Posted on 08/20/2013 11:00:06 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
MMost decisions in life are the result of a cost-benefit analysis. When residents in Connecticut consider getting a job, they assume they would be better off having a job than not. They’d be wrong. Because in Connecticut, it pays not to work.
Next Monday, the Cato Institute will release a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare. Nationwide, our study found that the value of benefits for a typical recipient family ranged from a high of $49,175 in Hawaii to a low of $16,984 in Mississippi.
In Connecticut, a mother with two children participating in seven major welfare programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, utility assistance and free commodities) could receive a package of benefits worth $38,761, the fourth highest in the nation. Only Hawaii, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia provided more generous benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
It is too late, we have to start over. First amendment to the new constitution: if you don’t work, you don’t eat.
I'm all for that. If we'd all buy "made in the USA" and invaders weren't allowed to be here and stay here , then they'd have no trouble getting jobs.
Navigating and plundering all of those programs actually is hard work. I’ll bet those folks could do a number of jobs very well. So, yes, pull the plug.
Private charities exist to help those who cannot help themselves.
Never happen. You'd have to include Social Security and Medicare, too, since both programs are essentially welfare for people that were low-income workers before retirement.
The best alternative, IMO, is a combination of two things:
(1) a constitutionally fixed tax rate (say 10%) drawn from the sale of entertainment/luxuries used to fund all welfare spending of all kinds.
The nice thing about this is that it's somewhat self-regulating. If the underclass grows too quickly, the share each receives is reduced thereby providing incentives to reproduce more responsibly. Irresponsible behavior by some in the community financially hurts everyone collecting benefits and so motivating community reproach.
Drawing money from the entertainment/luxury sector is justified based on the idea that entertainment spending is one of the lowest priorities. Anyone that spends on entertainment should already have the basics paid for. If they can't afford entertainment/luxuries, then a tax forces them to at least put something aside for their own benefit.
(2) allowing everyone to receive the same welfare subsidies regardless of income so as to prevent the welfare cliff (the point where money is lost because one decides to work).
“First amendment to the new constitution: if you don’t work, you don’t eat.”
....and you are not entitled to vote
What in hell made you believe that Social Security is a welfare program for a low income worker. First, I paid the max for each and every one of my working years (40) from the day Eisenhower put the military on SS til the day I retired (age 60 forced by FAA rules). I did not steal my forced "contribution" The government did. Had I been allowed to invest that money on my own even at a minimum interest my payout would have been more than twice what I get today. BTW the government now calls it a "benefit". It never was. It was a forced investment that was stolen by the police power of the rapacious government. Welfare program BS!
Damn it, where are the families! Family is supposed to help family so you don't need any Govt anything. The Amish model is what we grew away from starting after WWI, then it really picked up steam after WWII.
but it wasn't invested.
It was a tax that paid money into the general fund of the government for it to spend on whatever. It is no different than the income tax in that regards.
Do you expect to get all your income taxes you paid for life back with interest too?
Journalists have gone undercover as panhandlers and discovered it was quite possible to take in $40K a year tax-free.
“First amendment to the new constitution: if you don’t work, you don’t eat.”
....and you are not entitled to vote
With this simple change, we would once again have a great nation.
Newbie, I've paid into those programs for 40 years, and am not exactly a "low-income" worker as a senior engineer.
I expect a return on that payout, and calling it "welfare" is an insult.
Sell that crap to a Mexican on SSI, or a Momma with 9 kids with no fathers.
Horsecrap. It was money stolen by force and misspent by fraud.
yep
Microwaved Sandwiches are not eligible for EBT but Microwaveable ones that are still cold ARE.
That clears it all up
Kind of the same thing these days
I expect a return on that payout, and calling it "welfare" is an insult.
You didn't pay INTO anything. Money was taken from you and transferred to retirees for them to spend while you were working. There was no investment made. Retirees spent most of the money immediately . Any excess was spent to fund other aspects of government, like the military or public health, etc.
A true investment takes capital and uses it to increase productive capacity. Payouts that exceed the total invested are possible when productive capacity has increased as a result of the investment.
BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT SOCIAL SECURITY DOES.
Whatever SS money you get today is being collected from workers today at tax rates higher than what you paid when you were young and working. Those tax rates today are higher than they were in 1960 in part because the money taken was not used to increase productive capacity, so instead a greater percentage must be taken from current workers. There are also fewer workers per retiree, so the burden on today's workers is higher than it was for you when you were a young worker.
Oh, and social security is now spending borrowed money (increasing the national debt) even with 12.4% payroll tax rate since that alone still not enough to payout to retirees. And that doesn't include the 2.9% tax for Medicare.
I expect a return on that payout, and calling it "welfare" is an insult.
And who exactly do you think should compensate you for the theft? Because the only people currently on the hook are people who weren't born when your money was "stolen," and since SS payouts are being partially made with borrowed money, the as-yet unborn are also on the hook.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.