First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Is Welfare A Bad Thing? Can People Get Decent Paying Jobs If They Want To?
1398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15
the feelings you have towards your family and friends and the reason we like them isnt excactly empathy though.

empathy is what allows us to understand others, to put ourselves into their shoes and understand the state it would put a human in, in truth it has very little to do with any specific person in anyone's life.


9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 3/20/15
Welfare should never be a method of living. It's supposed to be a safety net, and a safety net ONLY for those that truly need it, or for those that need it temporarily.

Part of the problem with how many are on welfare comes from social issues like minimum wage, health care, the cost of living, and taxation.

Together these are our best legal way of wealth distribution, which, you may not like the tone of it, but it's about keeping disparity levels down and combined with the other things, is supposed to create a bell curve of wealth distribution where a LOT of people have a LOT of the wealth collectively but only so so amounts individually, a few people have a lot individually but not so much as the middle group collectively, and a few people have very little wealth individually or collectively.<- these last few people are the ones you'd expect to be the people that fall through the cracks and still somehow require financial aid.

Unfortunately, the wealth is concentrated towards the few very wealthy, a handful more that make $250,000 a year, and a LOT that are in the $28,000 or less individually.

The average work week being 35 hours, and minimum wage being pushed towards about $9 an hour for a lot of states, that kinda works out to about $16K a year (fed poverty line sits around $11-13K a year)

Add on that in both of these cases, you PROBABLY exceed poverty line thresh hold for health care assistance (which is closer to the poverty line than not), you can expect 10% of that to go towards healthcare which is now mandatory (or pay the cheap ass fine like I did this year). then subtract another 16% for taxes, (which we didn't take out prior to that).... Now that's kinda where your take home pay is sitting.

Consider that rentals typically START at $500 a month, so from that $12-21K a year, you can deduct AT MINIMUM another $6K minimum for rent.

Now you're down to $6-15K for food, utilities, etc.... If you have to own a car, there's insurance, gas, and maintenance. if not, you pay public transit.

You starting to see how your money disappears quickly? (and my numbers are fairly modest)

Last year I was alright. I have cheap rent ($600 a month instead of over $1K as is typical for my area), I don't need a vehicle, nor public transit, which is VERY rare. I made about $25K.

I still have minimal money though, and part of the job situation is that nobody can afford to hire me (outside of a few hours here and there. and it seems like I'm slowly piecing together freelance work which is taxed at a 30% tax rate, but I still can't charge decent rates to offset it), due to lack of economic activity. Everyone I know works LOOOOOOOOOONG days, mostly at multiple jobs because of this.

A depressed minimum wage results in needing to work more to make up for it, and less time and disposable income to spend, which means lack of business, which means lack of jobs, which means less people making a decent living, which... you get the idea.

Meanwhile, companies are doing lots of buy backs on their stocks, concentrating that wealth into the hands of the very select few which already have enough money to buy stocks, and whereas main street stores are dying, the major corporations are quickly filling in due to depressed prices, online domination, and many other problems.... You're kinda fucked.

The cost of starting a business is very high, unless it's a service based industry and you're selling your time... which comes with its own problems sure to drive you to drink.

How does all this apply to welfare? Well... the greater the barrier to entry towards a "middle class" lifestyle (meaning some disposable income and an ability to save), the greater the population will fall into the class of "untouchables" and be on welfare... And that means more collectors rather than providers and workers.

And isn't that what the conservatives want? job creation, personal savings, and people to GTFO of welfare? Meanwhile, Target pays just above the NJ min wage. So does walmart. So do all the other big box stores. Your banker makes about $2-3 an hour more than min wage.

Your restaurant servers make far, far less.

Most jobs are customer service jobs or retail based (meaning the above style jobs).

we just keep pushing and pushing and pushing them into welfare.. No wonder the stigma of it is quickly disappearing as it becomes more of the norm.

On a personal note, two years ago I collected unemployment, which is a form of welfare for 6 months. it was nice to have a safety net while I tried to find work. I kinda did something technically illegal, which is that while I was looking for more stable work, did small odd gigs and underreported a one day a week job that I had so I could keep the benefits.

