Welfare pays more than a lot of jobs....

E

egofed

CAGiversary!
http://now.msn.com/heather-frost-welfare-recipient-and-mother-of-11-kids-has-a-horse

Insane.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa240es.html

"

  • In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00 an hour job. In 17 states the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00 an hour job.
  • In Hawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New York, and Rhode Island welfare pays more than a $12.00 an hour job--or two and a half times the minimum wage.
  • In nine states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. And in the six most generous states it pays more than the entry-level salary for a computer programmer.
  • Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit. For the hard-core welfare recipient, the value of the full range of welfare benefits substantially exceeds the amount the recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result, recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, thus increasing long-term dependence."
 
....welfare benefits substantially exceeds the amount the recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result, recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, thus increasing long-term dependence.
Click to expand...


3... 2... 1...

Cue the "No one wants/chooses to be on welfare" crowd


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbfdBHe4BL0


@ 2:03

"Everybody in Cleveland, low minorities got Obama Phone! Keep Obama in President, u know? He gave us a phone, he gonna do MOAR!
 
[quote name='whoknows']How do I go about getting on welfare?[/QUOTE]
Get banned from funding your reselling business at Target and Amazon.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Get banned from funding your reselling business at Target and Amazon.[/QUOTE]

4 posts in. Not bad.

Ignoring the fact that I am in no way banned from Amazon or Target and that it is very likely I paid more in taxes this year then you have in the past 5-10 combined perhaps you'd like to stay on topic?

I know your circle jerk has a hard time with that though....
 
[quote name='GBAstar']4 posts in. Not bad.

Ignoring the fact that I am in no way banned from Amazon or Target and that it is very likely I paid more in taxes this year then you have in the past 5-10 combined perhaps you'd like to stay on topic?

I know your circle jerk has a hard time with that though....[/QUOTE]

I didn't know you were on welfare. Are you in one of the states paying the equivalent of $12/hr?

Any recommendations on how I can get it too?
 
[quote name='whoknows']Any recommendations on how I can get it too?[/QUOTE]

I'll get you in touch with my cousin and my tia Marta!
 
[quote name='GBAstar']4 posts in. Not bad.

Ignoring the fact that I am in no way banned from Amazon or Target and that it is very likely I paid more in taxes this year then you have in the past 5-10 combined perhaps you'd like to stay on topic?

I know your circle jerk has a hard time with that though....[/QUOTE]

You paid more in taxes, huh? Guess that makes you a better citizen than myself.

By the way, since you seem to have access to my tax records, when can I expect my tax return for this year?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You paid more in taxes, huh? Guess that makes you a better citizen than myself.

By the way, since you seem to have access to my tax records, when can I expect my tax return for this year?[/QUOTE]

You're getting a fucking return! Must be nice....


[quote name='whoknows']I want a free phone. Is it android or an iPhone?[/QUOTE]

It's a blackberry
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Axe this lady:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y2yckDpGnoQ[/QUOTE]

This is so slidecage circa 2012...

[quote name='RedvsBlue']You paid more in taxes, huh? Guess that makes you a better citizen than myself.

By the way, since you seem to have access to my tax records, when can I expect my tax return for this year?[/QUOTE]

If they don't get their shit together and sequestration does happen, who knows. I still need to get mine done, I better not procrastinate this time.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Wait, but you wanted us to stay on topic. What do phones have to do with unemployment benefits? Stones, glass houses, all that jazz...[/QUOTE]

If you watched the original video I was preemptively countering the "Nobody wants a handout... nobody wants... uh... to get something for nothing" that is sure to pop up.
 
[quote name='whoknows']So when are you guys posting your W-2's so we can see who pays more in taxes?[/QUOTE]

It's not about who gets taxed more, it's about who can get a better return! Romney taught us that. >_
 
Besides the not so subtle racism (axe) and the fact this is Cato... Only a moron would take it as an indictment of "welfare" and not an example of shitty it is to work for a living nowadays.
 
