I believe in having a welfare system that provides essentials to those who need it: food, water, shelter.
But luxuries? Shouldn't these be bought from the proceeds of actually working? I don't see how society benefits by our taxes going on booze, cigarettes and drugs.
Most states (if not all) don't allow their welfare systems to be used on such items. Florida for example you can't use them on the items you mentioned, or hot food, and our WIC program for new parents lists specifically what brands and food its good for.
I know a few states had problems with allowing their payment cards to have ATM access, but I'm not sure that still exists.
The poor here do use their own funds for these "luxuries", so of course people complain that they recieve to much in welfare support. Its a never ending cycle, it doesn't matter what the luxury is, someone is going to bitch that someone is getting to much support. Especially with shelter.
On a technical point, wouldn't these be from the proceeds of actually working if that person who is now receiving welfare had paid into it through taxes when they were employed? Not speaking of course of people who have been perpetually on welfare and never paid income taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The 'work-shy' must be processed in a similar fashion as the negroids and gypsies; labour must be extracted via coercion and violence as these inhuman brutes know of nothing better. It is for their own good that we subjugate and beat them, by themselves they would amount to nothing. As you say, these unworthy beasts waste society's offerings on frivolous desires rather than honest wants. What you dub 'luxuries', the signs of the thinking person, a human being, must be denied from these wretches, these empty husks masquerading as human beings. Only through participation and active work towards the volk may anyone 'deserve' the honour of participating in the higher echelons of kunst und kultur!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Where would the unemployed who haven't saved and aren't working be getting those funds from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If they've put into savings that'd be the proceeds of working. Welfare is always the proceeds of OTHERS working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Nessus is of course dangerously soft on the work shy here. Obviously, no useful labour can possibly be extracted from such pitiful creatures: they must instead be rendered down into their component materials for use as biofuels. If they refuse to do work in the economic sense then they will do work in the physics sense: their useless carcasses will power the next generation of factories which will usher in a second industrial revolution, and we will at last be able to extract resources from 100% of the population. Once this is achieved, the Final Victory of the Industrial will be at hand. Taste the horns of the future. Swallow the sulfur of the new order. To resist is to non-exist.
I don't know of any unemployed people that don't have some sort of income when needed idea. Anything from friends, family, turning tricks, panhandling, craigslist ads for random under the table needs, all the way down to theft. Read an article online the other day of a guy in newyork who pawns the diamonds and gold he finds in the cracks along the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So if I give the government a dollar, and in the future the government gives me a dollar, I've made an uneven exchange? Fill me in here on how your logic works.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes absolutely it's an uneven exchange. Despite the fact that the governments already blown your dollar on interest, the military, education, police etc they also have to pay someone to give you that dollar so where's all that extra coming from? The taxes of those who are contributing to society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
If you buy an insurance product or put into savings then that'd be your money. Welfare never is.
If what you are proposing is the abolition of welfare and a genuine insurance contribution-based scheme then that's a bit right-wing even for me but you could tempt me.
I don't feel government should be as intrusive as to how people spend their welfare (or whatever you call the local version) I do think however that government should show restraint while defining what constitutes 'minimum' in a society. I do not believe that 'minimum' is the same for all people. As far as I am concerned parents with children - as a general rule - should get welfare that does include some luxuries.
Down with the banks!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Though there's something fundamentally wrong about people who are living in poverty having multiple children. If you can't support yourself, why the hell are you bringing more hungry mouths into the world? It's irresponsible at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Don't have much time to get into this, but RB I'm surprised at your position. Most economists believe that artificially restrictive welfare is inefficient (e.g. food stamps and the like). People will naturally maximize their utility, so giving them the most fungible asset is best. Thus, direct cash transfers are the most efficient form of welfare.
That being said, there's obviously some flaws with this in the real world.
Yes, yet I would not punish the children for the irresponsability of their parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So what do you do with children of irresponsible (or down right negligent) parents? Do you leave them in that toxic environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Why do you assume irresponsible parents will use any extra money/resources you give them on their kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Of course you do, and then you use invisible hands to make them take personal responsibility and fix their lives with the power of juvenile rationality :heart: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Then you will have many (including you I think) railing that the state is abusing its authority by nabbing children left and right. Then they have to pay directly to support those kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Instead they grow up as useless human beings, forcing the taxpayer to either pay for their welfare or their prison cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Looks like some people round here don't believe in personal responsibility :mad:
Well, those scenarios do increase in probability...but are you prepared for the State to start grabbing more kids? (I've reached my limit in taking them in.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not really, unless the level of abuse is pretty bad (though I consider psychological abuse no better than physical one). I do think there should be clear financial carrots and sticks for these kind of parents. Your child is absent from school = less benefits. Your child is healthy and does well in school = more benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
I don't understand why you want to do those things, Loki, since we all know that none of those things have any baring whatsoever on how the children will turn out because personal responsibly.
I'm all about the incentives a well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Tiered incentives. Even the Governor of Maine has suggested those instead of cutting people off just because they start to get on their feet.
Environmental and individual-level effects aren't mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Environmental effects don't exist. If you're poor it's entirely your own fault, so you deserve to be miserable. Likewise, if you're rich it's because you're awesome and deserve everything you get.
And if you use strawmen, it's because you're awesome as well.
There are states that already do this in some form. Simply being absent from school isn't enough since there are so many unknowns that can cause a building up of missed days, but parents in Georgia can and do get called into court if their children miss to many days. Regardless if they are on welfare or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Feel free to explain the difference between my position and the 'true' one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
From what I've heard, the threshold is pretty damn high. If the child is sick and their parents can't afford to see a doctor, they should go to the school nurse and prove that the illness exists. Most other excuses aren't worth the paper they're written on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If you're poor, it's at least partially your fault. If you're rich and weren't born into the money, it's at least partially because you're "awesome". The higher the probability of you obtaining success in a given background, the more if it your fault if you fail to obtain that success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint