When welfare pays better than work

[Wehrwolfen]

By MICHAEL TANNER
August 18, 2013


The federal government funds 126 separate programs targeted towards low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals. (The rest fund community-wide programs for low-income neighborhoods, with no direct benefits to individuals.) State and local governments operate more welfare programs.Of course, no individual or family gets benefits from all 72 programs, but many do get aid from a number of them at any point in time.

Today, the Cato institute is releasing a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother with two children. In the Empire State, a family receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities (like milk and cheese) would have a package of benefits worth $38,004, the seventh-highest in the nation.

While that might not sound overly generous, remember that welfare benefits aren’t taxed, while wages are. So someone in New York would have to earn more than $21 per hour to be better off than they would be on welfare.That’s more than the average statewide entry-level salary for a teacher.

Plus, going to work means added costs such as paying for child care, transportation and clothing.Not to mention that, even if it’s not a money-loser, a person moving from welfare to work will see some form of loss — namely, less time for leisure as opposed to work.

If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening work requirements in welfare programs, removing exemptions and narrowing the definition of work.

In New York, lawmakers should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
When welfare pays better than work - NYPOST.com

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it".
Benjamin Franklin.

]

 

[CalGun]

But you forget the most important part of the equation. They vote for the people who take the money from someone else and give it to them.

 

[mak2]

I think it is a sign minimum wage is far too low.

By MICHAEL TANNER
August 18, 2013


The federal government funds 126 separate programs targeted towards low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals. (The rest fund community-wide programs for low-income neighborhoods, with no direct benefits to individuals.) State and local governments operate more welfare programs.Of course, no individual or family gets benefits from all 72 programs, but many do get aid from a number of them at any point in time.

Today, the Cato institute is releasing a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother with two children. In the Empire State, a family receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities (like milk and cheese) would have a package of benefits worth $38,004, the seventh-highest in the nation.

While that might not sound overly generous, remember that welfare benefits aren’t taxed, while wages are. So someone in New York would have to earn more than $21 per hour to be better off than they would be on welfare.That’s more than the average statewide entry-level salary for a teacher.

Plus, going to work means added costs such as paying for child care, transportation and clothing.Not to mention that, even if it’s not a money-loser, a person moving from welfare to work will see some form of loss — namely, less time for leisure as opposed to work.

If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening work requirements in welfare programs, removing exemptions and narrowing the definition of work.

In New York, lawmakers should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
When welfare pays better than work - NYPOST.com

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it".
Benjamin Franklin.

]

 

[Wiseone]

By MICHAEL TANNER
August 18, 2013


The federal government funds 126 separate programs targeted towards low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals. (The rest fund community-wide programs for low-income neighborhoods, with no direct benefits to individuals.) State and local governments operate more welfare programs.Of course, no individual or family gets benefits from all 72 programs, but many do get aid from a number of them at any point in time.

Today, the Cato institute is releasing a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother with two children. In the Empire State, a family receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities (like milk and cheese) would have a package of benefits worth $38,004, the seventh-highest in the nation.

While that might not sound overly generous, remember that welfare benefits aren’t taxed, while wages are. So someone in New York would have to earn more than $21 per hour to be better off than they would be on welfare.That’s more than the average statewide entry-level salary for a teacher.

Plus, going to work means added costs such as paying for child care, transportation and clothing.Not to mention that, even if it’s not a money-loser, a person moving from welfare to work will see some form of loss — namely, less time for leisure as opposed to work.

If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening work requirements in welfare programs, removing exemptions and narrowing the definition of work.

In New York, lawmakers should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
When welfare pays better than work - NYPOST.com

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it".
Benjamin Franklin.

I stopped reading right there, I'm sorry but the line of logic that "community programs don't help the individual because they target a community not an individual" is too much bull**** to swallow in one sentence.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think it is a sign minimum wage is far too low.

No, it is a sign that social "safety net" programs are far too generous. Why should having dependents get you a raise in pay or a reduction in taxation? Less than 3% work for the minimum wage yet more than 15% get gov't income "assistance". This system is a back door method of providing that liberal dream, the "living wage"; it simply makes all, not just the employer (if any) pay that amount to the "needy".