If people get more money from welfare than a minimum wage job, it says a lot about our so-called "job creators" who say they are being hurt by Tyrant Obama's tax code, which was written by Congress, who practically mollycoddles them.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']If people get more money from welfare than a minimum wage job, it says a lot about our so-called "job creators" who say they are being hurt by Tyrant Obama's tax code, which was written by Congress, who practically mollycoddles them.[/QUOTE]

I was gonna get around to making this point as well. You forgot to mention that there's people who want to abolish the minimum wage as well which would drive up the disparity even more. But those poor rich people won't trickle down on the rest of us unless they don't have taxes...
 
[quote name='Msut77']Besides the not so subtle racism (axe) and the fact this is Cato... Only a moron would take it as an indictment of "welfare" and not an example of shitty it is to work for a living nowadays.[/QUOTE]

Wow, it took 21 posts to get the heart of the matter. That's pretty sad.
 
MSN Now is a tabloid "news" site with a news story about a woman in England and the Cato study is 18 years old, which is hilariously out of date with all the changes since then, not to mention that I highly doubt egofed even read the fucking thing.

[quote name='highoffcoffee496']Not surprised by this. I'm actually studying this in my Soc429 class[/QUOTE]
That's nice and all, but different schools use different numbers. How about you tell us the actual name of the class. Also, tell us what you're "learning" about it. edit: That way, we can actually have a discussion about it instead of making irrelevant comparisons to a rare case in England and citing an outdated "study" from a conservative think tank with an obvious agenda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='egofed']
[*]In nine states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. And in the six most generous states it pays more than the entry-level salary for a computer programmer.[/QUOTE]

These so-called "facts" need some justification, because I can tell you right now that this is bullshit. If there are people on welfare making more than $50,000 a year, I'm quitting my job.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']These so-called "facts" need some justification, because I can tell you right now that this is bullshit. If there are people on welfare making more than $50,000 a year, I'm quitting my job.[/QUOTE]

Some people that make $50,000 a year would have a hard time paying for their health care, housing, heat, electricity, transportation, food, cell phone, education.
 
The problem with posting these sort of things on a forum with young men is that the primary beneficiaries of welfare in the United States are women with children. Most of us cannot even acquire much of the benefits that are available. One of the biggest benefits is childcare, including daycare and medical benefits.

What I would do is expand the EITC program in general while eliminating traditional forms of welfare. I would also increase the EITC amount for those without children, which would bring more struggling men into the program. EITC is one of the few anti-poverty programs that actually works. From the Brookings article:

Third, a mother earning $10,000 a year, with a $4,500 EITC, who marries a male earning $14,000 a year, with a $ 4,500 EITC, can together form a household with combined income of $ 33,000 per year. In effect, with their combined income of $33,000, they could put themselves on the edge of the middle class.
Click to expand...
Instead, we incentivize single motherhood which has a terrible track record. This would be much better than offering a cornucopia of programs like section 8, food stamps, subsidized phone, subsidized bus, daycare, etc.

By the way, that Cato link is from 1995. Welfare reform, which was a very good thing, happened in 1996, so tread cautiously on that one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When people talk about welfare, they are referring to a program that mainly supports single women with kids. I think it's a good thing for children to have a place to sleep at night, food to eat, and clothes to wear. How much do you think it would cost the government to take millions of children away from their parents if they were living on the streets? I wager it costs a lot more than a few hundred dollars a month to support kids by the government.

Funny thing about conservatives, they hate welfare but they don't think these poor people should be allowed to abort.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Blaster man']When people talk about welfare, they are referring to a program that mainly supports single women with kids. [/QUOTE]
That's the problem. We should be thinking about two-parent households with kids instead. It isn't some magical occurrence that children born out of wedlock has increased, and it isn't because men acquired a taste for abandoning their families in greater numbers. The benefits incentivize single motherhood and it hurts black families the most.
 
