Welfare Pays More Than Minimum Wage In 35 States

[Sunstone]

Are you asking me to validate your un-evidenced claims for you?
Wouldn't it be more "intellectually honest" if you debunked the Cato figures
to which you object, instead of making a vague general charge of inaccuracy?

Perhaps you presume I was attempting to encourage you to educate yourself. But I'm not one for such a cause.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps you presume I was attempting to encourage you to educate yourself. But I'm not one for such a cause.

And I was subtly challenging you to defend your claims.
We're both chasing lost causes, eh?
But still, I've tried to make a discussion of the proffered figures.
There are likely consequences to having wages lag behind gratis
benefits, & I've proposed modifying the system to avoid them.
Feel free to join in.

 

[Sunstone]

And I was subtly challenging you to defend your claims.

The public record already adequately defends my claims. Anyone can google it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A report by the Cato Institute study found that all of the Welfare payments available to people in 35 states pay more than minimum wage and in 13 states it pays in excess of $15.00 an hour. Now what would the incentive be to attempt to get off welfare? It appears that the welfare system is in need of an overhaul and make it a system that helps people to get back on their feet instead of living off the backs of those that are working. The lead-in to this article can be found at:
The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013 | Cato Institute

It really depends on how many children you have ect. I doubt a single person living on their own would get more welfare than working full time at minimum wage. Having 3 kids on the other hand does. Minimum wage doesn't give a rats *** how many kids you have but welfare does.

Also you have to realize that if you are working minimum wage there is a very very very very very very low chance you will get full time hours to begin with anyway. Also if you are working minimum wage (even at full time) and have a child you will still be recieving benifits such as WIC and food stamps. You might even get welfare as well on top of that. So its not fair to simply asess the situation in such a narrow view without looking at the variables.

 

[Drolefille]

It really depends on how many children you have ect. I doubt a single person living on their own would get more welfare than working full time at minimum wage. Having 3 kids on the other hand does. Minimum wage doesn't give a rats *** how many kids you have but welfare does.

Also you have to realize that if you are working minimum wage there is a very very very very very very low chance you will get full time hours to begin with anyway. Also if you are working minimum wage (even at full time) and have a child you will still be recieving benifits such as WIC and food stamps. You might even get welfare as well on top of that. So its not fair to simply asess the situation in such a narrow view without looking at the variables.

A single person living on their own typically does not receive any TANF.

All you get is approx $200 in food stamps if you're in IL for example. No Medicaid if you don't have children, no TANF, no housing, none of all this "extra" sort of stuff. Things vary state by state but it's not typically drastically different as state programs are supported by federal grants - Medicaid is matched 50% by the Feds for example for a specific population only, anything extra falls on the state - so mostly it tends to be the same.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A single person living on their own typically does not receive any TANF.

All you get is approx $200 in food stamps if you're in IL for example. No Medicaid if you don't have children, no TANF, no housing, none of all this "extra" sort of stuff. Things vary state by state but it's not typically drastically different as state programs are supported by federal grants - Medicaid is matched 50% by the Feds for example for a specific population only, anything extra falls on the state - so mostly it tends to be the same.

Exactly. Without looking at the specifics no one can really make the jump between simply living on welfare and working minimum wage.

EDIT:
Also I have a question for conservatives or republicans.

Why is it wrong for a person to live off welfare instead of working if it means more money for them? Why does being a "burden" on our government a bad thing? If so why is it okay for corporations to pay the lowest possible rate for people and pay next to no taxes because they have introduced loopholes in the tax system over the course of the past 40 years? Its just good buisness and maximizing profits is their purpose is the general answer I get. But why is it suddenly wrong no the individual level to get the most money for the least possible work? Even at the expense of those around them? The only difference is the scale of damage (which the welfare recipiant is not on the greater end of)

 

[Rakhel]

Family of 6. no job.
Welfare cash : $0
Food stamps(now SNAP) : $595
SSI : $733
Housing :$0
WIC : $0
Medicaid : (haven't been able to figure out how they figure the cost of that)
Grand total: $1328
I know for a fact that a person earning minimum wage in the state of New York can bring home $250 a week, after taxes, and still be about to collect SNAP, child care assistance, WIC, kids will get medicaid, might still get some cash assistance, may get housing assistance, and will definitely get utility assistance.ANd if a single mother, gets child support. Some boroughs will even help you buy a car

Now. How is a person on Welfare, but not working, supposed to be earning more than someone who is?
The numbers just don't add up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also I have a question for conservatives or republicans.

Hey! What about liberals (classical)...are we just chopped liver?

Why is it wrong for a person to live off welfare instead of working if it means more money for them? Why does being a "burden" on our government a bad thing?

some problems with people making the dole their permanent source of income:
1) There's a risk that their kids will inherit this lifestyle, perpetuating dependence.
2) Those on the dole cost taxpayers more than those who work.
3) Those on the dole will be inclined to vote for a bigger dole, which would make the dole more attractive, which risks increasing their ranks.
4) Those on the dole are limited in source of income. Workers can switch employers, but gubmint dependents are under The Man's thumb. As I oft warn, recall that Clinton tried to have the right against warrantless searches voided for public housing recipients. The dole creates a vulnerability in this area.

