Disincentive in America

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
check the math yourself but this is an eyeopener

got to admit that I was shocked to discover how far the welfare reforms of yesteryear had been subverted. don't know if that was the plan all along but its very disturbing.


Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.
From Emmerich:


You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

sorry, no good way to import the chart that I could find.


Stunning? Just do it yourself.


Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.
And if that wasn't enough, here is one that will blow your mind:


If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.​
Ever wonder why Obama was so focused on health reform? It is so those who have no interest or ability in working, make as much as representatives of America's once exalted, and now merely endangered, middle class.


First of all, working one week a month, saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays. By working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.
Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. A typical Mississippi family coverage would cost around $12,000, adding deductibles and copays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That's a huge hit.​
There is a reason why a full time worker may not be too excited to learn there is little to show for doing the "right thing."


The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than woring one week a month at minimu wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.​
It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.


If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job. In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.
This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were weilling to cheat. Even if you dodn't cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job.​
Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.


SSI pays $8,088 per year for each "disabled" family member. A person can be deemed "disabled" if thy are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.
If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.
Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day to make some sense out of this Mephistophelian tragicomedy known as living in the USA:


Most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.​
Alas, on America's way to to communist welfare, it has long since surpassed such bastions of capitalism as China:


The welfare system in communist China is far stringier. Those people have to work to eat.​
We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.
 
Werbung:
All that makes a career as a Wal mart shelf stocker or perhaps a Starbucks barrista quite an attractive career option, doesn't it? No student loans to pay, no career delays while going to college, no professional dues to pay. No wonder so many drop out of school.
 
All that makes a career as a Wal mart shelf stocker or perhaps a Starbucks barrista quite an attractive career option, doesn't it? No student loans to pay, no career delays while going to college, no professional dues to pay. No wonder so many drop out of school.

no wonder indeed.
 
yes they are shown on the breakdown at the link as well as utility welfare. had not remembered tbat there was such a thing.
When you have a group of people agreeing to "share everything" with each other--eventually the lazy nature of the human being kicks in and soon you have one group completely supporting the other. The group then providing the support eventually becomes resentful and the experiment dies and falls apart. It is a flawed philosophy in its very concept. It cannot work, it does not work, it will never work because from a philosophical perspective it simply can't can't work--because men are imperfect.I think Our Founders knew this. This is why the only answer for any society is constitutional limited government and the economic system which supports it; capitalism. As for the argument that capitalism is "unfair"--really? Why? Aren't all individuals different in their drive, ambition, talents? Of course different people will have different outcomes in their financial lives! Because we're all different! The Leftist notion that things can be equalized--is bogus. That could only happen if we all became robots. I am sorry to disappoint you Lefties; that is not how nature made us.
 
When you have a group of people agreeing to "share everything" with each other--eventually the lazy nature of the human being kicks in and soon you have one group completely supporting the other. The group then providing the support eventually becomes resentful and the experiment dies and falls apart. It is a flawed philosophy in its very concept. It cannot work, it does not work, it will never work because from a philosophical perspective it simply can't can't work--because men are imperfect.I think Our Founders knew this. This is why the only answer for any society is constitutional limited government and the economic system which supports it; capitalism. As for the argument that capitalism is "unfair"--really? Why? Aren't all individuals different in their drive, ambition, talents? Of course different people will have different outcomes in their financial lives! Because we're all different! The Leftist notion that things can be equalized--is bogus. That could only happen if we all became robots. I am sorry to disappoint you Lefties; that is not how nature made us.

Obviously, when the FF said that all men are created equal, they meant equal before the law. There never has been a society in which everyone shared equally. On the other hand, a society in which a select few have all the marbles tends to foment revolution.
 
Obviously, when the FF said that all men are created equal, they meant equal before the law. There never has been a society in which everyone shared equally. On the other hand, a society in which a select few have all the marbles tends to foment revolution.

or be the result of revolution
 
Sometimes, revolutions and elections have unintended results.

hmmm... not too sure about revolutions, I think the results are known and planned for.
elections could be though the results I suspect were well known to the candidate. some voters sure seem to act surprised.
 
Yes, poor people should be starved into submission shouldn't they so that they can give up on their hard won poverty and go get one of those readily available jobs

Yes, that is the Christian thing to do

Well if you are a right wing American imbecile
 
Werbung:
The Leftist notion that things can be equalized--is bogus. That could only happen if we all became robots. I am sorry to disappoint you Lefties; that is not how nature made us.
BarackusofBorg.jpg
 
Back
Top