The Welfare System

[MartialArtist68]

The welfare system in this country needs to change. I don't mean to generalize, but too many people are leaching off this country without trying to find jobs and make their lives better.

A way to change this could be to, instead of giving these people money, help them find jobs. Of course, we need to fix this economy so that jobs can exist in the first place...

what do you think?

:argue:

 

[Ceicei]

The welfare system in this country needs to change. I don't mean to generalize, but too many people are leaching off this country without trying to find jobs and make their lives better.

A way to change this could be to, instead of giving these people money, help them find jobs. Of course, we need to fix this economy so that jobs can exist in the first place...

what do you think?

:argue:

Uh, many states have changed that process. Welfare isn't much an entitlement program as it used to be. With *some exceptions*, food stamps and financial programs do require those who receive benefits to be actively job searching or working. Many do have internship/work sites to enable these people to develop skills. If you wish, I can give more information on some policies with these programs for some States in the USA.

- Ceicei

 

[Cruentus]

The welfare system in this country needs to change. I don't mean to generalize, but too many people are leaching off this country without trying to find jobs and make their lives better.

A way to change this could be to, instead of giving these people money, help them find jobs. Of course, we need to fix this economy so that jobs can exist in the first place...

what do you think?

:argue:

Hey...end corporate welfare, and welfare for americans richest first. :idea: Then perhaps we can fund programs that help americans who are caught in the trap find decent work...

Just my thoughts,

Ralph Nader

 

[MartialArtist68]

Hey...end corporate welfare, and welfare for americans richest first. :idea: Then perhaps we can fund programs that help americans who are caught in the trap find decent work...

Just my thoughts,

Ralph Nader

CORPORATE WELFARE? RICH AMERICAN WELFARE? You mean the "Tax cuts for the rich", right? Yes, I agree, we need to end those. If the gov't would be smarter with it's money...

 

[stephen]

CORPORATE WELFARE? RICH AMERICAN WELFARE? You mean the "Tax cuts for the rich", right? Yes, I agree, we need to end those. If the gov't would be smarter with it's money...

The 'gov't' dosen't HAVE any money. It's all OURS! And I would like it if they would keep their dirty paws off of it. Futhermore, it also happens to be in everyone's interest to do so (even the poor, in the long run), as money given to the government is also subject to an inefficiency tax which is levied by the gods of economics.

/s

 

[MisterMike]

Couldn't taxing businesses more hurt job creation? Then you have to pay for more individual welfare.

 

[jeffkyle]

Where is all this welfare??? I haven't ever found it! :idunno:
I just work for a living!

 

[PeachMonkey]

The US welfare system is broken in a number of ways.

While there are almost certainly people who have no desire to do anything but collect welfare, the largest problem is that the jobs available to most people who move off of welfare cannot replace the benefits they receive while on welfare.

In particular, single mothers are the hardest hit. While on welfare, most receive Medicaid; most people on welfare are not qualified for jobs that provide health insurance. If anyone in the household is sick or requires expensive prescription medication, they're hosed.

In addition, the wages paid by most entry-level jobs don't begin to provide enough to support single parents.

It's not enough to simply help welfare recipients find jobs; jobs must be created, and found, that replace all of the benefits of welfare. Or, alternately, we as a society can work to share some of those burdens so that everyone has a better basic standard of living.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The welfare system in this country needs to change. I don't mean to generalize, but too many people are leaching off this country without trying to find jobs and make their lives better.

A way to change this could be to, instead of giving these people money, help them find jobs. Of course, we need to fix this economy so that jobs can exist in the first place...

what do you think?

:argue:

I think 90% of wellfare goes to newly divorced mothers whom generaly remarry off of wellfare in a few short years, and most of the controversy is in the few bad apples. I agree that the US should provide "New Deal" type jobs for those willing to work but this nation is content with keeping the minority of CEOs as multi millionares with off shore Tax evasion scams, and have actualy convinced about half of us that it somehow trickles down; so, I wouldn't hold your breath. :asian:
Sean

 

[PeachMonkey]

Futhermore, it also happens to be in everyone's interest to do so (even the poor, in the long run), as money given to the government is also subject to an inefficiency tax which is levied by the gods of economics.

/s

The so-called gods of economics also show that private industries can be just as inefficient. See how, for instance, Halliburton is blowing our money in Iraq.

In the end, we can choose how much longer the American Dream will exist by what sort of societal resources we're willing to pay, and how well our government manages those resources.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Hey...end corporate welfare, and welfare for americans richest first. :idea: Then perhaps we can fund programs that help americans who are caught in the trap find decent work...

Snaps to that.

Corporations that are making billions in profits are routinely avoiding paying taxes. Off-shor holdings are ridiculous.