[quote name='Spokker']That's the problem. We should be thinking about two-parent households with kids instead. It isn't some magical occurrence that children born out of wedlock has increased, and it isn't because men acquired a taste for abandoning their families in greater numbers. The benefits incentivize single motherhood and it hurts black families the most.[/QUOTE]

Explain the benefits of being a single mother. I strongly disagree with you on that given that I've known plenty of them including my own mother and it wasn't some goddman cakewalk. Oh and I'm NOT black - black people aren't the only ones that have kids when they're not married or get divorced after having children. They're also not the only ones receiving welfare. I suggest you take a trip to the Appalachian Mountains or Mississippi.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Explain the benefits of being a single mother. I strongly disagree with you on that given that I've known plenty of them including my own mother and it wasn't some goddman cakewalk. Oh and I'm NOT black - black people aren't the only ones that have kids when they're not married or get divorced after having children. They're also not the only ones receiving welfare. I suggest you take a trip to the Appalachian Mountains or Mississippi.[/QUOTE]

or watch teen mom. >_
 
If you're a single mom who can't control herself in bed and you've got like 5 kids to different men.. go on welfare. Life is sweet. Your apartment is paid for, you can buy all the top brand foods, you get hundreds in actual cash, medical coverage and there are bonus services like free daycare while you're out getting your hair done to attract the next deadbeat dad. People abuse the system to ridiculous levels and never get caught. Why work when welfare allows you to live better than you would with a damn college degree? Apparently its super easy to cheat the system because all they really do is ask if you've been looking for work.. and you just say yes and bam.. continued benefits.
 
[quote name='UnlockPotential']If you're a single mom who can't control herself in bed and you've got like 5 kids to different men.. go on welfare. Life is sweet. Your apartment is paid for, you can buy all the top brand foods, you get hundreds in actual cash, medical coverage and there are bonus services like free daycare while you're out getting your hair done to attract the next deadbeat dad. People abuse the system to ridiculous levels and never get caught. Why work when welfare allows you to live better than you would with a damn college degree? Apparently its super easy to cheat the system because all they really do is ask if you've been looking for work.. and you just say yes and bam.. continued benefits.[/QUOTE]
I challenge you to come up with the actual monetary amount in subsidies given in your home state through each social assistance program. I'd also like to see where you can get free daycare as if it's universal.

Thanks for the racist dogwhistles though.

Here is where I call bullshit on all of your claims.

The longest people can go on actual old school welfare as an adult is now a lifetime total 5 years, with children being the exception at 18 years. If you have children, then you would know how expensive it is and how any additional funds through welfare is really a pittance. The apartment that's "paid for" is in 30 year old and poorly maintained public housing aka "the projects" in "the ghetto" with shitty schools and run down neighborhoods because of an old Redlining law tying funding for those resources through local property taxes. Not to mention that any money earned over a certain threshold can be garnished as "rent" in public housing.

An entry-level job with a degree is what, $30-40k? Try raising 5 kids on that and see how easy it is.

Your whole screed reads like shitthatdoesnthappen.txt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Blaster man']Explain the benefits of being a single mother. I strongly disagree with you on that given that I've known plenty of them including my own mother and it wasn't some goddman cakewalk.[/quote]What I am saying is that public policy helps to incentivize single motherhood, and that is not good because single motherhood is hard on children and families.

Oh and I'm NOT black - black people aren't the only ones that have kids when they're not married or get divorced after having children. They're also not the only ones receiving welfare. I suggest you take a trip to the Appalachian Mountains or Mississippi.
Click to expand...
I never said they are the only ones receiving welfare. What I am saying is that the impact of welfare on black families in general, spread across the group known as blacks, is greater. I do think there have been great improvements in public assistance that stem from the welfare reform efforts in the mid-1990s, but I think that young men, especially young black men, who face poverty are falling through the cracks because the incentives are punitive rather than uplifting.
 
