Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 11th, 2012, 04:30 AM   #31

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclefred View Post
[I]t is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“

In other words, a single parent making $29000 a year takes home more money with benefits and salary than a single parent making $69000 a year.

This chart, created by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, explains the calculation:

It Doesn’t Pay to Work | Power Line
I have to admit I was very dubious when I saw this chart. But I did some research, and it turns out that it's legit. The primary source is here:

http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/11/...0063532278.pdf

It is definitely disturbing, but I still question some of his numbers. For example, he shows that this single mom gets a "negative income tax" credit of about $5,000. I would assume he's talking about the federal "Earned income credit", but that amounts to $2,500 for a single parent in this situation (2 children). The "childcare" credit also looks fishy. A parent with $0 income would get $16,000 in childcare? With $0 income it has to be assumed that the parent isn't working, so what would $16,000 in childcare be needed for? If that is true, then there's something rotten in the state of Pennsylvania, and I sure hope the same thing isn't going on in Ohio!
Rongo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 11th, 2012, 04:36 AM   #32

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,403

I know from personal experience that living in a welfare state can mean that it's easy to fall into the 'benefit trap' whereby the motivation to find work just isn't a financial one.

But what's the alternative? To keep those people who are dependent on benefits in a state of poverty?
Sicknero is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 04:47 AM   #33

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
I know where I live, $69,000 is a very good salary. It is very disheartening to see statistics such as this.
Just to point out, that $69,000 in equivalent benefits is NOT going to a non-working parent. It's going to a parent who's working and making $29,000 a year. She could, in fact, be working just as hard or harder than the person making $69,000 a year. Nevertheless, I agree that the overall situation is disturbing, if these numbers are indeed accurate.
Rongo is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 10:13 AM   #34

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 8,274
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Why does it seem different in Europe, are the fathers there a real part of the family, while in the US they are not?
That is not true of the UK. A series of social catastrophes- all intentional- have come along to destroy that. Feminism, where one partner becomes set against the other and now 2 wages are required to provide a living where one used to suffice. Thus eroding the role of the father. And the biggest own- goal by women in British social history.

Add to that the rise of service industries, short term employment and the destruction- intentionally- of industry, thus destroying working class solidarity, which was also THE strength of the working people: it was a double edged sword, a moral system far removed from middle class (OLD middle class, not the new pseudo middle class) "values". Or lack of.

Then we have the rise in "sexual liberation", which effectively means promiscuity portrayed as "empowerment": where a woman thinks that getting a man to have sex with her is an achievement....

Add to this the Cult of Self, denying yourself nothing, and the promotion of homosexuality, then the British family is in a very bad way.

But the final nail in the coffin is that a man will leave his wife and family knowing that they will be cared for. And a woman will eject a partner for his crimes (such as leaving the toilet seat up) knowing that the State will play husband instead, plus, of course, she doesn't have to cook for it or wash its dirty socks.

A similar thing happened when the first Foundling hospitals were opened: there was a large rise in the number of abandoned infants.
Black Dog is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 12:11 PM   #35

unclefred's Avatar
The Snub Nosed Truth
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon coastal mountains
Posts: 6,316
Blog Entries: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Just to point out, that $69,000 in equivalent benefits is NOT going to a non-working parent. It's going to a parent who's working and making $29,000 a year. She could, in fact, be working just as hard or harder than the person making $69,000 a year. Nevertheless, I agree that the overall situation is disturbing, if these numbers are indeed accurate.
Yes, thanks for noting that. I think it does point out that benefits, and I am in favor of social programs such as food stamps etc, are excessive to the degree that they encourage many people to opt out of contributing to society and take the easy way. Free cell phone with minutes, reduced rents, food, tax credits, heat subsidies...what more do you need if you are not concerned about social status?
unclefred is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 01:23 PM   #36

Mike Lynch's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Maryland
Posts: 1,254

Having a child before you're financially ready is one of the best ways to ensure poverty.
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 02:19 PM   #37

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
Having a child before you're financially ready is one of the best ways to ensure poverty.
I never had much of steady life to consider having any children on my own and I never met any man that was father material.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 02:45 PM   #38

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
I know from personal experience that living in a welfare state can mean that it's easy to fall into the 'benefit trap' whereby the motivation to find work just isn't a financial one.

But what's the alternative? To keep those people who are dependent on benefits in a state of poverty?
It is easy for people in their ivory towers and judge people that are unemployed. A neighbor of mine had just lost her job working in a near by shop and now her life has changed. Even at Christmas with the seasonal work people are still getting made redundant.
Jobs are hard to find and I know someone that works at a the dole office and he has told me that they are people that live off benefits for most of their lives. But he had also said that their are people who do want to work and don't want to live a life on the dole, but they can't find the work.
Unless people live in the normal world, nobody should be allowed to have an opinion.
I to have been on the dole, but at least I found a job which is fairly secure. I am lucky as then there wasn't an unemployment problem back then.
I hope my neighbor has some luck in finding a job.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:18 AM   #39

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 8,274
Blog Entries: 2

Only those who live under a stone want to remain on benefits. Benefits alone is considered- by the Government- to be the bare minimum. And for most, it is. One in 4 British child is living in poverty: a similar number of parents do without meals regularly in order to feed their kids. Many of these ARE working. We have plenty of working poor.

