The Welfare debate

[Cold Highway]

Should welfare be scraped entirely, make changes to the system or should be it just be redone. As far as I know I believe all the Republican candidates agree that Welfare should be limited to two years which is a good idea but should we go further? My personally scrap the system and redo it if not just get rid of it all together.

Note: Votes are public

 

[rivrrat]

If it's kept, it should be limited to a year or less.

 

[WI Crippler]

It needs to be restructured. But I imagine it would create havoc for those on it. They tried out a program here in Wisconsin a few years ago to restructure welfare, to get these people working again and it was met with resistance from the welfare recipients, of course. I understand the idea behind the social safety net, but it should be for productive members of society who have fallen on hard times, not for the bums who don't want to do shit in the first place.

 

[rivrrat]

It needs to be restructured. But I imagine it would create havoc for those on it. They tried out a program here in Wisconsin a few years ago to restructure welfare, to get these people working again and it was met with resistance from the welfare recipients, of course. I understand the idea behind the social safety net, but it should be for productive members of society who have fallen on hard times, not for the bums who don't want to do shit in the first place.

That's just it, isn't it though? The people who want to mooch off the system certainly don't want it restructured. The people who really need the system temporarily should be pleased at restructuring that would ensure the people who need it most are the ones who get the help.

IMO, forcing welfare recipients to do community service type jobs is a brilliant idea and should be implemented in all states. If they want money, they can work for it. Even if it's just a few hours a week.

 

[Cremaster77]

Two years if often not enough time for people to get the help they need to pull themselves out from the need for welfare. For example, a guy who worked at a plant who's job is outsourced and spends the next 6-12 months actively looking for a job but finds that there are none available. He needs to go back to school, retrain to move on with life. Now you've only given the guy a year to retrain. Heck, even an associates degree takes 2 years to get.

There needs to be a mechanism to evaluate how people are using their time on welfare to see if they are actively looking to get themselves out through job search, additional training, school, whatever. Having a hard time limit is as fool hearty as mandatory sentencing, IMO. It completely fails to take into account the actual situation of the individual.

 

[Iriemon]

What constitutes "welfare" is vague and can mean many different things. SS, medicare, pensions, unemployment, and corporate subsidies can all be viewed as a type of welfare.

I generally oppose:

o Long term payments to able bodied people who are not working. I'd rather see Govt make-work programs if an able bodied person cannot get a job.
o Corporate welfare
o Govt payment to folks who clearly don't need it.

I generally support:

o Assistance to the working poor to provide at least a poverty level subsistance
o Educational assistance so that all Americans have the opportunity to reach their full potential
o Govt assistance for affordable basic health care
o Govt programs to provide assistance to needy folks who cannot work because of age or infirmity.

To that end, I support the following welfare reform:

o Eliminate corporate welfare subsidies including tax benefits
o Provide additional assistance for those who need it to pursue their education
o Eliminate Govt SS/medicare welfare payments to the wealthy.
o Reform the health care system so affordable health care is available to all.

Currently there is a 5 year lifetime max for welfare. I'd have to study further to determine whether that should be changed.

 

[GottaHurt]

I think 4-5 years is reasonable.

People find themselves in situations where they become the primary caregiver and without the necessary skills to now support themselves and their children.

1 year to get into the system and enroll in job training or college.
2 years in trade school or an associate program.
1 year after certificate or degree is obtained to find gainful employment.
1 year to wean them off the system.

We don't live in a perfect word, and situations do occur that are beyond our control, that's why I say 4-5 years.

I'm in favor of welfare for people who truly need it, and I think allowances should be made on a case by case basis.

What I'm opposed to, is career welfare. People having more kids to increase their benefit and stay on the welfare dime.

 

[WI Crippler]

o Eliminate Govt SS/medicare welfare payments to the wealthy.
.

Well then the wealthy shouldn't pay for SS or Medicare in the first place.

 

[winston53660]

Well then the wealthy shouldn't pay for SS or Medicare in the first place.

As long as they don't mind those affected living in the PUBLIC parks.

 

[Iriemon]

I think 4-5 years is reasonable.

People find themselves in situations where they become the primary caregiver and without the necessary skills to now support themselves and their children.

1 year to get into the system and enroll in job training or college.
2 years in trade school or an associate program.
1 year after certificate or degree is obtained to find gainful employment.
1 year to wean them off the system.

