They should. However, we live in a society in which housing gets more expensive.
And if we’re not going to raise wages to make work more attractive, we still face the problem of cost-shifting.
Its not going to go away because taxpayers sooner or later foot the bill.
My housing is getting more expensive.
My wages have not changed in years.
But I do not look to the government to fix either of these situations. I can look for less expensive housing. I can ask for a raise, find a different job, or find an additional job.
But I cannot just say, WOE IS ME, the government is going to have to do something for me.
You are advocating that as the “only” solution.
How about we NOT raise wages, but we CUT the social/welfare benefits? So the recipients of these handouts are forced into working to improve their lives.
Taxpayers should NOT sooner or later have to foot the bill. The people who “need” all these social services should sooner or later have to foot the bill, and/or they should contribute to the tax revenues.
For the working, tax-paying minority to continue down this road of providing more and more for people who refuse to help themselves - it is a dead end road. When do you think it is enough of my income to pay for someone’s living expenses, who just refuses to work, because collecting benefits is so much easier?
What is the threshold beyond which TOO MANY benefits actually hurt the so-called poor?