I don't know where they got those numbers for Rhode Island since everyone I know that's confirmed to be on welfare still has to ride the bus, dress crappy, and live in a poor part of town.
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

But perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current taxpayers:

  • For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
  • For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/en...um-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak






You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2012/12...e-recipients-exceeds-average-u-s-income-10673


The 2011 median household income was $50,054, or $137.13 per each day of the year. Assuming the breadwinner of this average household is an hourly employee working 40 hours a week and 50 weeks a year, that would put his pay scale at a shade over $25 an hour. Subtract withholding taxes and that wage-earner takes home about $22 for each hour worked.



As taxpayers, these are the ones pushing the car. Now, what about the riders?
According to a recently released Senate Budget Committee report, the total in benefits received — money, food stamps, housing, child care and the administrative costs to implement these programs — comes to a whopping $168 per day. If they were earning this sum, just like our average household breadwinner above — 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year — their hourly wage would amount to almost $31 per hour.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/07/c...poverty-greater-than-median-household-income/

A new analysis of Congressional Research Service data by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that the amount spent on federal means-tested welfare programs, if converted to cash payments and divided among households below the Poverty line, would equal a daily income greater than the median household income in 2011.

If this isn't true, please show me. I'd sleep better at night...
 
Since we're all about the FACTS up in this bitch, I see 2 HUGE fuck ups in the minimum wage earners' chart and strongly suspect that there are at least 2 more.

As for the first link, you do realize that you're one of those moochers that works for the government right?

Where the hell is nasum to cut through this bullshit?
 
egofed - selective facts don't make arguments accurate when those "facts" are combined with complete bullshit. For example:
"The 2011 median household income was $50,054, or $137.13 per each day of the year. Assuming the breadwinner of this average household is an hourly employee working 40 hours a week and 50 weeks a year, that would put his pay scale at a shade over $25 an hour. Subtract withholding taxes and that wage-earner takes home about $22 for each hour worked."
- median household income DOES NOT EQUATE TO the breadwinner making $25/hr.
Are you living in the 1950's? The average household has TWO people earning wages. TWO WORKERS COMBINED MAKE 50K A YEAR IN THE USA. After a divorce the newly single mother with a couple of kids is in poverty. Plain and simple.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']egofed - selective facts don't make arguments accurate when those "facts" are combined with complete bullshit. For example:
"The 2011 median household income was $50,054, or $137.13 per each day of the year. Assuming the breadwinner of this average household is an hourly employee working 40 hours a week and 50 weeks a year, that would put his pay scale at a shade over $25 an hour. Subtract withholding taxes and that wage-earner takes home about $22 for each hour worked."
- median household income DOES NOT EQUATE TO the breadwinner making $25/hr.
Are you living in the 1950's? The average household has TWO people earning wages. TWO WORKERS COMBINED MAKE 50K A YEAR IN THE USA. After a divorce the newly single mother with a couple of kids is in poverty. Plain and simple.[/QUOTE]
Not true. The poverty line is way under $25k so they'd technically be above the poverty line and not in poverty. SUCK IT YOU LIEBERAL STATIST!!!

In case you don't know, I'm being sarcastic.;)
 
[quote name='Blaster man']After a divorce the newly single mother with a couple of kids is in poverty. Plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

U.S. poverty. Something tells me that in other countries people would have no problem living off of $20,000 a year; even with a few kids to boot.

Some people make it work others don't. You ever seen rural white America poverty? You know the trailers with the $40,000 trucks out front, snowmobiles and ATV's, satellite dishes.

Just the necessities for our poor.

Somewhere though there are actual impoverished people that would die to live like the U.S. poor.

Yet let's give them MOAR MOAR MOAR.

