Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Smart businessperson vs moocher?
Jon Stewart asked a very interesting question a while back and I'd be interested in reading people's opinion on this:
"Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break you're a smart businessperson, but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a moocher?"
Re: Smart businessperson vs moocher?
I guess it really depends on whether the "moocher" is willing to work towards a goal of self sufficiency or not.
I have no problem with people taking advantage of government benefits as long as it is used as a short term safety net versus an ongoing way of life.
I completely agree with cincy
Well, that's a loaded question!
This is more of a guess...
Corporations are highly regulated and checked up upon by a variety of governmental oversight groups: OSHA, EPA, IRS, etc. I am not claiming they are without blemish, but they do have a lot of check points, which have been built into the commerical/governmental system. Their utilizing the system, for their benefit, comes with a cost to them - they are checked up upon.
The issue isn't people taking USING public assistance. The issue is TAKING ADVANTAGE of public assistance. There is a huge difference.
People who scorn others for using public assistance, are just plain insensitive and heartless.
People who scorn others for taking up resources others legitimately need by taking advantage/gaming the system are just plain correct.
I don't think many object to the underprivilged getting help.
What the objection is to is the lack of oversight and that a well-bodied, pretty smart person, who has questionable morals, can use government money to buy a flat screen, a Dooney and Bourke handbag, and still drive a nice car. Those multiple of thousands of dollars they essentially STEAL annually should go to the people who actually need the assistance for bare necessities - food, decent shelter, clothing, educational supplies, job/career help, etc.
We DO have a nation of criminals that are taking from the government coffers who do not need to and with a little bit of decent morals and some elbow grease, could be gainfully employed.
Example, DH once flew with another pilot who told him about a group of young unemployed women who all have multiple children intentionally to keep the kids on government support. Each day of the week, one mother babysits all the children in the group so the other mothers can go out and have fun, relaxing, shopping, spending money. Then they rotate between the moms so every mom gets to be away.
How's that for legit?
At least the businessperson is providing jobs and perhaps giving a valuable service or product to others. It's assumed that a business is not a philanthropy, and as such the businessman's sole obligation is to gain profit and give the maximum valuable return to its shareholders.
Then there's the other person who basically contributes nothing or not much while sponging off the system. I see the product of this type of people in my work. They're the kids who never have a pencil, a piece of paper, or any handout that they have been given. If they are given a pencil, most likely it ends up the way three of them ended up today: broken in two on the floor.
I also feel that in this society of opportunity the moocher is more likely to be a profligate spender and wasting his money on entertainment rather than necessity. Ruby Payne's Understanding Poverty book explains this. I feel that there are more people who show lack of intelligence, errors in judgment, and the like than there are the genuine needy. That's just my opinion.
How much "government money" do you think people actually get each month? I can tell you that it isn't nearly enough to buy a flat screen TV or Dooney & Bourke with. In Washington State, for example, the most you can possibly get with a family of three (one adult, two children) is $478. (http://www.dshs.wa.gov/manuals/eaz/sections/stds4cash.shtml#388-478-0020). That's not going to buy you a designer handbag and leave you anything left over to eat with, let alone to make BMW payments with.
So, someone your H knows told a story about someone else he may or may not actually know personally and how they take turns babysitting for each other's kids? And that's supposed to illustrate how government assistance is wasted? Huh?
Most states have a maximum number of months that you can ever, in your entire lifetime, collect TANF (or welfare, if you prefer). It's usually around 48 months or 60 months in some places. And most states also have a maximum number of children that will qualify, so if you have more than that, you're not getting additional assistance no matter what.
Then if this is the case, why is there SUCH a firestorm over this issue? Clearly, we have an epidemic of people taking advantage of government dollars. Otherwise there would not be so much political pressure, medic coverage, and bantering back and forth.
You forgot to mention those people who take seasonal jobs and then file unemployment in the "off" seasons when they really could just go get work to be fully employed all 12 months of the year.
Government assistance needs to be for people who have fallen on hard times. Period. Not for people who don't feel like working.
No, we really don't have an epidemic of people taking advantage of the government. There is zero evidence to support this. Fox News and Facebook postings about the girl in front of you with five kids and a LV handbag would love you to believe that there is some sort of epidemic, but it's simply not true.
I have no doubt that there are some individuals out there who are indeed taking advantage of the system who don't deserve it. But until I see evidence that these people are anything but a tiny minority of all assistance recipients, I'm going to call this a non-issue.
