any more.

Does that mean we will have flight to the East Coast where it is easier to get SSDI?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Alaric
Ive never had a real problem with Welfare-but I do think that healthy guys should have to work for it. Workfare. Seems like a better solution and keeps them in the "work=money" frame of mind.

Under welfare reform able bodied adults get nothing, nada ,zip. This was done about ten years ago. In most states you have to have a disability or kids to get food stamps. And now you also have to do work fare if you get AFDC.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Or maybe the wages are only too low if you want to have eight children? If you restricted the number of children you had to the number you could afford to provide for (as opposed to the amount the state will provide for) maybe the wages are sufficient?

Sorry dude, we don't have very good subsidized housing in the uS. Two adults working for minimum wage are going to get 5.15 an hour. So for a forty hour week they get paid 208.50 or combined they get 417, then Uncle Sam takes his thirty percent, which leaves 290 a week. Or $1160 a month. Now that is a lot,but rent runs $600.00 month ($560 left) , then there is power $100 ($460), phone $30 ($430), car $100 ($330), child care $240($90) and $90 a month is just enough to feed three people a month.

You can work for minimum wage in the US, not have health insurance, only one kid, and no way to buy any furniture or clothes.

[Tmy]

The govt is big on these dopey rent subsidies that make landlords rich. Theve gone away from building low income housing. Instaedthey toss all this tax payer money into market level rental units.