I read somewhere (and yes, I will try to find the citation) that for the "average" Amercian, $300 of your yearly taxes goes to this "corporate welfare" (i.e. like the government giving money to McDonald's, an incredibly profitable and huge corporation, to expand overseas), whereas a much smaller fraction goes to the actual welfare system.

It's not enough to simply help welfare recipients find jobs; jobs must be created, and found, that replace all of the benefits of welfare. Or, alternately, we as a society can work to share some of those burdens so that everyone has a better basic standard of living.

I think if we had a true and accessible Universal Health Care system in the States, other issues (like young, poor single mothers who have no health insurance staying in welfare because of the health care) would be solved.

For the vast majority of people on welfare, they don't want to be there. It's not *nice* to pick up a welfare check, it's not *nice* to not be able to get a job and enough money to buy the things you'd like to, or even need to. It's not *nice* to scrape by.

Sure, a few people may abuse the system, and the system has problems with it (the "welfare to work" program is not working well), but that's not a reason to dump the system. Our judicial system isn't perfect either, but until I have a better alternative to suggest, it's the one that is working now.

And I think a lot of anger about the welfare system is the misconception that people on welfare are "living easy" or that it's not a crappy place to be. It is.

If we had even a fraction of the money that is spent on "corporate welfare" - money that these companies do not need - or if we actually collected the appropriate taxes on large businesses - we'd be able to fund more health care, perhaps set up a better-staffed system.

Couldn't taxing businesses more hurt job creation? Then you have to pay for more individual welfare.

When businesses have escaped from paying taxes - which drives me nuts, *I* can't escape from paying taxes as a small buisness owner, why should a multibillion dollar company escape from it? - there has been no corresponding increase in job creation. So far I have yet to see evidence of a company - eapecially a huge corporation - getting a tax break and turning that saved money around to invest in their community and create more jobs.

 

[PeachMonkey]

So far I have yet to see evidence of a company - eapecially a huge corporation - getting a tax break and turning that saved money around to invest in their community and create more jobs.

In fact, studies have shown that many businesses that receive tax incentives cause more damage than good. "Big-box" retail outlets usually drive local businesses out, and the people they hire make less and receive fewer benefits than the local employees whose jobs were destroyed. In fact, in the small college town where I live, big-box outlets employ primarily individuals from surrounding counties, which does even less to help the local economy.

Alternately, many companies stay in a location only as long as their tax abatements are in place; once they must begin paying local taxes, they move on to another municipality offering a superior package, leaving their previous location with a net negative in incentive costs.

 

[MisterMike]

When businesses have escaped from paying taxes - which drives me nuts, *I* can't escape from paying taxes as a small buisness owner, why should a multibillion dollar company escape from it? - there has been no corresponding increase in job creation. So far I have yet to see evidence of a company - eapecially a huge corporation - getting a tax break and turning that saved money around to invest in their community and create more jobs.

But again, since when has raising taxes on big business ever helped jobs? Another example, is now gov't is going to tax company stock options. So instead of footing the bill, they will just cut the program. I think the same cuts will come down on the people if tax rates go up just for business.

 

[PeachMonkey]

But again, since when has raising taxes on big business ever helped jobs?

Raising taxes on business (or rather, simply rolling back the extensive tax benefits granted to businesses, and preventing them from hiding their money in ways that prevent taxes from being collected -- I don't think that qualifies as a "tax raise") has a number of benefits.

First, more money goes into the public coffers. This can be helpful in a number of ways... either more money to spend on public programs, or less money needed from individual taxpayers to counterbalance.

Second (this is really related to the first), if the government has more money, it can spend it not just on social welfare programs like welfare or, say, Universal Health Care, but also on edu-ma-cation (helps people get better jobs), research and development (hires people), infrastructure (hires people), or even defense (hires people).

I would argue for further measures beyond requiring big business to pay its share of taxes. Corporations exist because of charters granted by society; this system was put into place because corporate entities help foster businesses which stimulate the economy employ people, etc. If corporations act in ways that are not in the public interest (for example, shipping jobs overseas at a cut rate to raise profit levels, or dumping toxic chemicals), they need to be punished in truly meaningful ways, including, in extreme cases, the possible revocation of the corporation's charter and the assumption of its assets by the state.

 

[Cruentus]

But again, since when has raising taxes on big business ever helped jobs? Another example, is now gov't is going to tax company stock options. So instead of footing the bill, they will just cut the program. I think the same cuts will come down on the people if tax rates go up just for business.

A better question to ask is when in the history of the industrial age has lowering taxes for big business created jobs, or raised saleries (accept for the salaries of the owners/partners)?