And no matter how much you take advantage of the system, it's simply not possible to get enough money off welfare to be buying BMWs, flat screen TVs, and designer handbags. Welfare simply isn't that generous. I'm sure there are some people who actually have good under-the-table jobs that they're hiding from the government and don't actually need the assistance, and that's how they're able to afford those luxury items, but does anyone really think that there's some sort of en masse scamming by people making $80,000 a year off the books? And if you're making that kind of money, why go through all the paperwork and trouble just for a measly $500 a month in TANF?
Can you give me an example of this? I'm not sure what you mean here.
I saw this a lot when I worked in banking. People, usually men, who work in areas that have off seasons and basically do seasonal employment - one customer I can think of specifically was a fisherman on one of those large boats. He openly told me that in his off times, he just collects unemployment because it's better than having to work in the months he isn't needed on the boat.
I have a cousin who does this working seasonally in Colorado ski areas and then filing for unemployment for the other parts of the year.
The mother of DH and my little Brother (Big Brother/Big Sister Program) gets a ton of state support for her two kids and for herself and never has to work...ever.
I just don't think that all states are as stringent as (I think you cited Washington as an example) you think.
I have a cousin in Canada that does this. She works from May-September when they need extra employees to accommodate tourists and collects unemployment during the winter. She's older, in her 50s, but she's been doing that for quite some time now.
You said:" No, we really don't have an epidemic of people taking advantage of the government. There is zero evidence to support this."
Okay...when...where is this evidence to support that we do not have enough people taking advantage of the government to be concerned? Where is the evidence depicting that we do not have a society of moochers (people who do not need help but take it and take it away from those who legitimately DO need help)?
Are you sure there is "zero evidence?"
Because maybe you should read this article.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/02/the-fraud-in-our-entitlement-s/1
Stats from the FBI, Social Security Administration, Medicare, Medicaid.
Nope there is absolutely ZERO evidence of people frauding/mooching the government.
You're asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. If you say there is rampant fraud, the onus is on you to prove that there is or to at least show evidence that there is.
The article that you posted is mostly about Medicaid and Medicare fraud, which is not the same thing as welfare/cash benefits. And most of the Medicaid and Medicare fraud comes from healthcare providers and medical device companies, not actual individual beneficiaries. I am not disputing that this is a big problem (although frankly, it's a huge - possibly even bigger - problem with private insurance companies too).
It also addresses Social Security fraud, but the only evidence given for this is that a large number of disability claims are approved by judges. How is that fraud? It may or may not suggest fraud but it doesn't prove anything at all. It could be that only legitimate cases actually end up in front of judges and the others are weeded out before they ever see a courtroom. It's impossible to tell from that one statistic.
And the article addresses exactly zero cases of welfare recipients buying large-screen TVs and designer handbangs while collecting TANF. I thought that's what we were talking about specifically here. If you have evidence that a large percentage of people receiving food stamps or TANF benefits are not actually eligible for these benefits as they have thousands of dollars in income that they can use to buy Louis Vuitton, then I am interested in seeing it.
Again, I'm sure there are cases of people gaming the system to collect benefits that they aren't really eligible for or don't deserve (deserve being a highly subjective term, of course). But I do not believe that it's a huge issue or a rampant occurrence.
actually there are various workarounds for the time limit you can receive welfare (tanf/afdc, etc). Some of the exceptions where I live include having a child under 3 (you are not required to work if you have a child under 3 and it doesn't count towards any type of lifetime limit), have a case pending for extension or for disability for you or a dependent family member. I personally know someone who had exhausted her benefits who has now applied for SSDI based on stress/anxiety. Her SSDI case has been processing for over a year now with no end in sight. She has been encouraged to also apply for two of her 4 children which she will do if hers is denied (heck she might do it if it isn't denied). Right now she receives Section 8 housing (free housing), AFDC benefits of $404, Food Stamps of $528, Medicaid for herself and her children which includes free transportation to any medical appointments and WIC for the youngest child in addition to her food stamps. About 2 years ago she worked for about 6 months (state paid for 100% of her childcare) and had some of her benefits slightly reduced. However that was more than compensated for by her $2300 tax refund she received thanks to the EIC and she DID buy herself a large television and a playstation 360. We could split hairs that this was "her" money but only in the sense that her money was freed up by not having to pay for day to day necessities.Also she always has quite a bit of money left on her EBT card every month which she tells me she has used to barter for other items (ie buying someone else's groceries in exchange either for cash or goods). To her credit she does not drink or use drugs.