These "benefits" were approximately 60% of my former wages (It worked out to $300 a week, minus 10% of which was income taxed), but the deal was supposed to be that if I reported earning more than 10% of that ($30) a week, it would be further garnished from my benefits. It resulted in some "creative" bookkeeping in order to keep myself afloat JUUUUUST long enough to find enough work and piece together a situation where I was making equal to that or more (most weeks I made less than $100, and it was often some quick cash payment of like $15 for doing something like mow someone's lawn). Then I quit it.

as you can see, they DON'T make it easy to get out of fully if you abide by the rules, and the DON'T encourage you to get off it, but it's also that there isn't the kind of work available that makes it easy. I'm just happy that now I'm able to pay my taxes like I should, and am able to use what little money I contribute to help someone worse off than I.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/20/15
Ultimately like any system some people will take advantage of it however if its not there things go downhill very fast, people die. I support welfare because I believe I have a moral duty to take care of those in need. I was born into a western country, I was educated publicly, I'm fairly bright and now earn a solid wage. Some people are not so fortunate. I am not a island, I did not get here on my own and if I were struggling to feed my children I would be glad of help, so I support welfare, I can afford to carry.

The cost is paid in wealth or human lives, take your pick.
Posted 3/20/15
of course it's a good thing. it's costly when some people abuse it, and you often hear ignorant people complain about how their "tax money" is wasted on welfare... am just like... "gurl... only $10 of your tax money actually get wasted every year", the other amount goes somewhere else too.

I think it's a great system, and it's why I enjoy living in Australia, because it has a great welfare system that look after socioeconomically disadvantaged and other people like students and pensioners.

I hate that it's trying to become Americanised in literally every aspect of its culture---but that's a different story. and I don't hate America, but like Australia should try to be Australia, and not try to be something else... develop your own culture ffs. stop importing films and tv shows from America only.

_________

I'm not on welfare because I have a job. but I think countries with great welfare systems have fewer crime and lesser crime rates, and generally a higher index in terms of human quality of life.


That's why I never complain about paying my taxes, because it's these taxes that make the country great and has high standards of living. I hate when people complain about taxes or saying how, "their taxes are wasted on blah and blah"... it's like... you probably used government services that costed more than what you've paid to them...





12042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15
Everyone deserves the means to live their life. Current means/eligibility tested welfare systems need to be replaced with an unconditional minimum income for everyone. As technology advances, there are going to be less and less jobs. Already there are lots of people wasting their lives away in jobs that could be replaced by machines, or just not done at all. These jobs only still exist because of the outdated idea that everyone should have to earn a living by generating profit, and that the only worthwhile activity is activity that generates profit.

An unconditional minimum income would eradicate poverty, cost less than current welfare systems, improve public mental and physical health, and when it's been tested in the past, it even decreases unemployment, since more people can afford to work less hours. Every time it's been tested, it's also caused economic growth in general, by increasing everyone's spending power.

Libertarians and other conservatives are petty, greedy children who have obviously lived incredibly sheltered lives, and their wilful ignorance is holding back the advancement of civilisation.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

DarkFrostX wrote:

It was their responsibility to keep themselves from Financial Armageddon, they failed, they should reap the consequences of their own stupidity, why should someone else pay for that?
No one learns hard lessons if they just keep getting bailed out, probably why the "War On Poverty" is and will always be a colossal failure.


Well, there might be one. How about 'empathy'? Perhaps for children born to irresponsible parents? What 'hard lessons' should be learned, and what happens if people don't learn them? Who should pay the price, and how severe should we make that punishment?

If this happens to too large a sector of the economy, or people find themselves in poverty due to things like, say, automation replacing their jobs, what will the 'hard lessons' serve to benefit the rest of the society? In fact what happens when there's large scale poverty to purchasing power in a growth based production economy?

"You dug your own grave, now lie in it" might be a very easy thing to callously say, but from a functional standpoint, it doesn't seem wise or prudent social policy. I'd rather a poor person get government money and spend it than a poor person being unable to spend afford anything. No matter how 'lazy', or 'entitled' they might be, at the very least, they'd be participating in the economy and serving to provide demand for consumer goods.

Which is more than I can say for the people at the top who want even more tax breaks to bolster their billion dollar fortunes.
20606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

kingjonnyoftown wrote:

Everyone deserves the means to live their life. Current means/eligibility tested welfare systems need to be replaced with an unconditional minimum income for everyone. As technology advances, there are going to be less and less jobs. Already there are lots of people wasting their lives away in jobs that could be replaced by machines, or just not done at all. These jobs only still exist because of the outdated idea that everyone should have to earn a living by generating profit, and that the only worthwhile activity is activity that generates profit.

