On Welfare. And I can only speak on Gt Britain & Ireland. There are more single mothers, young males ect, living on welfare/social security. Free handouts from the state. Some of them have never done a day's work in their life. 300,00 single mothers and others,in Ireland receive some sort of free hand outs .i.e social weffare/security from the Irish government each week.
Now we have an influx of refugees from East Africa + new EU member state youths coming into Ireland. Its a free for all.
Most of the people/refugees that come from East Africa are working here now,paying the taxes, its the others who just mope about and live off the fat of the land.These get free housing, free travel and even free mobile phones. A married man with two or three kids working his butt off has less money after taxes ect.
On Welfare.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
On Welfare.
capt_buzzard wrote: On Welfare. And I can only speak on Gt Britain & Ireland. There are more single mothers, young males ect, living on welfare/social security. Free handouts from the state. Some of them have never done a day's work in their life. 300,00 single mothers and others,in Ireland receive some sort of free hand outs .i.e social weffare/security from the Irish government each week.
Now we have an influx of refugees from East Africa + new EU member state youths coming into Ireland. Its a free for all.
Most of the people/refugees that come from East Africa are working here now,paying the taxes, its the others who just mope about and live off the fat of the land.These get free housing, free travel and even free mobile phones. A married man with two or three kids working his butt off has less money after taxes ect.
The problem seems to me that state support is enough to give a reasonable
standard of living, not just the essentials. There is no incentive to work as long
as this is the case. People won't take just any old job to improve their situation,
they will only take on a job they want and pays enough money (this is often
unattainable). The way payments are made has something to do with it as well - having got the money, it can be spent on anything. No wonder these isles (more than Europe, who pass on "refugees" to us) are a target for people from poorer
areas - the most basic living on "benefits" is better than "at home".
Now we have an influx of refugees from East Africa + new EU member state youths coming into Ireland. Its a free for all.
Most of the people/refugees that come from East Africa are working here now,paying the taxes, its the others who just mope about and live off the fat of the land.These get free housing, free travel and even free mobile phones. A married man with two or three kids working his butt off has less money after taxes ect.
The problem seems to me that state support is enough to give a reasonable
standard of living, not just the essentials. There is no incentive to work as long
as this is the case. People won't take just any old job to improve their situation,
they will only take on a job they want and pays enough money (this is often
unattainable). The way payments are made has something to do with it as well - having got the money, it can be spent on anything. No wonder these isles (more than Europe, who pass on "refugees" to us) are a target for people from poorer
areas - the most basic living on "benefits" is better than "at home".
On Welfare.
We have a guy at work who will not pay his child support. He is required to report to the welfare office every month with a list of places he applied for a job. He sits there and brags how he goes through the phone book, writes places down, and they don't even call and check. He even makes up businesses! The only thing stopping him from working is he can't stop drinking long enough to go to work! Then you have the people who need it and can't get it.
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
On Welfare.
There are people that truely need the assistance.. some single moms trying to get back thier lives, kids, homeless families. The ones that make it a living from generation to generation are the problems. Of course when you do reform the laws they find other ways around them.. I mean I work a job and a half for 6 months out of the year.. average around 55-60 hours aweek with no weekends off during that time.. to make ends meet.. It they are able bodied, then they should be working .. period..
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
On Welfare.
Squeeker wrote: I live in the USA. After working since I was 15 years old, getting my Masters degree and making up to $48, 000 a year, I am now disabled and have just been informed that I will not receive Social Security Disability Insurance for 5 months after the date I was declared to be disabled (unable to work). I was not a spend thrift and had a gold rating on my credit cards. Within three months of being disabled, I am considering bankruptcy. I had to give up my apartment, can not afford my car, had to give up everything I own (which wasn't much) in order to move in with my parents at 36 years old. And have credit card and car payments that I can no longer afford. I know of very few people who plan ahead enough to save 5 months worth of income while waiting to get Disability Insurance from the Social Security Program from which they have contributed a lot of money to. The SSI (Supplental Income Insurance) Program is supposed to supplement your income for the time period inbetween the date you are disabled and the date you receive SSDI. However, in order for it to kick in -- you have to wait 3-6 months for SSDI to declare you disabled. Backwards, as usual for government policies. How do you pay your bills inbetween? The vast majority of people are turned down the first time they apply and have to appeal the decision. Then, you receive back pay that is barely enough to pay for my car, let alone my other bills from my previous life. I would not wish the welfare system on my worst enemy!! (of course, I don't have any) Unfortunately, there will always be those people who take advantage of the system somehow and take away money from those people who really need it. In my former life, I was a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor. Ironically, it was my job to help persons with disabilities find jobs. i'm sorry about your disability. but even though you apparently were familiar with these issues and likely the limitations of government benefits in your role helping the disabled find jobs (i'm assuming this, since it seems it would be part and parcel of the daily interaction with a class of folks you are now among), you did not purchase private disability insurance - which is typically thrown in with any standard life insurance policy? it sounds like you're complaining about the government letting you down, when the responsible party is sitting behind the keyboard. it never occurred to you to make that very basic, responsible investment? i've had life insurance since i was 35. insurance is one of those things you hate paying, but you know you're a fool if you bet the odds the other way.