Would raising taxes (or actually taxing big business for a change), or bad economy cause downsizing, and job loss. You bet. Why? Partially because the owners don't want to take a pay-cut, as well as many other factors. (such as running a debt ratio that is so thin, that "pwease mr. govnoment official..if wyuo tax me then Iwiw have to downsize, firing your vowters...so pweety pweese don't tax me or ewse u won't get reawected evo again!")

So...we lower taxes for companies, it doesn't create jobs or raise salaries (in fact, the living wage has been getting lower and lower), but there is less money in the government so who do we tax? "The people." 'cept the very wealthy can actually have enough revenue to LEGALLY shelter their taxes (trust me...I help people do this!). So...that leaves the fact that taxes on the lower to upper middle class are what is left to run the government; regardless if these people are owners or workers (in fact, the small business owners in our country seem to get screwed the worst on taxes among other things, while the wal-marts of the land rule).

Now, a good economy and higher revenue will create jobs because companies expand to grow their profit potential...however....this does nothing to improve the living wage. It actually helps to lower the living wage, but that is a whole 'nother discussion.

So you see...we've created a conundrum, and I am not sure of the immediate solution.

O.K....I have an idea on the immediate solution, which would be flat tax. Just say screw it, and flat tax everyone, and don't allow breaks. Perhaps some incentives for families and such (and perhaps this would require us to solve our pollution credit problem as well)...but not the level of breaks and sheltering we have now. Everyones tax bracket would lower to somewhere around 20% or less because the very wealthy and the companies who get all the breaks would actually have to pay. I am not pulling this completely out of my **** either, as these figures were the results of an econ study that was done (if I could remeber or find who, I'll let you know). Perhaps some jobs might be lost in the short run ("AHHKKK!...we have to actually pay the government something! Move the plant to India!"), but some tests and studies would have to be done to determine how large of a scale this would be. This would require forumla's and study to ensure a smooth transition, but it could work.

Something is for sure, though, and that is that something has to be done. You know that we have a problem when the people who fund the government and drive the economy (the working lower to upper middle class) have less money to work with year after year.

One last thing: If your business claims to be an american company, but does not pay taxes AT ALL, then you shouldn't be allowed to operate here AT ALL. And...if you own it...then YOU SHOULDN"T BE ALLOWED TO LIVE HERE EITHER!

Also...you shouldn't be allowed to be vice Pres....but thats another conversation!

Yours,

Dick "Tricky dikky" Cheney

 

[rmcrobertson]

THIS is what you're worrying about? Our government is pissing away hundreds of billions in Iraq for a war we never should have gotten into in the first place--including an estimated 500 million to rebuild a prison where our guys have been torturing prisoners--and THIS is what you're worried about?

I realize you probably won't let reality bother you, but here're a few facts you should know: a) welfare takes up less than one and one-half percent of the Federal Budget; b) the considerable majority of those one welfare are women and children; c) the considerable majority are, "white," whatever that means; d) the considerable majority are on welfare less than three years.

Sheesh. No, I do not feel nice about this. Every single religion I've ever heard of enjoins its followers to charity and compassion, and THIS is what keeps you up at night.

Hey, are you worried about the billions our gov sends yearly to, say, Halliburton? To wealthy corporate farms? To, say, Boeing.

Course not. Let's GIT them women and children.

 

[Cruentus]

Course not. Let's GIT them women and children.

Well...they should all get jobs!

Sincerely,
Phil Night
CEO, Nike

 

[PeachMonkey]

O.K....I have an idea on the immediate solution, which would be flat tax. Just say screw it, and flat tax everyone, and don't allow breaks.

I might even be for a flat tax, IF by "flat tax" we meant "flat tax on everyone's income. ALL income". That includes payroll taxes, capital gains, interest income, perks, deferred compensation, pension contributions, stock options, etc etc etc etc. And as long as all of those sources of income are taxed for corporations as well individuals.

The "flat tax" as proposed by conservatives such as Steve Forbes is really a "flat tax" on payroll income, which would mean that the wealthy would pay virtually no tax whatsoever, and the working classes would carry a devastating tax burden.

 

[PeachMonkey]

rmcrobertson,

couldn't have said it better muh'self.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Ditto, PeachMonkey.

I think having compassion as a society for the unfortunate, which takes up a tiny fraction of the budget, compared to letting corporations get off TAX FREE or even RECEIVE EXTRA MONEY from the government (which we are paying for) is ludicrous.

Ever since someone decided corporations have the same rights as individuals, things have gone downhill.

One last thing: If your business claims to be an american company, but does not pay taxes AT ALL, then you shouldn't be allowed to operate here AT ALL. And...if you own it...then YOU SHOULDN"T BE ALLOWED TO LIVE HERE EITHER!

Thank you.