We don't live in a perfect word, and situations do occur that are beyond our control, that's why I say 4-5 years.

I'm in favor of welfare for people who truly need it, and I think allowances should be made on a case by case basis.

What I'm opposed to, is career welfare. People having more kids to increase their benefit and stay on the welfare dime.

I think that latter concern was addressed in the welfare reform in '97. There is not a lifetime maximum of 5 years for receiving welfare.

 

[Iriemon]

Well then the wealthy shouldn't pay for SS or Medicare in the first place.

The don't, to a large extent. SS taxes are limited to $100,000 income. The really rich don't effectively pay SS taxes as a percentage of their income.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I think we could probably reform welfare more, say change the lifetime cap on it to a year, and then take the money we would be saving and put it into child care and job training assistance programs instead, but considering that all the welfare type programs combined equal only about 8% of federal outlays, I don't think its a high priority in terms of saving taxpayer money.

Disability benefits are a much bigger issue in terms of spiraling costs.

 

[GottaHurt]

I think that latter concern was addressed in the welfare reform in '97. There is not a lifetime maximum of 5 years for receiving welfare.

It might have been addressed, but I believe the problem still exists.

People who are using multiple identities to collect additional benefits. The changing of SS#'s is now rampant allowing the career criminal to go undetected for years, only to switch out SS#'s again to keep from getting caught.

I watched one of those A&E specials on fraud, it was unbelievable. Food stamps being sold for 50 cents on the dollar, traded for drugs etc...

I sign off at work for several gals for WIC and employment verification, but I had no idea the amount of fraud and the nuances of it.

 

[Iriemon]

It might have been addressed, but I believe the problem still exists. [/qutoe]

Anything to substantiate this other than your belief?

People who are using multiple identities to collect additional benefits. The changing of SS#'s is now rampant allowing the career criminal to go undetected for years, only to switch out SS#'s again to keep from getting caught.

I watched one of those A&E specials on fraud, it was unbelievable. Food stamps being sold for 50 cents on the dollar, traded for drugs etc...

I sign off at work for several gals for WIC and employment verification, but I had no idea the amount of fraud and the nuances of it.

That is an issue of law enforcement, not necessarily a policy issue.

 

[AcePylut]

I watched one of those A&E specials on fraud, it was unbelievable. Food stamps being sold for 50 cents on the dollar, traded for drugs etc...

I sign off at work for several gals for WIC and employment verification, but I had no idea the amount of fraud and the nuances of it.

Where I went to college, it was common practice to be walking into a "college" grocery store and see some guy hawking food stamps. The going rate at that time was 60$ worth of food stamps for 40$ cash.

 

[Cephus]

I think in general, 2 years should be sufficient and I think that anyone on welfare needs to be actively doing something with their time, be it going to school or picking up trash on the side of the road. No one that is able bodied should ever be able to just collect a check and do nothing.

We also need to change the current system where people are penalized for trying to work, often they reduce your benefits if you get a poor-paying job that cannot support you so there's no impetus to try to work.

 

[Cold Highway]

We also need to change the current system where people are penalized for trying to work, often they reduce your benefits if you get a poor-paying job that cannot support you so there's no impetus to try to work.

Yea I always thought that was kind of stupid.

 

[Iriemon]

We also need to change the current system where people are penalized for trying to work, often they reduce your benefits if you get a poor-paying job that cannot support you so there's no impetus to try to work.

I that that that well known problem had also been addressed in the '97 comprehensive reform bill.

People talk about "welfare" and claim a lot of stuff about it, but I confess I really don't know how it works. Does anyone know a website that summarize the welfare system and how it works?

 

[Kushinator]

It needs to be completely scrapped and turn into an incentive program, not entitlement.

I know a girl who is single, goes to college, works full time, and takes care of her kids ALONE

When i asked her how she does it, she laughed and said, "I have no idea what sleep is".

Something along the lines of you can only get money after an initial 90 days if you can prove you can keep employment. You would have to show a particular amount of A. Pay stubs/month B. A bank account with money being deposited C. proof of an attempt of some form of education.

Also, you should only be eligible for a maximum of 2 years no matter how many kids you decide to have...

If you dont think thats fair, than i dont think your fair. I had to show my parents my bank statements, and grades so they would cosign for a student loan.

If you want or need gov to be your parents, why shouldnt you be treated as if your a child???

 

[rivrrat]

I that that that well known problem had also been addressed in the '97 comprehensive reform bill.

People talk about "welfare" and claim a lot of stuff about it, but I confess I really don't know how it works. Does anyone know a website that summarize the welfare system and how it works?

Depends on the state, actually.

 

[Cephus]

Also, you should only be eligible for a maximum of 2 years no matter how many kids you decide to have...

I think any kids you have after you go on welfare should be ineligible for benefits (excepting perhaps some time if you didn't know you were pregnant). If you're on the public dole, keep your ****ing legs closed.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Two pages and no mention of negative income tax brackets? For shame!!!

Milton Friedman pointed out one of the most significant problems with welfare is that it organizes a system so that the highest marginal tax rate is on the unemployed welfare recipient, you make more than a certain amount not only do you have the de jure tax increase, but along with it is the de facto tax increase of you losing your welfare. It places a major disincentive for a person on welfare to ever get back to work.

So instead you replace welfare as we know it with a series of negative income tax brackets, arranged in the same way as our current progressive system, just giving a percentage of what you earn, a percentage that gets smaller as you approach the point of making enough so that you end up paying taxes, now having a system where you always have more money for earning more money.

I don't mind the idea of giving a small amount of money to people who can work and don't work, I have a problem with that being enough to get by on on any sustainable basis. If you live in the city, make it $300 a month and access to showers and they'll clothe you if you have a job interview. In the country, same thing, just make it $200 or whatever. Don't pay women to have children, if you can't provide your child with the things your child needs then that's exactly what we have social services for.

I am not sure how welfare would be a disincentive to work, it tops out at just a few hundred bucks a month. I think that the laziness of those that choose to stay on welfare rather than just using it as a safety-net, is the disincentive for them to work and better themselves.

 

[DeeJayH]

who has the link that shows the avg poor person is only poor for 3-6 mos
the rest seem to be leeches save the caregivers class

 

[jallman]

Well, first of all, we should eliminate unnecessary strains on the welfare system by eliminating all welfare for non citizens. Next, limit the time alloted for welfare just like unemployment. Third, focus welfare on education and retraining for skill sets. You might not have a job, but there is nothing stopping you from going to a class or training seminar.

Finally, I am all for a "workfare" program. Make the welfare system a community service program. Let welfare recipients give back by performing community services that would normally have to be paid for in addition to giving out money for welfare.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Man, I explained how.

Think of it this way. You're unemployed and collecting welfare, $400 a month, enough to survive at a very basic level. Now you get offered a job that pays 8,000 a year, it involves you working full time and now you'd be getting $750 a month. You would no longer get welfare checks, and you'd pay 1% in taxes. In this case the marginal tax, when you combine de jure and de facto taxes, which is the amount that you otherwise would have that winds up with the government for taking on this basic level of work, would amount to $407.50 a month plus the full cost of working full time as opposed to not having to work at all. That is 54%, not counting the cost of lost free time.

In any other position in the labor market you might have a 10% marginal tax rate if you got a gigantic raise. A 54% tax (which is understated as per the lost time) is a HUGE disincentive to go back to work.
So make it a normal human marginal tax rate, and the only way to do this is to ease poor people out of welfare via negative income tax brackets.

The reality is humans are homogeneous enough that if there's something that lazy people can take advantage of, there will be lazy people and they will take advantage of it, and thusly providing opportunities for lazy people to take advantage of you is a systemic flaw.

The vast majority of welfare recipients get off of it eventually. I think the average for being on welfare is less than a year. Sure, you might not do any better with a minimum wage job, but most people want better than welfare or a minimum wage job, thus they try to better themselves. For example, if your welfare, you can sit around and collect your 400 dollars a month, or you can go to work for minimum wage and earn less than 10k a year, or you can go out and wait tables and earn about 30k a year.

Moreover, we already have negative tax brackets for the poor that have kids, which is the bulk of those on welfare, its called the Earned Income Credit. We also have safety nets for those that choose to better themselves such as SCHIP, un-employment benefits, and for the working poor, food stamps and housing assistance. The only incentive to stay on welfare for long periods of time is laziness. If anything, the best thing we could do to reform the system would be to further reduce the time you can be on it, and in return provide far more child care assistance for the working poor. After all, the 700 dollars a month or more one has to pay per kid for child care is a much bigger impediment for poor single mothers to enter into the workforce than anything else.