Currently, almost 95 percent of spending on means-tested poverty assistance falls into four categories: cash assistance, health assistance, housing assistance, and social and family services. Welfare spending has increased on a year-over-year basis regardless of whether the economy has improved or unemployment has declined, and is projected to continue this dramatic rise indefinitely. Spending on these poverty programs will rise approximately 80 percent from FY2013-FY2022, representing a total cost of $11 trillion—roughly one quarter of cumulative federal spending. Slowing the growth rate from 80 percent to a still massive 60 percent would thus result, according to standard congressional budget accounting, in a $1 trillion savings over ten years.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='GBAstar']U.S. poverty. Something tells me that in other countries people would have no problem living off of $20,000 a year; even with a few kids to boot.[/quote]
$20k USD would also mean jack shit in most of Europe, Canada, and a few Asian countries.

Some people make it work others don't. You ever seen rural white America poverty? You know the trailers with the $40,000 trucks out front, snowmobiles and ATV's, satellite dishes.


Just the necessities for our poor.
Click to expand...
Didn't know you knew the personal finances of all those people. Must be awesome to have that super power.

Somewhere though there are actual impoverished people that would die to live like the U.S. poor.
Click to expand...
Spoken like someone that was never even close to being poor. There are some places in the US that would give any developing country a run for it's money in an "I'm the poorest" contest. Just because the situation isn't as bad, doesn't mean it's a good one. As the richest country in the world, it should be a national shame that we still have people living in abject poverty that even come close to the conditions in some developing countries.

Yet let's give them MOAR MOAR MOAR.
Click to expand...
fuck me. You too now with the links?:rofl:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Not true. The poverty line is way under $25k so they'd technically be above the poverty line and not in poverty. SUCK IT YOU LIEBERAL STATIST!!!

In case you don't know, I'm being sarcastic.;)
[/QUOTE]

I could tell. I did kind of think someone would mention something like this. I was careful to not make a claim that both individuals made the same or near the same income. Chances are one spouse (typically the woman but not always) is working less hours or a lower paying job and spends more time taking care of the children.

[quote name='GBAstar']U.S. poverty. Something tells me that in other countries people would have no problem living off of $20,000 a year; even with a few kids to boot.

Some people make it work others don't. You ever seen rural white America poverty? You know the trailers with the $40,000 trucks out front, snowmobiles and ATV's, satellite dishes.

Just the necessities for our poor.

Somewhere though there are actual impoverished people that would die to live like the U.S. poor.

Yet let's give them MOAR MOAR MOAR.[/QUOTE]

If you think 40k trucks and ATV's is poverty in rural american poverty then YOU SIR have not seen true poverty in america. *I* have seen it and it is nothing like what you describe. People in poverty can't afford new cars let alone ATV's or satellite dishes. I have family that won't even let their kids use hair dryers because they don't want to use the extra electricity.
 
My problem is that their is very little to no incentive to work an $8/hr job anymore.

The government has taken that incentive away. I agree that most people don't want to be on welfare but I think it is safe to say that people would rather collect then work minimum wage.

If you disagree then please enlighten me by informing me about the benefits of working 2,000 hours a year at $8/hr versus not working and collecting.


If you think 40k trucks and ATV's is poverty in rural american poverty then YOU SIR have not seen true poverty in america. *I* have seen it and it is nothing like what you describe. People in poverty can't afford new cars let alone ATV's or satellite dishes. I have family that won't even let their kids use hair dryers because they don't want to use the extra electricity.
Click to expand...

I grew up in one of the poorest counties east of the Mississippi river (I'm not sure how true that is, but it is one of the poorest if not the poorest in the Northeast).

I know what rural poverty is.

Most of those that live in the conditions like you're thinking of and that are described in THIS article suffer from mental illness and don't know how to and aren't willing to accept the assistance they need. Those are the ones that really should be on welfare programs.

Edit: Oh and you're spoiled if your median household income is $50K. Try $34,000 in my neighborhood. And there really aren't jobs in this area. The mills have closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top