People get very up in arms when abuses get brought up and I don't get it. NO one is saying that the poor should get anything less than their fair share of benefits. However, it's hard to see waiting lists for govt housing that women in the domestic violence shelter can't get on because they are so full yet there are people who have lived in govt housing who are capable of working but are unwilling to do so.
A friend of mine owns a fast food restaurant and has another issue- he can't get them to work past 28 hours. If you cannot somehow get the workfirst workaround, you are required to work 28 hours. Anything you earn above a certain amount reduces your benefit check by a comparable amount. If the store gets busy and he needs someone to come in early or stay a few minutes late most will refuse since they don't get anything out of the deal. It's common talk around the store for the workers to compare how close they are to "their 28" and frequently if they are scheduled over there is invariably and illness, ride situation, etc that occurs.
Obviously there are hardworking people not doing this, but we HAVE incentivized not working and we should be able to explore ways to help people help themselves in such a way that everyone is better off in the long run including the benefit recipient.
Don't you think it's kind of sad that someone who's working should make so little money that they're eligible for government benefits in the first place?
As for your friend, what do you think should be different? Do you think that someone with a pending disability case should have their benefits run out? If someone has a bogus case, ok maybe they don't really deserve benefits, but what about someone with a legit case? Should she not receive Medicaid?
I mean, $930 a month for someone with four kids doesn't sound like a living large kind of lifestyle to me, even if you don't have to pay rent.
Like I said above, part of the problem isn't that government benefits are so incredibly generous - it's that fulltime work, in many cases, doesn't even pay enough to help you stay afloat. Even if you're able to get a full 40 hours a week (which is very difficult if you work an hourly job sometimes), at minimum wage, that's only $290 a week (before taxes), $1160 a month (before taxes). How can you survive on that with a family, let alone actually get ahead?
Actually where I live you would live pretty well on $900+ with no rent. For a family of 5 for groceries I probably just reach the $528 mark but I buy a lot of organics and local products. Mind you that in addition to the other benefits, I missed listing that the kids get free breakfast and lunch through the school reduced lunch program so no breakfast or lunch is needed 5 day a week for 3 of the 4 kids. School fieldtrips are automatically scholarshipped as are a full family membership to the Y and extra curricular sports activities and their gear. My avg light bill is around $125 per month. Car insurance isn't too much either- maybe $80 for one car? A straight talk phone with all of the bells and whistles is around $50. There is still over $600 left per month. I actually think that is a lot of money for someone not working. I'm not sure what could be done about pending ssdi except to perhaps try to find a way to streamline that process. She'd be ok anyway for another 2 years because her youngest is only 1. In 2 years she can have another and reset the clock on the 3 years if the SSDI doesn't work out.
As far as 28 hours go, I suspect if you got closer to 40 on a regular basis you would lose an ever greater chunk of your benefits and if you stayed somewhere for a period of time where you advanced or received raises that it would not be too long before you advanced off of most if not all assistance. However that is not the goal so it doesn't seem to happen. It think this along with what you described as 40 hours on minimum wage for a family make a great case for a stairstepping of benefits. There are some vocational programs that work this way where a family continues to receive benefits that are more than they would receive (after wages) than they would be if they were not working and they are slowly stepped down over a period of about 2 or 3 years as incomes increase. This seems like a more effective system than simply capping benefits at a certain wage/hours worked because it encourages people to improve their situation to maximize their benefits.
There is also a local program where residents of a certain housing unit are required to go to monthly meetings regarding financial stewardship and a financial counselor works with them every month to help them put money into savings. This savings account does NOT disqualify them for any govt benefits like it normally would. The program is geared towards 2 years but you can be there up to 5. The focus is on trying to obtain home ownership but for some people that's not reasonable or practical so their goal is to build themselves a buffer and learn to rules of money and economy that are not really taught anymore in schools. Rather than creating an aquarium effect of feeding fish in a bowl who swim around getting nowhere, there is some forward movement towards something better. It's completely about empowering people to take care of themselves well.
Obviously there are going to be people who don't fit into every scenario (the severely disabled, very elderly, etc) but they should be the exceptions to requirements rather than the rule around which entitlement programs seem to exist.
I've worked with women at the domestic violence shelter who were thoroughly ashamed that they had to ask for this sort of help. Because of the people who abuse it, people who could really use it are frequently extremely reluctant to apply or use them because of the stigma related to the abusers.