An unconditional minimum income would eradicate poverty, cost less than current welfare systems, improve public mental and physical health, and when it's been tested in the past, it even decreases unemployment, since more people can afford to work less hours. Every time it's been tested, it's also caused economic growth in general, by increasing everyone's spending power.

Libertarians and other conservatives are petty, greedy children who have obviously lived incredibly sheltered lives, and their wilful ignorance is holding back the advancement of civilisation.


Someone has yet to explain to me how greed is a bad thing? why are people pushing their morality on to other people?

Is keeping what I earn and spending it on what I want such a bad thing?

Advancement of civilization? that's subjective, some view advancements in many different lights, there is no "advancement" it's all opinionated.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3/20/15



Wow arent you jumping the gun a bit. You dont know this persons life and how he came to this. Its not his childrens fault this happened either. More importantly I never have been able to rap my head around the viewpoint that someone deserves to be poor. If someone makes a couple bad decisions that ruin them financially we should still help them out


I never said someone deserves to be poor, I just said to me they "made their own hell", why have so many children in the first place? how stupid can people be?
I have no child, why? because I don't view my self has being financially stable enough to support one, let alone more.

Children are not cheap, raising one to 18 is already in the six figure range.

Also, their "situation" or lack of one carries little weight to me, it doesn't provide a tangible reason for them to need tax payer money to support themselves or their families.

It was their responsibility to keep themselves from Financial Armageddon, they failed, they should reap the consequences of their own stupidity, why should someone else pay for that?
No one learns hard lessons if they just keep getting bailed out, probably why the "War On Poverty" is and will always be a colossal failure.

Well once again they could have made mistakes along the way by having to many children. I dont think that we should abandon them to poverty for there dumb decision. Im gonna stop posting because are post are getting reported to the mods like hotcakes and I want to stay out of hotwater.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

DarkFrostX wrote:


kingjonnyoftown wrote:

Everyone deserves the means to live their life. Current means/eligibility tested welfare systems need to be replaced with an unconditional minimum income for everyone. As technology advances, there are going to be less and less jobs. Already there are lots of people wasting their lives away in jobs that could be replaced by machines, or just not done at all. These jobs only still exist because of the outdated idea that everyone should have to earn a living by generating profit, and that the only worthwhile activity is activity that generates profit.

An unconditional minimum income would eradicate poverty, cost less than current welfare systems, improve public mental and physical health, and when it's been tested in the past, it even decreases unemployment, since more people can afford to work less hours. Every time it's been tested, it's also caused economic growth in general, by increasing everyone's spending power.

Libertarians and other conservatives are petty, greedy children who have obviously lived incredibly sheltered lives, and their wilful ignorance is holding back the advancement of civilisation.


Someone has yet to explain to me how greed is a bad thing? why are people pushing their morality on to other people?

Is keeping what I earn and spending it on what I want such a bad thing?

Advancement of civilization? that's subjective, some view advancements in many different lights, there is no "advancement" it's all opinionated.


Have you ever read A Christmas Carol?
12042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/20/15
I see an advanced civilisation as being one in which everyone has the same chances and opportunities to live happy, fulfilled lives. It seems your vision of an advanced civilisation is one where some people have more resources than they will ever need, while others are offered nothing better than the choice between slavery and starvation.
20606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15

megahobbit wrote:


DarkFrostX wrote:


kingjonnyoftown wrote:

Everyone deserves the means to live their life. Current means/eligibility tested welfare systems need to be replaced with an unconditional minimum income for everyone. As technology advances, there are going to be less and less jobs. Already there are lots of people wasting their lives away in jobs that could be replaced by machines, or just not done at all. These jobs only still exist because of the outdated idea that everyone should have to earn a living by generating profit, and that the only worthwhile activity is activity that generates profit.

An unconditional minimum income would eradicate poverty, cost less than current welfare systems, improve public mental and physical health, and when it's been tested in the past, it even decreases unemployment, since more people can afford to work less hours. Every time it's been tested, it's also caused economic growth in general, by increasing everyone's spending power.

Libertarians and other conservatives are petty, greedy children who have obviously lived incredibly sheltered lives, and their wilful ignorance is holding back the advancement of civilisation.


Someone has yet to explain to me how greed is a bad thing? why are people pushing their morality on to other people?

Is keeping what I earn and spending it on what I want such a bad thing?

Advancement of civilization? that's subjective, some view advancements in many different lights, there is no "advancement" it's all opinionated.



Have you ever read A Christmas Carol?

