29 replies to this topic

[Godeskian]

It's worth noting that in the UK, we have the concept of third generation dolists. Families where the primary source of income for at least three generations has been welfare money from the state rather than earned income. In many cases that have been documented on everything from genuine documentaries such as Horizon episodes to fanciful populist drek life 'benefits street', it is because the families have found ways to play the system so hard, that they are actually financially better off than they would be earning minimum wage (or substantially more).

Take for instance Sharon Minkin (not a third generation dolist by the by), who would have to earn seventy thousand pounds, over a hundred thousand dollars a year, to give her the same effective income as she gets on benefits.

http://www.express.c...-000-in-welfare

Quote

The divorcee lives in a three-bedroom, semi-detached house in the market town of St Albans, Herts.
Her rented home is equipped with a farmhouse-style kitchen, giant flat-screen TV, large garden, piano and wooden floors.
From October, her catalogue of taxpayer-funded handouts will total £3,905-a-month or a staggering £46,860-a-year.

She gets a more money in her housing benefit alone than I earn in a month.

Is she unique? No.
Does she represent the minority of benefits claimants? Yes
Do I think she's a representative of how badly benefits can go wrong?

Well, yes I do.

Do I genuinely, angrily resent the way she is playing the system whereas I have to get up every morning to go to work?

Yeah, I do genuinely resent it.

I'll be the first to say I believe that a goverment has a duty to ensure it's people are fed, housed and kept healthy, but at what point are you genuinely better off not working? I'd say Ms Minkin has reached that point.

Edited by Godeskian, 27 January 2014 - 02:23 PM.

[Cait]

Godeskian, on 27 January 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

I'll be the first to say I believe that a goverment has a duty to ensure it's people are fed, housed and kept healthy, but at what point are you genuinely better off not working? I'd say Ms Minkin has reached that point.

See this is the crux of the matter.  I agree, I believe the government should ensure that people are not dying on the street from homelessness and starvation and treatable disease.  I don't blame anyone for resenting the fact that they have to work harder fore less than some welfare recipients.  BUT, who is responsible for allowing these abuses?  

Instead of governments looking to do away with benefits, how about governments administering these programs effectively?  That's what I resent.  Instead of dealing with fraud or closing loopholes, or ferreting out those that would game the taxpayers [who ultimately pay for all these benefits], politicians fight to do away with the benefits altogether.  That's throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it's not just fixing the problems of fraud and mis-use, it's literally killing some people.  

And this is the problem I have with political ideologies.  They cannot find the balance.  They adhere to rigid philosophies and refuse to look at the fact that unintended consequences are destroying the benefits of many programs.  The left cannot look beyond "helping the poor" to see the abuse, and the right cannot look beyond the fraud to see the "aide" that is so necessary.  Each afraid to look at the problem with a fresh set of eyes.

But then, that is bad leadership.  But, hey, it's always gonna be politics as usual, right?

[Spectacles]

Gode, I hear you. The difference is that U.S. benefits pale in comparison to those in the UK.

Furthermore, real incomes are declining because a lot of the new jobs are minimum wage, and our minimum wage is not adequate. This is why most food stamp (SNAP) users are now working-age Americans, not the elderly and children anymore.

http://bigstory.ap.o...age-americans-0

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a first, working-age people now make up the majority in U.S. households that rely on food stamps — a switch from a few years ago, when children and the elderly were the main recipients.

Some of the change is due to demographics, such as the trend toward having fewer children. But a slow economic recovery with high unemployment, stagnant wages and an increasing gulf between low-wage and high-skill jobs also plays a big role.

Quote

Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among workers with some college training, a sign that the safety net has stretched further to cover America's former middle class, according to an analysis of government data for The Associated Press by economists at the University of Kentucky. Formally called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, or SNAP, the program now covers 1 in 7 Americans.


The findings coincide with the latest economic data showing workers' wages and salaries growing at the lowest rate relative to corporate profits in U.S. history.