So, switch on the TV or go for a walk around the shops: the standard pastimes of the British. And be bombarded by images of items and lifestyles so far removed from a benefit claimant's reality you need a telescope to see it. Try explaining to kids why they can't have item X or Y.

So, the alternative: work. This depends upon:

(a) availability of real, full time jobs. At the moment and in poor areas, this is a real problem.

(b) wages. National Minimum Wage is 6.19p per hour for over 21 years of age. A cheap packet of cigarettes is around the 7 mark. A cheap loaf is 1.20. A crappy ready meal for 1 is around the 3 mark. Would you work for 1 hour for a packet of smokes? Many jobs for the unskilled long term unemployed are paid at this rate.

(c) Going to work costs money. Public transport is relatively expensive, especially since that scrote Thatcher de-regulated it. It is also unreliable and extremely patchy in coverage, especially in rural areas. I remember catching a bus from Harlech, North Wales to Bangor (North Wales). A journey of 37 miles. It took 6 hours. Then, of course, one has to eat whilst at work, whereas at home, one might do without. Plus for many, working clothes cost money. Running a car is not something one can manage on benefits for any length of time.

(E) skills. Or lack of. There has NEVER been any proper, concerted effort made to give the long term unemployed skills that are actually be useful. Instead, they get used as cheap (as in FREE) labour by businesses who have no intention of ever taking them on (because they'll simply replace them with more of the same) and hence have little or no interest in training them. "Work experience" was almost always badly organised and badly funded, unrealistic and pointless schemes which existed merely to fiddle the unemployment figures. "Youth Opportunity Schemes" became Christened "Youth Exploitation Schemes". These kids left with no skills. None. Other courses include insulting and patronising lectures of "how nice work is". Usually written by someone who has never experienced proper work in their lives. Funny how the people who espouse the greatest work ethic usually do the least work.

The expectations of these people are not high. They may come from generations of unemployed, and like peasants of yesteryear, they may come to accept their position. But like the peasantry- do you think that they actually LIKE it? When, unlike for the peasant of medieval times, there are millions of consumerist images everywhere they look that they cannot have?

I find it deeply disheartening and hypocritical that those better off vote for and encourage politicians who created such unemployment (which, in Britain, means every Government since 1979). They actively create the unemployed and then blame them for existing. Well, you reap what you sow.
Black Dog is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:34 AM   #40

Brisieis's Avatar
Historian
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Egotistical.Apes.Ruining.This.Habitat
Posts: 17,162
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
It is easy for people in their ivory towers and judge people that are unemployed. A neighbor of mine had just lost her job working in a near by shop and now her life has changed. Even at Christmas with the seasonal work people are still getting made redundant.
Jobs are hard to find and I know someone that works at a the dole office and he has told me that they are people that live off benefits for most of their lives. But he had also said that their are people who do want to work and don't want to live a life on the dole, but they can't find the work.
Unless people live in the normal world, nobody should be allowed to have an opinion.
I to have been on the dole, but at least I found a job which is fairly secure. I am lucky as then there wasn't an unemployment problem back then.
I hope my neighbor has some luck in finding a job.
I find there are two types of people who judge the poor.

1. Those who have never had to struggle or live in the real world.

2. Those who have struggled, get out of it, then decide they are suddenly better than everyone else and degrade people who are less fortunate.

What people do not take into consideration are the wider circumstances of every person. There are the wider aspects in society as well as the closer personal issues which can affect a person. Not everyone on the dole is the same person - yet - people seem to have this shared mentality that everyone who signs on is loser, drop out, thug, lazy... I don't really need to carry on, we've all heard these names before.

So what does this do to a person who loses their job or ends up in a circumstance where they have to sign on? What about people who work hard all of their lives then get layed off? What about when a marriage breaks down? There are numerous circumstances for a person to be on the dole, only our views of people who do, are blinded with prejudice. Rather than giving empathy and help or trying to find a solution, people much prefer to call names and ridicule the poor into a seperate class. Which no doubts inflates the said persons ego and makes them feel like a much more worthwhile human being than the person on the dole.
Brisieis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
families, parent, poverty, single


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is to blame for poverty? Robespierre Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 54 April 26th, 2014 09:57 PM
Paradox of Poverty sweetwhite20 Medieval and Byzantine History 7 April 21st, 2012 02:34 PM
Equatorial Poverty Qymaen Middle Eastern and African History 26 February 6th, 2011 01:22 PM
The Families >> Isoroku295 History Book Reviews 5 December 14th, 2010 01:41 PM
The Culture Of Poverty Edratman Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 51 November 10th, 2010 03:09 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.