Welfare vs Economic Inequality

[mikegg]

I make nearly 6 figures and I pay some of the highest taxes living in not only California but San Francisco California.

However, I find it funny that people can't see the big picture in welfare.

People hate giving out welfare. So do I. But I also understand that there's a finite amount of money in the world. If fewer people hold more % of the total wealth, then the rest have less money to spend. Why is this so hard to understand?

In order to not give out as much welfare, we need to reverse the trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The best way to do this is to through taxes - raising them on the ultra rich and closing loopholes so no matter how good of an accountant they hire, they can't escape.

I'm fully aware that there are people born smarter and more capable. There are people born burdens to society. But in general, most people are hard working and good people. Most people will gladly work than receive welfare because the little welfare that they receive will not give them a fulfilling lives.

So for those preaching a trickle down economy but at the same time denying welfare, what exactly do you have in mind? Let those in need starve to death?

 

[diesbudt]

I make nearly 5 figures and I pay some of the highest taxes living in not only California but San Francisco California.

However, I find it funny that people can't see the big picture in welfare.

People hate giving out welfare. So do I. But I also understand that there's a finite amount of money in the world. If fewer people hold more % of the total wealth, then the rest have less money to spend. Why is this so hard to understand?

In order to not give out as much welfare, we need to reverse the trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The best way to do this is to through taxes - raising them on the ultra rich and closing loopholes so no matter how good of an accountant they hire, they can't escape.

I'm fully aware that there are people born smarter and more capable. There are people born burdens to society. But in general, most people are hard working and good people. Most people will gladly work than receive welfare because the little welfare that they receive will not give them a fulfilling life.

So for those preaching to the trickle down economy but at the same time denying welfare, what exactly do you have in mind? Let those in need starve to death?

Bolded - Is there? Last i checked most money is just computer programmed digits and small pieces of metal and paper specially shaped. Thus not an actual resource to be limited by in the world. Sure each of us is limited in that we cannot manipulate the increase of money as there are laws against such a thing. However money is not finite, it isn't like oil, gold, etc. that has such a supply that once it is gone, it is gone. Because we place the value on such "money". Much liek we created the term "time" to describe the passage of events, when in reality time is not a thing or something we truly understand but a measurement we use to show passage of events or to plan on things easier than saying "when the sun raises from the earth and is between the middle of the sky and near the earth". We say 10:00-10:30am.

 

[mikegg]

Bolded - Is there? Last i checked most money is just computer programmed digits and small pieces of metal and paper specially shaped. Thus not an actual resource to be limited by in the world. Sure each of us is limited in that we canot manipulatet he increase of money as there are laws against such a thing. However money is not finite, it isn't like oil, gold, etc. that has such a supply that once it is gone, it is gone.

In this case, I should have wrote purchasing power instead of money. Money can be infinite but purchasing power is not.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Welfare is essentially to cancel out bad luck. Plus to give everyone a minimum level of life quality.

The issue with welfare in the US, as far as I can understand it from the other side of the atlantic, is that you dont ask anything of people on welfare due to unemployment. Plus some is simply abused due to lack of government control.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-home-drive-Jag-claiming-benefits-years.html

Get everything electronic and run all registers against one another. Then the ability to abuse would be minimal at best.

Oh, and for the unemployed. Get them activated and helped. Anything from wiriting job application to back to the school bench.

 

[dank69]

Nearly 5 figures? So less than $10000?

 

[Ausm]

Nearly 5 figures? So less than $10000?

Ziiiiiiing!:biggrin:

 

[mikegg]

Nearly 5 figures? So less than $10000?

I make a little less than 100,000 so nearly 6 figures. You caught me. I included my income because a lot of people assume if you are not fighting against welfare bills, then you are receiving welfare. Fair enough?

If I was making nearly 5 figures, I'd be on welfare.

 

[piasabird]

Unless you increase or create a progressive capital gains tax you are not really going to hurt the rich. You will only hurt people like farmers and small business owners.

 

[Genx87]

Unless you increase or create a progressive capital gains tax you are not really going to hurt the rich. You will only hurt people like farmers and small business owners.

And new money.

 

[diesbudt]

In this case, I should have wrote purchasing power instead of money. Money can be infinite but purchasing power is not.

Yes. But if you did, you wouldn't have gotten to see my almost random and almost useless rambling on a thread no?

 

[Texashiker]

Welfare is essentially to cancel out bad luck. Plus to give everyone a minimum level of life quality.

Agreed, but there are families out there that use welfare as a way of life.

As I posted in a previous thread, I know a family that has been on some kind of welfare program for three generations. They have no plans on every improving their life, no plans on going to college, are not going to learn a skill or trade (such as welding),,,, they have no plans expect to draw benefits from the state.

The US needs a mandatory education/reeducation program. Someone gets on welfare, they need a path out of poverty. A path they should be forced to go down.

 

[mikegg]

Agreed, but there are families out there that use welfare as a way of life.