Quote

Economists say having a job may no longer be enough for self-sufficiency in today's economy.
"A low-wage job supplemented with food stamps is becoming more common for the working poor," said Timothy Smeeding, an economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in income inequality. "Many of the U.S. jobs now being created are low- or minimum-wage — part-time or in areas such as retail or fast food — which means food stamp use will stay high for some time, even after unemployment improves."

[Godeskian]

Yes and no, Cait (Specs and I cross-posted. I'll respond to you shortly Specs ). The UK goverment for what little long term good it may do when a new goverment takes over is actually taking steps to curb the worst of the benefits abuse. One example is reducing benefits for new migrants. Is it a perfect solution, probably not. Given that a substantial number of migrants however have been willing to state on camera for various programs that they're coming to the UK for benefits, it's probably not the worst thing.

Then there's capping the benefits at 500£ a week, (for the record, that's more than what I take home, and more than I earn pre-tax), which found that some 33,000 families in the UK were earning more on benefits than the average wage in the UK as of 2013. That may be a drop in the ocean in a country of some 64 million people (as per the ONS) but it's still a huge number of people who were earning more than most people can be expected to while working full time.

I don't exactly have a fortune, but I live a pretty good life on less than the benefits cap, and I work for it. I find it difficult to believe that an average family on benefits, even capped at 500£ would struggle with life's basic necessities. Sure, they might not get those five star holidays, but then neither do the vast majority of britain's workers. But at 500£ a week, they won't be starving, or freezing to death either.

It's easy enough to say that its politics as usual, and there's some truth to it, but I also think that it's possible to generate the political will to try and find solutions to the problem. Not every proposed solution will be perfect, but even an imperfect solution may be a step forward. To partially requote a pragmatist saying I have hanging on my desk at work, 'Win when you can, compromise where you must, and lose as little as possible'

Edited by Godeskian, 27 January 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Spectacles]

Quote

Gode: Then there's capping the benefits at 500£ a week

Holy crap! That's the equivalent of around $830 a week! Granted, the cost of living is higher in England--housing is unreal by American standards outside NYC and San Francisco--but yow!

That's more than a family of three receive in TANF benefits for an entire month in the U.S.:



http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=4034

Quote

A Few States Increased TANF Benefits in 2013

Between July 2012 and July 2013, no state cut benefit levels in nominal dollars.  A few states increased benefits to follow through on past commitments to modestly raise benefits or adjust them for inflation.  One state made legislative changes to improve benefit levels in the coming years.
Seven states increased benefit levels between July 2012 and July 1, 2013.  (See Table 1 and Appendix 1.)
States with Annual Adjustments

• Effective July 2013, Connecticut increased its benefit level for a family of three from $674 to $688 based on an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). The state’s COLA was enacted in 2007, but was suspended for the past four years.
  
• Maryland had a small benefit increase in October 2012 and will have a larger increase effective November 2013.  Maryland increased the TANF benefit by $2 to $576 for a family of three on October 1, 2012.  Effective November 1, 2013, Maryland’s benefit for a family of three will increase by $48 a month, to $624.[3]
  
• Ohio, which adjusts its TANF benefits annually in line with the Social Security COLA, raised its benefit for a family of three from $450 to $458, effective January 1, 2013.
  
• On October 1, 2012, Texas increased its benefit by $8 to $271.  The Texas legislature generally adjusts its benefit level annually to maintain the average monthly TANF grant at 17 percent of the poverty line.  Effective October 1, 2013, Texas’ benefit for a family of three increased by $6 to $277.
  
• Wyoming’s COLA, implemented in 2009, has enabled the state’s TANF benefit to keep pace with inflation since then.  On July 1, 2013, Wyoming’s benefit for a family of three increased to $616.

[Cait]

Spectacles, on 27 January 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

Quote

Gode: Then there's capping the benefits at 500£ a week

Holy crap! That's the equivalent of around $830 a week! Granted, the cost of living is higher in England--housing is unreal by American standards outside NYC and San Francisco--but yow!

That's more than a family of three receive in TANF benefits for an entire month in the U.S.