...why is it okay for corporations to pay the lowest possible rate for people and pay next to no taxes because they have introduced loopholes in the tax system over the course of the past 40 years? Its just good buisness and maximizing profits is their purpose is the general answer I get. But why is it suddenly wrong no the individual level to get the most money for the least possible work? Even at the expense of those around them? The only difference is the scale of damage (which the welfare recipiant is not on the greater end of)

Tax policy & crony capitalism are very wrong too, but it's a separate issue...& more work to address than I want to face tonite.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now. How is a person on Welfare, but not working, supposed to be earning more than someone who is?
The numbers just don't add up.

The numbers in my state are such that 2 single moms I know were advised by gov counselors to quit their jobs because the total compensation was greater if they were unemployed. I don't recall the specifics of their financial situation, but it happened.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hey! What about liberals (classical)...are we just chopped liver?

Technically everyone is a liberal on this forum (I would wager). But the way the term is used seems to have been warped over time.

some problems with people making the dole their permanent source of income:
1) There's a risk that their kids will inherit this lifestyle, perpetuating dependence.
2) Those on the dole cost taxpayers more than those who work.
3) Those on the dole will be inclined to vote for a bigger dole, which would make the dole more attractive, which risks increasing their ranks.
4) Those on the dole are limited in source of income. Workers can switch employers, but gubmint dependents are under The Man's thumb. As I oft warn, recall that Clinton tried to have the right against warrantless searches voided for public housing recipients. The dole creates a vulnerability in this area.

good reply on this. I really only meant it with contrast to the second part but still good response. I am not for welfare or people intentionalyl being on welfare I just wished to adress the point that the more problematic situation is the massive drain on our economy that the corporations are putting us through. I have just found it rather ironic that several people who litterally hate welfare queens are absolutly okay, nay, actually supporting the exact same concepts on a larger scale with far more damage.

Tax policy & crony capitalism are very wrong too, but it's a separate issue...& more work to address than I want to face tonite.

I still see it as the same root issue. People are cheating the government and the system so as to get out far more than they pay in. It all comes round to bite the middle class when leeches on our tax money. Albeit the specifics of the issues differ its really the exact same concept and it confounds me to no end why the same people can support both the curcifiction of welfare queens and the worship of corporate takeover of the government.

EDIT: Also you tend to be more of a libritarian so more or less you are against both.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have just found it rather ironic that several people who litterally hate welfare queens are absolutly okay, nay, actually supporting the exact same concepts on a larger scale with far more damage.

I haven't seen anyone here take such a position.

EDIT: Also you tend to be more of a libritarian so more or less you are against both.

I am a Libertarian (ie, a party member), but the small "l" definition of the word has no clear meaning on RF, so I now prefer "classical liberal" & "minarchist" around my fellow posters.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I haven't seen anyone here take such a position.

Then you have never been to a tea party rally.

I am a Libertarian (ie, a party member), but the small "l" definition of the word has no clear meaning on RF, so I now prefer "classical liberal" & "minarchist" around my fellow posters.

Fair enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you have never been to a tea party rally.

True dat.
Do you go to those? I've heard they pull a bait & switch...there's no tea there!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that if anything, it is an indication of how hard it is to live off of minimum wage alone, and just how much public assistance can give to make up for the gap between minimum wage and what's needed to live.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

True dat.
Do you go to those? I've heard they pull a bait & switch...there's no tea there!

No but I live in a very conservative town with a Tea party father. So I have unintentionally been through a rally. And I see several people standing beside the walmart intersection adorning signs that depict such slogas as "Impeach Obama", "Guns, Guts and God" and "End the welfare state".

 

[Revoltingest]

No but I live in a very conservative town with a Tea party father. So I have unintentionally been through a rally. And I see several people standing beside the walmart intersection adorning signs that depict such slogas as "Impeach Obama", "Guns, Guts and God" and "End the welfare state".

I've never understood the deep connection between "Guts & God". But how do the slogans relate to your claim that "...the same people can support both the curcifiction of welfare queens and the worship of corporate takeover of the government."? You wouldn't be relying upon the extreme leftish RF stereotypes of them, would you?

 

[Falvlun]

I've never understood the deep connection between "Guts & God". But how do the slogans relate to your claim that "...the same people can support both the curcifiction of welfare queens and the worship of corporate takeover of the government."? You wouldn't be relying upon the extreme leftish RF stereotypes of them, would you?

Oh come on. Of course people aren't going to say "I support the corporate take over of government." But what they do say is "I don't support minimum wage... I think it's okay for businesses to maximize their profits, including paying workers the bare minimum... I support lowest possible taxes for business... I support super low taxes on super rich people... I support the Citizens United decision...". This sort of support adds up to the state we are in: corporations getting a free lunch at taxpayer expense.