As I posted in a previous thread, I know a family that has been on some kind of welfare program for three generations. They have no plans on every improving their life, no plans on going to college, are not going to learn a skill or trade (such as welding),,,, they have no plans expect to draw benefits from the state.

The US needs a mandatory education/reeducation program. Someone gets on welfare, they need a path out of poverty. A path they should be forced to go down.

Yes this. I fully support programs to get people out of welfare. Those who intentionally linger in welfare territory should be cut.

But in order to stop welfare for those who lost jobs or who can't find jobs, we need more economic equality.

 

[Matt1970]

Playing in rocks bands for the last 20 years you run into a lot of people on Gov assistance. It’s kind of hard to give a lot of sympathy to people waking up at the crack of noon and instead of looking for work they are looking for a rolling paper.

 

[Anarchist420]

Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature so taxes can't be raised to make the poor rich. If everyone could be equal the govt would've already done it.

 

[chucky2]

The problem OP is that raising taxes is pointless until the Politicians that make the policy that spends those taxes are held in check on their level of spending. There are a lot of conservatives, Tea Party, etc. people who would willingly (grudging, puking, screaming, but, would do it) pay increased taxes if they knew that those taxes would actually be used to pay down the Fed and their State debt.

The reason why the big pushback started in '08 was because the crash woke large parts of The Masses out of their stupor and made them go, WTF?!?!, why are the Politicians continuing to blow money at this rate?!?!?

Asking people who have finally awoke to the problem that is Politician to turn around and support increased taxation, that is, giving the problem (aka Politician) more money to then blow is just a non-starter. It's like saying, Hey, come on, be a good sport, give the rapist who just nailed your daughter another <x> minutes alone with her. Who in their right mind would ever consider such a thing?

If you want to get people on the bandwagon of increased social services, first get people to reign in Politician. If you can do that, you'll have a chance during that reformation of getting social services revamped so they actually can be useful to a greater number of people. Or perhaps Politician will do something about cheap goods entering the country (not likely, but hey, maybe they'll try?). Etc. etc.

Asking folks who are already paying the largest part of the nations taxes to pay more so more social services people can scam the system longer and the Politicians can blow more money in a burp burp burp fashion is not going to work. That well, it's dry.

Chuck

 

[blankslate]

Well, I've heard the question asked "Is it better for an economy for 1 person to have a billion dollars or 1000 people who have a million dollars each?".

Maybe that question address some of the points you're getting at in your original post.

Here is a factoid I remember from an interview with the author of this book.

Anyway from the 40's to the early to mid 70s worker productivity almost doubled. And wages when adjusted for inflation increased by a similar amount

However, from the early to mid 70's to about 2008 worker productivity went up by about 60% (iirc) and yet the worker's wages only increased an average of 20%

When he started research for the book (which was initially going to focus mainly on the housing crises) the author found more and more interesting information and ended up writing about a much broader subject.

You're pretty much not going to get reasoned responses to your post rather than variations on talking points defending a person's P.o.V.

Hopefully you get lucky and that's not the case.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Agreed, but there are families out there that use welfare as a way of life.

As I posted in a previous thread, I know a family that has been on some kind of welfare program for three generations. They have no plans on every improving their life, no plans on going to college, are not going to learn a skill or trade (such as welding),,,, they have no plans expect to draw benefits from the state.

The US needs a mandatory education/reeducation program. Someone gets on welfare, they need a path out of poverty. A path they should be forced to go down.

Yep, and thats where the reform is needed. But it seems no party is interrested in it. They either want to blindly add or cut.

 

[chucky2]

Did true worker productivity double, or did technology and process improve and was largely the reason for the doubling?

That is: If you took a 2008 worker and put them in a 1940 job, and vice versa (ignoring understanding of things like computers and mechanics), the 2008 worker would be blowing the 1940 worker away?

I think not.

If the worker isn't the reason for the productivity increase, then why would the worker expect consummate raises to go along with that productivity increase?

Chuck

 

[blankslate]

The US needs a mandatory education/reeducation program. Someone gets on welfare, they need a path out of poverty. A path they should be forced to go down.

That's the problem any program like this will be attacked. President Obama agreed to let states do their own welfare to work standards provided that their standards exceeded the federal standard. He was characterized as ending the work requirement.

In an atmosphere like the present political climate the U.S. is almost like 2 countries.

However, I agree with your point that people on welfare should be required to attend job training or some education program to make them a desirable employee.

 

[Texashiker]

That's the problem any program like this will be attacked. President Obama agreed to let states do their own welfare to work standards provided that their standards exceeded the federal standard. He was characterized as ending the work requirement.

The government has been talking about welfare-to-work programs for at least 25 years, and nothing has been done.

If the worker isn't the reason for the productivity increase, then why would the worker expect consummate raises to go along with that productivity increase?

Chuck

Why should a worker expect a raise? To deal with inflation, and to improve the workers standard of living.