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Why should anyone want to work when they can stay home and receive all the Welfare assistance and SNAP included?

 

[Dapper Andy]

I stopped reading right there, I'm sorry but the line of logic that "community programs don't help the individual because they target a community not an individual" is too much bull**** to swallow in one sentence.

How did you get that from that quote?

 

[Dapper Andy]

I think it is a sign minimum wage is far too low.

Wouldn't states and the federal government have to increase welfare programs if they increased minimum wage?

 

[Wiseone]

How did you get that from that quote?

By misreading it :/ Well I guess I have egg on my face now.

 

[Fisher]

No, it is a sign that social "safety net" programs are far too generous. Why should having dependents get you a raise in pay or a reduction in taxation? Less than 3% work for the minimum wage yet more than 15% get gov't income "assistance". This system is a back door method of providing that liberal dream, the "living wage"; it simply makes all, not just the employer (if any) pay that amount to the "needy".

Or not generous enough in some ways. I would support making the transition a softer landing. Other than perhaps Section 8 Housing, a lot of welfare programs are a cliff that people are not willing to jump off of when they are on it. If there were better transition sliding-scale benefits it would help.

Even unemployment is like that. If you get a job, you lose your benefits, but when you get a job, you may not get your first check until a month or more passes depending on whether you are paid "in the hole" and for some people that can be a real problem.

 

[rocket88]

But you forget the most important part of the equation. They vote for the people who take the money from someone else and give it to them.

Both sides do that, it just depends on who gets the net benefit.

 

[rocket88]

Or not generous enough in some ways. I would support making the transition a softer landing. Other than perhaps Section 8 Housing, a lot of welfare programs are a cliff that people are not willing to jump off of when they are on it. If there were better transition sliding-scale benefits it would help.

Even unemployment is like that. If you get a job, you lose your benefits, but when you get a job, you may not get your first check until a month or more passes depending on whether you are paid "in the hole" and for some people that can be a real problem.

I like that. It certainly makes sense - why jump off the cliff into uncertainty?

Now what I've actually favored for some time is to make those on welfare work for the betterment of society. Make it a paycheck for work done.

 

[shagg]

I've felt that "welfare reform" has been long overdue for a long time.

what if:

- "Housing assistance" meant living in community housing (far cheaper to run), and you had to share communal bathrooms and kitchens. No TV except news/weather.

- WIC/foodstamps meant you have to go to a state run food depot to pick up your "rations", which kept you fed and nourished, but were the cheapest things that can do so. No alcohol obviously. Something like the REMs the military uses, or cheaper if possible without being unhealthy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Or not generous enough in some ways. I would support making the transition a softer landing. Other than perhaps Section 8 Housing, a lot of welfare programs are a cliff that people are not willing to jump off of when they are on it. If there were better transition sliding-scale benefits it would help.

Even unemployment is like that. If you get a job, you lose your benefits, but when you get a job, you may not get your first check until a month or more passes depending on whether you are paid "in the hole" and for some people that can be a real problem.

The cliff is largely gov't created. Having two kids does not make your work skills any better but it does seem to raise your expectations of what "worthwhile" work will have to pay. As I have pointed out, a minimum wage job (or even two) is likely going to lower your standard of living, compared to the "safety net" that is now offered.

Under no rational system should working pay less than your dole benefit, even your unemployment benefits are not designed to make having no job pay more than your prior job, but adding in various "safety net" benefits can have exactly that effect. Many are able to go from dropping out of HS directy to the dole, simly by creating that magical dependent (or two). Once you understand that simply voting "properly" is likely to prevent you from having to work (more or harder) to earn your "living wage" that skews your piorites considerably.

 

[CalGun]

The dependency creates the greatest threat to our way of life. Cut it off we have riots and disorder. Keep doing it we risk total failure of our economic system when you take all you can from the job creators and it's not enough causing the value of the dollar to collapse. The radical left and even Rino vote buyers just can't seem to imagine that. Yet they've produced the DHS to manage it. It may be 5 or 20 years off bu this way is not sustainable. Eventually the cards will tumble.