 

[Drolefille]

Family of 6. no job.
Welfare cash : $0
Food stamps(now SNAP) : $595
SSI : $733
Housing :$0
WIC : $0
Medicaid : (haven't been able to figure out how they figure the cost of that)
Grand total: $1328
I know for a fact that a person earning minimum wage in the state of New York can bring home $250 a week, after taxes, and still be about to collect SNAP, child care assistance, WIC, kids will get medicaid, might still get some cash assistance, may get housing assistance, and will definitely get utility assistance.ANd if a single mother, gets child support. Some boroughs will even help you buy a car

Now. How is a person on Welfare, but not working, supposed to be earning more than someone who is?
The numbers just don't add up.

And an additional note for those unaware - SSI or SSDI are only available if you're disabled, so most people don't get that either.

 

[esmith]

So, why are we resorting to the bashinsert name here vice putting forth ideas that fix the welfare system in the US. In 1964 President Johnson declared a "war on poverty". At that time the poverty rate was around 19% and now it is roughly 15.1%, the highest it has been in a decade. Between then and now the US Government spent approximately $12 Trillion and the states kicked in another $3 Trillion. Yet this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three. Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. It is time to reevaluate our approach to fighting poverty. We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of
poverty. (above figures and copy/past is from Source. So, how do we get people out of poverty? I hope that the majority of people within the welfare system would rather work. The only problem with this is that the jobs of our fathers (I'm 71) are no longer available. Machines have replaced workers and since this is now a world wide economy, companies that require intensive manual labor have moved out of the country, except in the agriculture workforce, due to the lower cost of manufacturing. Now can you blame companies for seeking the least expensive means of bringing their product to market. I say no, these companies have the responsibility to their shareholders, which include numerous private and public retirement plans to earn the highest possible return on investment as possible. Sure the rich are getting richer, they have more money to invest. But can you really blame them for wanting to get the best return on their investments? I constantly here that education is the way out of poverty, but it has to be the right education. Also the US spends more money each year on education. In 1961-62 it was $393 (unadjusted) ($2835 in 2009-2010 dollars) in 2008-2009 it was $10591(unadjusted) ($10694 in 2009-2010 dollars) per student. From Source Yet the educational level of the US falls well below many of the developed countries. Approximately 14% of American adults can not read.
So it appears that throwing money at the problem doesn't seem to work, at least in the manner that is being used. Therefore, using the money more wisely would seem to be the answer. The only problem is what is "wiser"? I don't like using personal experience as an answer but it is the only thing that I am sure of. I stared to have a real job (not chores) was when I was in the 7th grade. I delivered newspapers on my bike and this taught me "responsibility". If I missed a house I would get a call stating so and I was required to go back on my bike and correct my mistake, rain, snow, or shine. Now this type of job is probably no longer available, adults in cars perform the job (at least in my area). New laws that try and protect children have made it almost impossible to really work at a young age. Try bucking hay in the heat of the summer, or picking fruit. I don't know if kids of today would be willing or even wanting to do the jobs that we used to do, but it taught us valuable lessons.
One thought that was brought up in this discussion was diminishing welfare payments as one worked their way up the jobs ladder. Another problem that I am quite familiar with is corporations unable to find the people that are willing, qualified (able to meet the standards required) or desire. I know of a person who recently retired from the US Army and moved to this area. He was able to find work but for various reasons didn't meet all of his requirement. He applied to Halliburton for a job in the oil fields and was accepted after passing various requirements. This was an excellent paying job but the only problem was again separation from the family. He came back to the area and was able to get on as an apprentice at a local union. This was a fairly low paying job. Just recently Halliburton contacted him and basically begged for him to come back to work, they were even willing to hold the position open while his wife recuperated from an accident. The point of this is that Halliburton was unable to find a replacement for him and was willing to do almost anything to get him back. Sometimes it takes a little sacrifice and self-determination and responsibility to succeed in this economy.
So what would be the problem at taking a closer look at how the current welfare and education system works in this country. We are a smart and industrious country and if we put our minds to it we can succeed. Also put aside what is good politically and personal pride and do what is right for the country. This applies to all political and organizations in this country. We are one people, at least we should be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh come on. Of course people aren't going to say "I support the corporate take over of government." But what they do say is "I don't support minimum wage... I think it's okay for businesses to maximize their profits, including paying workers the bare minimum... I support lowest possible taxes for business... I support super low taxes on super rich people... I support the Citizens United decision...". This sort of support adds up to the state we are in: corporations getting a free lunch at taxpayer expense.

It's so easy to say that <those people> say/do this, but they also say/do that.
If you don't have actual examples of someone saying both things, then I suspect
that it's mere empty stereotyping....a convenient way to dismiss someone's views
because they're in <that group>.