 

[mikegg]

Well, I've heard the question asked "Is it better for an economy for 1 person to have a billion dollars or 1000 people who have a million dollars each?".

Maybe that question address some of the points you're getting at in your original post.

Here is a factoid I remember from an interview with the author of this book.

Anyway from the 40's to the early to mid 70s worker productivity almost doubled. And wages when adjusted for inflation increased by a similar amount

However, from the early to mid 70's to about 2008 worker productivity went up by about 60% (iirc) and yet the worker's wages only increased an average of 20%

When he started research for the book (which was initially going to focus mainly on the housing crises) the author found more and more interesting information and ended up writing about a much broader subject.

You're pretty much not going to get reasoned responses to your post rather than variations on talking points defending a person's P.o.V.

Hopefully you get lucky and that's not the case.

I asked the same question:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34099742&postcount=13

 

[ShintaiDK]

Maybe someone should pass something like this to their local politicians:

http://medicolink.dk/welfare-system-in-denmark

Denmark has introduced a model that combines the hiring and firing approach with a very generous welfare system. Flexicurity is the simultaneous presence of both flexibility and security in the labour market. This model focuses on employment protection provided by the free-market with minimal regulation and flexible employment laws. In Denmark it is now easier to lose one's job but at the same time employers are more willing to hire new staff. The unemployed are provided through unemployment benefit schemes which include the availability of numerous training programs.

The unemployment benefits are combined with free educations programs, therefore, those unwilling to participate or accept suitable positions can find their benefits withdrawn, a significant element that the system relies greatly upon.

More info here as well:
http://denmark.dk/en/society/welfare/flexicurity/

Studies show that Danes are positive about globalisation and do not fear losing their jobs. Rather they seek opportunities for new and better jobs. This is partly ascribed to the flexicurity model which promotes adaptability of employees and enterprises.

 

[glenn1]

So for those preaching a trickle down economy but at the same time denying welfare, what exactly do you have in mind? Let those in need starve to death?

Yes. Well, maybe not to death, just severe malnutrition perhaps. And "need" is not a useful or accurate description when the problem is largely self-created by people dropping out of school, having babies as teenagers, doing drugs, etc. What you're missing is that without a motivating factor (like hunger), there are huge amounts of people who will sit on their ass and not do shit. Or worse yet, get in the way of people who actually are doing something useful. You're presuming that everyone is self-motivated when the exact opposite is normally the case.

 

[chucky2]

That's the problem any program like this will be attacked. President Obama agreed to let states do their own welfare to work standards provided that their standards exceeded the federal standard. He was characterized as ending the work requirement.

In an atmosphere like the present political climate the U.S. is almost like 2 countries.

However, I agree with your point that people on welfare should be required to attend job training or some education program to make them a desirable employee.

The government has been talking about welfare-to-work programs for at least 25 years, and nothing has been done.

Right, because money to Politicians is simply not real. They can always deficit spend, and can always just blow money.

Do you guys really think that "civil rights leaders" who have the ability to stir up large voting demographics are going to sit by watching their constituency be kicked off the welfare rolls, or, made to actually contribute instead of sitting there collecting welfare??? F no. Those same leaders are going to be getting one on one facetime immediately (that the common man would never get) with Pols and making it known that what the Pols are considering is simply unacceptable. The consequences to going forward would be loss of that voting demographic, even strong active resistance against the Pols supporting such an effort come election time.

The Pols know this. The most important thing in a Pols world is not doing their job, not The People, but, is to get re-elected. It is for this reason that Pols in the numbers required are never going to do real social service reform. They'll play at it, make it look good for The Public while behind closed doors they'll be making sure the "civil rights leaders" are placated and know that nothing is really going to be done to kick their folks off the rolls or really make it any harder for them to buy Pepsi and Cheetos at the local gas station on the publics dime.

And the world turns.....

Chuck

 

[blankslate]

Did true worker productivity double, or did technology and process improve and was largely the reason for the doubling?


That is: If you took a 2008 worker and put them in a 1940 job, and vice versa (ignoring understanding of things like computers and mechanics), the 2008 worker would be blowing the 1940 worker away? I think not.

If the worker isn't the reason for the productivity increase, then why would the worker expect consummate raises to go along with that productivity increase? Chuck

That's a false analogy since the worker still does the work and even if you take the cumulative costs of the technological advancements from the 70's to 2008 that allowed workers to be more productive; their cumulative wages should still have increased by at least 1/2 of their productivity increases.

The workers are still doing the work and are still learning how to use newer technology and techniques (in the case of non-minimum wage work) and should be paid more for their increased productivity than they have since the 70s.

Even if you don't agree to almost a one to one ratio that took place from the 40's to the early 70's (a time that is looked upon nostalgically by many as a economic boom time overall). Workers should have seen greater than 20% wage increases when the productivity increased by about 60%.


I think it really depends on if you agree with this speaker on youtube.com or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc

I don't expect you'll agree, but to each their own.