non-working welfare owners

[Slantedfacts]

Indeed. Also, when you are talking about people with lower income, they need to spend most of their money just to live.

Say that I make $30,000 a year and I pay 30% taxes on that $30,000. That's $9,000 in taxes, leaving me with $21,000 after taxes.

Now, suppose that I make $300,000 a year and I pay 40% of my income as tax. That's $120,000 in taxes, leaving me with $180,000 after taxes.

Sure, the rich guy pays more in percentage, but when you have a lower income even smaller percentages can equate to a large difference in quality of life and ability to survive. That $9,000 that the poorer guy pays is a lot more detrimental to him than the $120,000 that the $300,000/year guy is paying.

Yeah - but the higher taxes that the $300,000 a year gets hit with makes some less insightful poor more inclined to be slothful.

My household made "80 G" (not bad for a guy that was terminally homeless 9 years ago!) - hope we can get a TON on our tax return! :applaud

 

[chosendudenyc]

Your "common knowledge" is wrong. Over 75% of people are off of welfare within 5 years of going on it, with the majority of them finishing even before that. The idea of the "welfare queen" who mooches off the system is more often than not just that - an idea. A myth.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
In 1996, Welfare, as the term is commonly understood, ceased to exist. Poor families, primarily mothers and children, had to start earning their keep along with single men and women. Promoted by Democratic President Bill Clinton and eagerly passed by the Republican Congress, this "reform" was the most dramatic change in welfare policy since its establishment in the Social Security Act of 1935. What people do know about that legislation is generally confined to the five-year time limit on the receipt of cash assistance and the fact that mothers must now work for their checks. Less well known is the fact that almost half (24) of the states penalize poor women if they have a child.

In concise, no human being that receives this form of governmental assistance has a “free ride”. All that is receiving this form of governmental assistance will work and have with profound results. So the notion that human beings not working and doing something to increase their lives in a positive existence is mistaken.

Those that continue to have enmity within their souls for such governmental assistance that every American can apply for and should feel when life becomes unbalanced and cruel, our government within America can and should be there so that unbalance-ness and that cruelty won’t allow a decrease that will profoundly infringe upon the growth of that person or persons and won’t infringe upon their right to live. Assistance from our government shouldn’t be a negative situation rather a situation to carry on and path the way toward the life that person had before or path the way toward something better.

 

[Engimo]

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
In 1996, Welfare, as the term is commonly understood, ceased to exist. Poor families, primarily mothers and children, had to start earning their keep along with single men and women. Promoted by Democratic President Bill Clinton and eagerly passed by the Republican Congress, this "reform" was the most dramatic change in welfare policy since its establishment in the Social Security Act of 1935. What people do know about that legislation is generally confined to the five-year time limit on the receipt of cash assistance and the fact that mothers must now work for their checks. Less well known is the fact that almost half (24) of the states penalize poor women if they have a child.

In concise, no human being that receives this form of governmental assistance has a “free ride”. All that is receiving this form of governmental assistance will work and have with profound results. So the notion that human beings not working and doing something to increase their lives in a positive existence is mistaken.

Those that continue to have enmity within their souls for such governmental assistance that every American can apply for and should feel when life becomes unbalanced and cruel, our government within America can and should be there so that unbalance-ness and that cruelty won’t allow a decrease that will profoundly infringe upon the growth of that person or persons and won’t infringe upon their right to live. Assistance from our government shouldn’t be a negative situation rather a situation to carry on and path the way toward the life that person had before or path the way toward something better.

Very well said, thank you. As I said before and you are saying now, Welfare is (the vast majority of the time) a safety net for hard working people that have unfortunate things happen to them, and it provides a way for them to recover and survive while they better their situation.