Let's Talk About Welfare

3. They've decided that they have enough houses and just aren't hiring.

 

I'm OK with a safety net. The vast majority of people think we need something. Where most logical people draw the line is when people are collecting without giving back, if they're able. Basically if you get free money, you should be working it off, not sitting at home doing nothing. And there should be no welfare for having extra kids. After 2, they should be removed from the household. People having children when they can't even take care of them are HORRIBLE, useless, selfish people.

Giving people more and more is a BAD idea on every level. There are far too many lazy losers who would rather live on the lowest rung, then get a job.

 

Jobs are being added, so there are hires occurring (evident by CES and JOLTS), but not enough to spur growth in the economy. Many of these jobs are just unattractive compared to welfare or unemployment benefits.

This brings me to my original point about the effective marginal rates of low and moderate income families who utilise transfer payments. For each marginal $1 that someone with a low income earns, the gradual withdrawal of these benefits means that their after-tax income rises by less than $1, which creates a disincentive to work. Why work hard for a little less money, when you can simply have all the leisure you want with unemployment and welfare?

This can only be corrected by reforming the social safety nets (which doesn't fix the problem in the long-run) or fixing the employment problem, which may need some structural changes with the economy.

 

Why should you care? There are plenty of unemployed you can hire for your "hard labour." Your model is purely conceptual. There are plenty of people willing to be hired. You're just talking ideological gibberish, you dislike all government, etc.

 

I don't care. I actually support their decision to be lazy.

I could hire some people, but the purpose of creating jobs is to create value, not work.

I beg to differ. This macro economical analysis has been discussed by many different economist, and the CBO makes this assessment the effective marginal tax rates from low and income families all the time.

 

At what point does a "safety net" become a hammock so comfy you never want to get out of it?

 

That is precisely why pure capitalism dies out. You have only yourselves to blame. If you could bother to have the slightest framework to account for such problems, you might have no socialists to complain about. At the end of the day the people will hang you for your unempathetic short-sightedness.

 

Don't blame me. Capitalism allowed me to replace my secretary with my smartphone through innovation. Now I can use my freed up capital on other things, and my Secretary can do other things now.

I don't see why you believe it makes sense to employ people for jobs that do not help others or make others better off. Don't you believe we have far too much of that?

 

Technology can replace everyone. The remaining work should be divided up. If you mean do I think we should do away with grocery store clerks, then yes. They should spend a couples of hours in a greenhouse.

 

And the world isn't currently better off for it. That secretary has less power now. It sounds like you are the one who is no longer doing the world any good. Why do you not change your collective course, before the world takes notice?

 

I seriously doubt you do. If that job opening is hundreds of miles away, it does that applicant little good.

 

There is a two year limit on welfare payments. you are given time to go to school and get a trade welfare is not a lifetime of payments. foodstamps have no limit. unemployment is paid by the employer not the government. Socical Security is paid by you.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...are-3-unemployed-people-every-job-opening-ob/

 

considering the numbers, there are perhaps 5% of recipients who are perfectly happy being leeches.

Its the other 95% (along with their children) that the social safety net is designed for.
But for some reason, when social programs are discussed the right only sees the 5%?

 

It doesn't look like they're buying your schtick, Vixen. Maybe you should get out while you're ahead. Out of myopic greed, I mean. I don't think the police are going to die for you.

 

Limitless SNAP, Section Eight Housing, energy assistance, and Obamaphones - all paid for the taxpayers.

 

Section Eight Housing pays for the housing of people who work in the city but have to live outside of it. Otherwise they'd put a knife in your gut. Maybe you should count your blessings.

 

Taxcutter says:
Is that any worse than the fact they've outsource their shakedowns to the IRS?

Maybe crooks should get out from in front of the big screen and go do their own armed robbery.

 

I agree with you and think you will find that a much larger majority than you would suppose do not take kindly to having their necessities spoken ill of by the exploitative beneficiaries of people living in said houses.

 

Energy nassistance is only one time a year, a single person making less then 14000 a year, snap for a single person making less then 12000 a year. and for Obamaphones. I didnt vote for him. section 8 is for a limited amount of people. making poverty wages or less. there is a lot of waste in the government I dont think that helping the poor is such a bad thing. Now paying 5.00 for a single screw is something to get mad about I think you would care more about that. Lets talk about the true waste of this government.

 

Probably, since in certain cities Liberals and Democrats don't want me to carry a gun to defend myself. That said, Section 8 housing is horrible. They build crappy housing via (*)(*)(*)(*) poor contractors with union regulations that make it insanely expensive and knock it all down a few years later with it inevitably because an unsanitary, graffiti covered crack house. Like it or not, poverty and drugs and gangs go hand in hand and these places become a breeding ground, partly because since no one owns the property except the government and its basically "free" housing for them they have no pride of ownership so they don't take care of it.

 

Depends on the company.

 

I don't have any problem with safety nets for people who suffer real adversity, so long as those programs are administered locally, not centrally. What I don't abide is rewarding and incenting repeated bad choices and behavior over time with taxpayer funds, and that's what we do in the US.

 

We do not do anything in the U.S.

 

I see you are from the UK , so when the dole pays the same as min wage, wouldn't you just sign on , most people would...