Specs you beat me to it, and I had the same reaction.  Holy Crap!!  What kind of taxes do you people pay in order to be able to even approach that kind of welfare?  And, I know the CoL is at play here, but dayum!

Welfare here in the US is deliberately low to force people to either get jobs or cheat to make ends meet.  But, regardless of the cost of living, in America we'd never get that kind of benefit past any Legislature, Democratic or Republican.  
    

[Omega]

Cait, on 27 January 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

And this is the problem I have with political ideologies.  They cannot find the balance.  They adhere to rigid philosophies and refuse to look at the fact that unintended consequences are destroying the benefits of many programs.  The left cannot look beyond "helping the poor" to see the abuse, and the right cannot look beyond the fraud to see the "aide" that is so necessary.  Each afraid to look at the problem with a fresh set of eyes.

But then, that is bad leadership.  But, hey, it's always gonna be politics as usual, right?

Nobody's interested in finding solutions that work. Elect more engineers.

[Elara]

Cait, on 27 January 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Spectacles, on 27 January 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

Quote

Gode: Then there's capping the benefits at 500£ a week

Holy crap! That's the equivalent of around $830 a week! Granted, the cost of living is higher in England--housing is unreal by American standards outside NYC and San Francisco--but yow!

That's more than a family of three receive in TANF benefits for an entire month in the U.S.

Specs you beat me to it, and I had the same reaction.  Holy Crap!!  What kind of taxes do you people pay in order to be able to even approach that kind of welfare?  And, I know the CoL is at play here, but dayum!

Welfare here in the US is deliberately low to force people to either get jobs or cheat to make ends meet.  But, regardless of the cost of living, in America we'd never get that kind of benefit past any Legislature, Democratic or Republican.  

Add me to the "Holy crap!" group. That's just... wow. That is what I made a month at my last job, and I barely get more than that a month on disability.

The problem, as I figure (my simple opinion), is that if people get themselves off any government aid, people working in these government programs would start to lose jobs. And it seems that one program has no clue about another program, sometimes to the point of not knowing they exist. In some cases, even in the same building (yeah, that one shocked me). Which guarantees need of more people working (though many here got cut back recently). Basically, the more people in the system, the more jobs.
I hate to think it, but our government is so messed up.

[Raina]

Cait, on 27 January 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Spectacles, on 27 January 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

Quote

Gode: Then there's capping the benefits at 500£ a week

Holy crap! That's the equivalent of around $830 a week! Granted, the cost of living is higher in England--housing is unreal by American standards outside NYC and San Francisco--but yow!

That's more than a family of three receive in TANF benefits for an entire month in the U.S.

Specs you beat me to it, and I had the same reaction.  Holy Crap!!  What kind of taxes do you people pay in order to be able to even approach that kind of welfare?  And, I know the CoL is at play here, but dayum!

Welfare here in the US is deliberately low to force people to either get jobs or cheat to make ends meet.  But, regardless of the cost of living, in America we'd never get that kind of benefit past any Legislature, Democratic or Republican.  

Wowzas that's over $900 CAD a week, which would be $3600 a month. I don't know exactly what a typical monthly welfare rate is in Canada (I believe it differs depending on the city), but from what I recall reading in the news, $900 a month is closer to what people would get. A politician in the Vancouver area (which, granted, is really expensive) tried living on welfare for a month alone, without any children or other dependents. He ended up living in a really sketchy apartment and practically starving, and had to resort to food banks to eat by the end of the month. Even in a city like Vancouver, $3600/month would be enough to set a single person up quite comfortably.

I know you can't just take the exchange rate and do a direct comparison because of cost of living differences, etc., but the fact that welfare in the UK can allow someone to live in a fairly nice house, whereas welfare in Canada can barely allow you to live in a sketchy apartment in the worse part of town, boggles my mind.

Edited by Raina, 31 January 2014 - 04:05 AM.

[Thia The Muse]

Yeah, I'm on Disablity, which is about $800 a month. I just told my girlfriend we should immigrant!