Crebman
Heisman
Posts: 9,407
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 552
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: War against Poverty at 50
(03-15-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-p...fare-trade
The above link is to a CATO Institute story from 2013.
"In 1995, the Cato Institute published a groundbreaking study, The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off, which estimated the value of the full package of welfare benefits available to a typical recipient in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It found that not only did the value of such benefits greatly exceed the poverty level but, because welfare benefits are tax-free, their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job."
"…The current (2013) welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.…"
007 - this was my point. Sitting on the porch can't be the equal of working. I've seen too many instances of generational welfare. The only reason for the system to stay as it is, is that it becomes a reliable voting bloc for one group.
|
|
03-15-2015 02:14 PM |
|
mptnstr@44
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,047
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Nati Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: War against Poverty at 50
(03-15-2015 02:14 PM)Crebman Wrote: (03-15-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-p...fare-trade
The above link is to a CATO Institute story from 2013.
"In 1995, the Cato Institute published a groundbreaking study, The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off, which estimated the value of the full package of welfare benefits available to a typical recipient in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It found that not only did the value of such benefits greatly exceed the poverty level but, because welfare benefits are tax-free, their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job."
"…The current (2013) welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.…"
007 - this was my point. Sitting on the porch can't be the equal of working. I've seen too many instances of generational welfare. The only reason for the system to stay as it is, is that it becomes a reliable voting bloc for one group.
Based on the Cato Institute research collecting benefits yields a better lifestyle than working... which leads people to decide to take benefits rather than work...
Their children see them never working and getting a check.
This becomes a learned lifestyle leading to generational welfare.
|
|
03-15-2015 02:49 PM |
|
vandiver49
Heisman
Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
|
RE: War against Poverty at 50
(03-13-2015 02:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: (03-13-2015 12:16 PM)smudge12 Wrote: EagleRock posted an opinion piece on the locked thread that piqued my interest:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/0...verty-won/
The piece talks about how we've spent 16 trillion dollars over 50 years and have only reduced the poverty rate by 4% in that time; it made it out to seem like those are dismal numbers, but when you break it down at a further level, this actually seems like a significant accomplishment. Had we stayed at 19%, we'd have approximately 12,547,528 million more people in poverty today than we have right now. If we are to break this down in terms of money spent this year from that 16 trillion (a simple 16T divided by 50), we're spending about $25,500 per person to get a person out of poverty. And of course that money isn't all going directly to the person in need; it also goes into the pockets of the Americans working directly with the fellow citizens they're trying to get out of poverty, which in turn is hopefully getting back into the economy. I imagine the overall ROI of that $25,500 over time is significantly higher. In my opinion, that's an incredible societal achievement we should be proud of.
Fire away...
edit: If you break down the money over 50 years, it amounts to approximately $170,000 spent per person saved from poverty.
Aprox. 70% of the money budgeted to the "welfare state" is spent by administering it. Private charity returns aprox. 70% of its funds to those in need. Why the difference?
Bureaucrats get to steal what they spend and have zero incentive to actually get anyone off their books. They are actually incentivized to put more and more people on the dole. Private charity has to actually compete for funds and show good ROI or they lose donors. The marketplace of charity insures that it be done economically and efficiently.
And this is my biggest problem with the system. If we are giving money away to see if that will left people out of poverty, then so be it. But why do we need an entire apparatus of gov't functionaries to oversee the operation? Especially since said administrative officials are a bigger drain on the system than the people that they purportedly are trying to help.
|
|
03-16-2015 08:14 AM |
|
NIU007
Legend
Posts: 34,261
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 318
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
|
RE: War against Poverty at 50
(03-15-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-p...fare-trade
The above link is to a CATO Institute story from 2013.
"In 1995, the Cato Institute published a groundbreaking study, The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off, which estimated the value of the full package of welfare benefits available to a typical recipient in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It found that not only did the value of such benefits greatly exceed the poverty level but, because welfare benefits are tax-free, their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job."
"…The current (2013) welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.…"
I agree that that's too much for not working.
|
|
03-16-2015 10:47 AM |
|
NewJersey GATA
1st String
Posts: 1,307
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Wayne, NJ
|
RE: War against Poverty at 50
We should give anyone who wants 30k, an agreement to denounce their citizenship, a plane ticket to another continent , a steak and shellfish dinner, and a peace sign.
This could easily end poverty in the United States
|
|
03-16-2015 10:53 AM |
|
Crebman
Heisman
Posts: 9,407
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 552
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: War against Poverty at 50
(03-16-2015 10:47 AM)NIU007 Wrote: (03-15-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-p...fare-trade
The above link is to a CATO Institute story from 2013.
"In 1995, the Cato Institute published a groundbreaking study, The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off, which estimated the value of the full package of welfare benefits available to a typical recipient in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It found that not only did the value of such benefits greatly exceed the poverty level but, because welfare benefits are tax-free, their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job."
"…The current (2013) welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.…"
I agree that that's too much for not working.
This was my rationale for believing that you need to incentivize working over not working.
|
|
03-16-2015 11:25 AM |
|
mptnstr@44
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,047
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Nati Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: War against Poverty at 50
We have made it too comfortable to not work with entitlements thus disincentivising working.
It also incentivizes working under the table and/or not working full-time.
It also disincentivizes marriage because benefits are cut for a two parent household. Get married and your benefits are cut. Benefit reduction due to marriage is one of the reasons behind single-parent households and out of wedlock births.
The helping hand the government should provide should be the very basics so that to have more than that you have to work.
There should be an advantage to getting and staying married not a disadvantage.
|
|
03-16-2015 12:16 PM |
|