Yes, they're sweet, but unrealistic to the world we live in.


Im gonna stop posting because are post are getting reported to the mods like hotcakes and I want to stay out of hotwater.


Welcome to Crunchyroll, it's just a someone going around and troll reporting, the funny thing is, they will be the ones to get banned, not us. Trust me when i say you're not in any trouble (as long as you follow the rules), I've been getting reported on for days now, and only one of my post were warned two days ago, but I will admit, it was pretty "rated R" what I wrote.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15

DarkFrostX wrote:

Someone has yet to explain to me how greed is a bad thing? why are people pushing their morality on to other people?

Is keeping what I earn and spending it on what I want such a bad thing?

Advancement of civilization? that's subjective, some view advancements in many different lights, there is no "advancement" it's all opinionated.


Bolded relevant. The problem with 'greed' is that people end up wanting 'more money'. They end up collecting money FASTER THAN THEY CAN REASONABLY SPEND IT. Now, being a little greedy, this isn't a problem. I mean, you may be acting as an economic sink, but you don't feel the need to be a multi-multi millionaire, so who cares?

But if you're very very greedy, where 'fifty million isn't nearly enough, it needs to be five hundred million, then a billion, I want to be on the top of Forbes list!' you're now forced to accumulate far more wealth than any human can reasonably spend in a lifetime, and SAVE that wealth enough to make it to that kind of list. It's money for the sake of money and power, you're NOT spending it.

That ends up being a rather large economic drain, because you aren't contributing to the economy if you aren't spending money. You're not increasing demand for anything if you aren't spending money. It's why 'trickle down economics' doesn't work, because the rich don't end up spending more, they end up saving more at a faster rate.

If you have an economy which is predicated on consumer demand and growth, then this is a BAD thing to let go completely unchecked, because the purchasing power of the bulk of the populace goes down and the purchasing power on a small select group of people goes up but they aren't, by definition, spending. If they were spending money as quickly as they earned it, they wouldn't be that rich.

If you make a ton of money and decide to keep spending it, only saving, say, a few million a year to make sure you can survive hard financial times, go right ahead. Feel free, live the life of luxury. But people wanting lower tax rates on the incredibly wealthy when they're not contributing to a healthy economy is absurd. "Job creators" aren't really "job creators".
24468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/20/15
There is a difference between tyranny and someone just not caring about people they don't know. While I don't agree with DarkFrost's way of life, they're not really hurting anyone unless they're making it impossible or difficult for other people to get the resources they need. It's their conscience, not mine.
20606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:


DarkFrostX wrote:

Someone has yet to explain to me how greed is a bad thing? why are people pushing their morality on to other people?

Is keeping what I earn and spending it on what I want such a bad thing?

Advancement of civilization? that's subjective, some view advancements in many different lights, there is no "advancement" it's all opinionated.


Bolded relevant. The problem with 'greed' is that people end up wanting 'more money'. They end up collecting money FASTER THAN THEY CAN REASONABLY SPEND IT. Now, being a little greedy, this isn't a problem. I mean, you may be acting as an economic sink, but you don't feel the need to be a multi-multi millionaire, so who cares?

But if you're very very greedy, where 'fifty million isn't nearly enough, it needs to be five hundred million, then a billion, I want to be on the top of Forbes list!' you're now forced to accumulate far more wealth than any human can reasonably spend in a lifetime, and SAVE that wealth enough to make it to that kind of list. It's money for the sake of money and power, you're NOT spending it.

That ends up being a rather large economic drain, because you aren't contributing to the economy if you aren't spending money. You're not increasing demand for anything if you aren't spending money. It's why 'trickle down economics' doesn't work, because the rich don't end up spending more, they end up saving more at a faster rate.

If you have an economy which is predicated on consumer demand and growth, then this is a BAD thing to let go completely unchecked, because the purchasing power of the bulk of the populace goes down and the purchasing power on a small select group of people goes up but they aren't, by definition, spending. If they were spending money as quickly as they earned it, they wouldn't be that rich.

If you make a ton of money and decide to keep spending it, only saving, say, a few million a year to make sure you can survive hard financial times, go right ahead. Feel free, live the life of luxury. But people wanting lower tax rates on the incredibly wealthy when they're not contributing to a healthy economy is absurd. "Job creators" aren't really "job creators".



Makes sense, but then your' reasoning is also opening the door to Keynesian vs Austrian school of economics, which it is much to late for me to get in to.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.