 

[Mr X]

As I have pointed out, a minimum wage job (or even two) is likely going to lower your standard of living, compared to the "safety net" that is now offered.

Under no rational system should working pay less than your dole benefit.

I completely agree, but the reason this why this is happening isn't because benefits are too high, it's because minimum wage is too low.
Min wage has fallen in real terms for at least the past decade.

 

[Fisher]

The cliff is largely gov't created. Having two kids does not make your work skills any better but it does seem to raise your expectations of what "worthwhile" work will have to pay. As I have pointed out, a minimum wage job (or even two) is likely going to lower your standard of living, compared to the "safety net" that is now offered.

Under no rational system should working pay less than your dole benefit, even your unemployment benefits are not designed to make having no job pay more than your prior job, but adding in various "safety net" benefits can have exactly that effect. Many are able to go from dropping out of HS directy to the dole, simly by creating that magical dependent (or two). Once you understand that simply voting "properly" is likely to prevent you from having to work (more or harder) to earn your "living wage" that skews your piorites considerably.

I understand your point in the abstract, but it is not so black and white in the real world. I could replace someone who has been with me from the beginning with someone else who could do the same work for $30K a year less, but I don't. There are intangible things people value as well beyond productivity, like she makes me laugh, she has no problem putting me in check, she will tell me exactly what she thinks of something, she has no problem if I need her to go pick up my son from school or drop off my family's dry cleaning, and she will tell me no/do it yourself if she has other things to do. I call her my work mom. :2razz:

 

[ttwtt78640]

I completely agree, but the reason this why this is happening isn't because benefits are too high, it's because minimum wage is too low.
Min wage has fallen in real terms for at least the past decade.

As I have pointed out, only about 3% work minimum wage jobs yet 15% get "safety net" assistance. If the gov't would be honest about inflation then perhaps the federal minmum wage (MW) would be raised accordingly, yet that would also cause (trigger?) SS retirement and gov't COLA raise costs to be incurred.

What do you propose for a MW in realtion to the federal poverty level (FPL)?

Should the MW now equate to the FPL for a "family" of 3 or 4?

The MW is currently about equal to the FPL for 2 people, which I think is just about right.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I understand your point in the abstract, but it is not so black and white in the real world. I could replace someone who has been with me from the beginning with someone else who could do the same work for $30K a year less, but I don't. There are intangible things people value as well beyond productivity, like she makes me laugh, she has no problem putting me in check, she will tell me exactly what she thinks of something, she has no problem if I need her to go pick up my son from school or drop off my family's dry cleaning, and she will tell me no/do it yourself if she has other things to do. I call her my work mom. :2razz:

How is your "overpaying" a worker voluntarily justification for demanding that I do so via taxation? In the "real world" most are expected to support themselves and their dependents as well as those that fall on "hard times", but dropping out of HS and making dependents is not falling on "hard times". That is simply demanding that you must get more than you can provide for yourself - the entitlement attitude that many now embrace based upon their consistant voting patterns.

 

[Fisher]

How is your "overpaying" a worker voluntarily justification for demanding that I do so via taxation? In the "real world" most are expected to support themselves and their dependents as well as those that fall on "hard times", but dropping out of HS and making dependents is not falling on "hard times". That is simply demanding that you must get more than you can provide for yourself - the entitlement attitude that many now embrace based upon their consistant voting patterns.

I guess I have a soul that doesn't compel me to believe that people should only be paid the lowest wage possible and live as miserably as can be imposed upon them :shrug:

 

[ttwtt78640]

I guess I have a soul that doesn't compel me to believe that people should only be paid the lowest wage possible and live as miserably as can be imposed upon them :shrug:

Neither do 97% of employers, it would appear, since only about 3% of US jobs now pay the federal minimum wage.

 

[Rod Knox]

If minimum wage were increased to $12 there would obviously be an upward indexing of most wages.