32 year old welfare recipient on why she sits at home and takes welfare, rather than work

[ronthecivil]

Then what?

Sell drugs, duh!

[The Colt 45s]

Well that's Texas not here. As much as school lunches would have been good they certainly weren't happening (and as far as I know still aren't) here. My choice was either to go home for a mustard sandwhich or if someone didn't want their lunch they would give me some of there's.

You can definately get subsidised rent (though the good welfare bums own houses). There's free food here too it's called the food bank but it's a charity not the government. You don't really need childcare when you don't have to go to work but if you get some work under the table you can always pay for care from your buddies with beer. Everyone in Canada has free health insurance but it certainly is not in my fond memories of being relegated to wearing the welfare glasses growing up (in fact it motivated me to get a job such that when I was in grades 11 and 12 I could afford contact lenses and a car which hilarously my parents would sometimes borrow from me). I got free tuition and then some by virtue of having a job and straight A's despite having welfare parents. No free cable or internet here last I checked.

So not as luxuroius as you think and to really optimise it you still have to network and (gasp!) peform some work.

I grew up on the BC welfare system, and I know what it is like. It is not as generous as it is in the USA.

Also, When you and I went to school things were completely different.

I also have worked for the largest food pantry in the State of Texas, and I am very familiar with how things work down here. There is only one food bank in Austin which is quasi-government run, but there are hundreds of food pantries that are run by charities. These resources are completely independent of each other and there is a lot of overlap of services.

Further, regardless of what assistance you get at a food pantry or bank, a person who is on social assistance can receive as much as 600 a month in food stamps/cash to purchase groceries. And if you want to see the other benefits they get, just look at my previous post.

You might not like what this states, but their methodology is correct because it can be replicated: According to the Cato Institute...

In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Welfare benefits are not taxed, while wages are, so we calculated how much money a welfare recipient receiving these six benefits would have to earn in pretax income if she took a job and left the welfare rolls. We computed the federal income tax, the state income tax, and the FICA payroll taxes one would have to pay on wage income; we also took into account both federal and state versions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as well as child tax credits where available (these helped increase the relative value of work but did not fully offset the taxes due).

We found that, just to break even, a person on welfare would often have to take a job that paid considerably more than the value of the forgone welfare benefits. In Hawaii, for example, a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn more than $60,590 a year to be better off. In fact, welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 34 states and the District of Columbia. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, and in five additional states it yields more than a $15-per-hour job.

Consider this: In ten states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than the entry-level salary for a teacher in that state. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, welfare is more generous than the average starting salary for a secretary. And in the three most generous states, welfare pays more than the wages for an entry-level computer programmer. In eight states, welfare recipients receive benefits worth more than the median salary there.This is not even to consider the other costs of going to work. As Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago recently testified before Congress:

[aGENT]

Get a job. There is very low unemployment in Austin.

Lol...what part about these people having no desire to earn an honest living did you miss?

You actually think cutting them off would make them want to get a job?

[ronthecivil]

I grew up on the BC welfare system, and I know what it is like. It is not as generous as it is in the USA.

Also, When you and I went to school things were completely different.

I also have worked for the largest food pantry in the State of Texas, and I am very familiar with how things work down here. There is only one food bank in Austin which is quasi-government run, but there are hundreds of food pantries that are run by charities. These resources are completely independent of each other and there is a lot of overlap of services.

Further, regardless of what assistance you get at a food pantry or bank, a person who is on social assistance can receive as much as 600 a month in food stamps/cash to purchase groceries. And if you want to see the other benefits they get, just look at my previous post.

You might not like what this states, but their methodology is correct because it can be replicated: According to the Cato Institute...

In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Welfare benefits are not taxed, while wages are, so we calculated how much money a welfare recipient receiving these six benefits would have to earn in pretax income if she took a job and left the welfare rolls. We computed the federal income tax, the state income tax, and the FICA payroll taxes one would have to pay on wage income; we also took into account both federal and state versions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as well as child tax credits where available (these helped increase the relative value of work but did not fully offset the taxes due).

We found that, just to break even, a person on welfare would often have to take a job that paid considerably more than the value of the forgone welfare benefits. In Hawaii, for example, a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn more than $60,590 a year to be better off. In fact, welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 34 states and the District of Columbia. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, and in five additional states it yields more than a $15-per-hour job.

Consider this: In ten states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than the entry-level salary for a teacher in that state. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, welfare is more generous than the average starting salary for a secretary. And in the three most generous states, welfare pays more than the wages for an entry-level computer programmer. In eight states, welfare recipients receive benefits worth more than the median salary there.This is not even to consider the other costs of going to work. As Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago recently testified before Congress:

Perhaps then Texas should take a page from our books, cut some costs, and make it liveable but perhaps less enjoyable. I have no problem with that but US state politics are frankly irrelevant to me.

I find it shocking that the Tea partiers let stuff like this go on though.

[ronthecivil]

Lol...what part about these people having no desire to earn an honest living did you miss?

You actually think cutting them off would make them want to get a job?

Making it less opulant and a bit harder would certainly lead to more of them getting jobs.

[aGENT]

Making it less opulant and a bit harder would certainly lead to more of them getting jobs.

Or higher crime...?

[The Colt 45s]

Making it less opulant and a bit harder would certainly lead to more of them getting jobs.

Maybe, but you would have a race riot down here if you did that.

[The Colt 45s]

Perhaps then Texas should take a page from our books, cut some costs, and make it liveable but perhaps less enjoyable. I have no problem with that but US state politics are frankly irrelevant to me.

I find it shocking that the Tea partiers let stuff like this go on though.

It is not a Conservative/Tea party thing. It is about being compassionate and helping real people who have a real need. We all could agree that people like this should be cut off.

[ronthecivil]

It is not a Conservative/Tea party thing. It is about being compassionate and helping real people who have a real need. We all could agree that people like this should be cut off.

But how do you measure it other than hunting down people dumb enough to brag about it on the radio?

[ronthecivil]

Or higher crime...?

Eliminating welfare sure would.

Making it slightly less cushy? It would be negligible. If it's the US version.

Ours is far from living high on the hog.

[ronthecivil]

Maybe, but you would have a race riot down here if you did that.

Well, you moved there on purpose. It's part and parcel of the package you picked. Complaining about how dumb they do things in your new homeland isn't going to resonate with people here.

[The Colt 45s]

I have a sibling that has never worked in her life and lives off of the generosity of the people of BC. She complains that she never has any money but she has enough to smoke a package of cigarettes a day. Maybe the BC government should give free smokes to people on welfare.

[Gman]

Everyone in Canada has free health insurance

Ah, no. Health insurance is not free.

[ronthecivil]

Ah, no. Health insurance is not free.

If you don't want to pay for anything health related, you can get out of it. At least in BC.

And now in the states as well but there's always been ways around that regardless.

[ronthecivil]

I have a sibling that has never worked in her life and lives off of the generosity of the people of BC. She complains that she never has any money but she has enough to smoke a package of cigarettes a day. Maybe the BC government should give free smokes to people on welfare.

Sounds accurate. And of course we shouldn't provide free smokes.

But of course she has money for ciggarettes. It's about priorities. Smokes, even if you have to roll it yourself (ideally purchased by a native friend a rock bottom prices) are very, very close to the top.

Which is odd, since I actually equate smoking with hard work (nothing like when you are on a 12 hour shift to get your coworkers smoking death greens) instead of taking it easy. But then again, I was the black sheep of the family.

[Gman]

If you don't want to pay for anything health related, you can get out of it. At least in BC.

And now in the states as well but there's always been ways around that regardless.

Unless you are living off the government or are in one of the very few exception groups you are supposed to pay medical premiums in BC. If you are not you are robbing the system and by default everyone else who is paying and are right on par with the scumbag who is the subject of the OP.

[ronthecivil]

Unless you are living off the government or are in one of the very few exception groups you are supposed to pay medical premiums in BC. If you are not you are robbing the system and by default everyone else who is paying and are right on par with the scumbag who is the subject of the OP.

Well ya.....

Heck, all you need is a low enough income. I don't recall paying medical premiums when I was a studant since my income was next to nothing especially with the deductions. (Not that I did my tax returns at the time.)

But don't worry, I pay LOTS of tax now....

Edit:

I should also once again point out that those that do take advantage of such things could care less that you think they are scumbags and would probalby have some colourful words for you as well. And remember, if you have nothing to loose, spending a couple weeks in jail is hardly a deterent to do something crazy to someone that mouths them off.

[The Colt 45s]

How much is fair? At least back home you do not have to pay 1900 a month for health insurance for your family.

[ronthecivil]

How much is fair? At least back home you do not have to pay 1900 a month for health insurance for your family.

Well in Canada we are kind of screwed for doing reform since income tax and welfare cross national and provincial jurisdictions, as was pointed out back in the day by Wetcoaster.

But in the states one would think you could reform it that you can survive on welfare. Working a reasonable part min wage job is at least a slight upgrade. Working full time min wage is an upgrade. Heck, you could provide negative income tax rates up to a certain level. Make it a financial incentive (even if small) to work (no matter how crappy or lowpaying the job is) and it will dramatically increase the amount of tax revenue gained and greatly reduce the amount spent on welfare and even make the welfare people happier.

[The Colt 45s]

Well in Canada we are kind of screwed for doing reform since income tax and welfare cross national and provincial jurisdictions, as was pointed out back in the day by Wetcoaster.

But in the states one would think you could reform it that you can survive on welfare. Working a reasonable part min wage job is at least a slight upgrade. Working full time min wage is an upgrade. Heck, you could provide negative income tax rates up to a certain level. Make it a financial incentive (even if small) to work (no matter how crappy or lowpaying the job is) and it will dramatically increase the amount of tax revenue gained and greatly reduce the amount spent on welfare and even make the welfare people happier.

I like the financial incentive to work. You would then get businesses complaining that it costs them too much money to pay a living wage. Then again, social benefits pay way more tax free.