I will tell you for a fact that receiving Social Security benefits never comes close to what you can make if you get a job and you have to jump through a million hoops and the qualifications are very tough to get SSDI/SSI. Even if you work full-time for minimum wage, which is not a living wage, you will make more than what you would from Social Security or Unemployment Insurance ( I have been on this unfortunately, also.) People who are able-bodied who choose not to work and collect Unemployment Insurance, (I personally know a few) are usually living with their parents, depressed (whether they know it or not) because of low self-esteem because they are not supporting themselves or their families and have no independence. I believe that unemployment insurance is too easy to get and that it starts too soon.i disagree. one cannot stay on unemployment indefinitely. the benefits run out. it is an actual insurance system, paid for by employers, and as the time away from your last employer grows, your benefits are reduced. social security was never intended to be an insurance policy, and at this time, it is a pyramid scheme.
This does encourage able bodied people to stay on it longer than they should be. like social security, it is not enough to live on - not at least as much as one formerly earned, thank goodness. it's intended to help you just get by between jobs.
When I was on Unemployment Insurance, one of the requirements is that you write down 5 places you have contacted to look for employment. As someone said earlier, you can write down anything and noone questions it. I think if this was enforced and people were made to be accountable for looking for actively looking for a job, there would be less people on Unemployment who are not deserving.i don't know why you feel there is a problem with people being on unemployment who are not deserving. benefits eventually run out - they do not go on indefinitely. further, there's a very basic principal here WRT accountability: it is not for the government, which serves at the behest of the people, to assume guilt rather than innocence. people who have been working then are out of work involuntarily (one of the requirements for unemployment - you can't just quit your job and get benefits), are assumed to be honest. the government has an obligation to trust that they are honest. innocent until proven guilty and all that. the longer one is on unemployment, the harder it becomes to continue getting benefits. the scrutiny becomes greater, and the documentation requirements increase - while benefits are decreasing. the system works fine, ultimately. there appears to be little actual fraud.
I know this is a moral issue, but financial matters will always rule out. I don't know what the cost of hiring people to enforce the rule and make all people receiving the insurance prove they are worthy would cost compared to the cost of just giving the people who don't deserve it the Unemployment Insurance. Does anyone know approximately how many people are able-bodied and collecting Welfare as compared to what it costs to pay them? Or, how many people are receiving Unemployment Insurance overall?:-6i don't have answers to those questions. but i have heard very little speculation anywhere that there is some major problem with fraudulent unemployment benefits.
I will tell you for a fact that receiving Social Security benefits never comes close to what you can make if you get a job and you have to jump through a million hoops and the qualifications are very tough to get SSDI/SSI. Even if you work full-time for minimum wage, which is not a living wage, you will make more than what you would from Social Security or Unemployment Insurance ( I have been on this unfortunately, also.) People who are able-bodied who choose not to work and collect Unemployment Insurance, (I personally know a few) are usually living with their parents, depressed (whether they know it or not) because of low self-esteem because they are not supporting themselves or their families and have no independence. I believe that unemployment insurance is too easy to get and that it starts too soon.i disagree. one cannot stay on unemployment indefinitely. the benefits run out. it is an actual insurance system, paid for by employers, and as the time away from your last employer grows, your benefits are reduced. social security was never intended to be an insurance policy, and at this time, it is a pyramid scheme.
This does encourage able bodied people to stay on it longer than they should be. like social security, it is not enough to live on - not at least as much as one formerly earned, thank goodness. it's intended to help you just get by between jobs.
When I was on Unemployment Insurance, one of the requirements is that you write down 5 places you have contacted to look for employment. As someone said earlier, you can write down anything and noone questions it. I think if this was enforced and people were made to be accountable for looking for actively looking for a job, there would be less people on Unemployment who are not deserving.i don't know why you feel there is a problem with people being on unemployment who are not deserving. benefits eventually run out - they do not go on indefinitely. further, there's a very basic principal here WRT accountability: it is not for the government, which serves at the behest of the people, to assume guilt rather than innocence. people who have been working then are out of work involuntarily (one of the requirements for unemployment - you can't just quit your job and get benefits), are assumed to be honest. the government has an obligation to trust that they are honest. innocent until proven guilty and all that. the longer one is on unemployment, the harder it becomes to continue getting benefits. the scrutiny becomes greater, and the documentation requirements increase - while benefits are decreasing. the system works fine, ultimately. there appears to be little actual fraud.
I know this is a moral issue, but financial matters will always rule out. I don't know what the cost of hiring people to enforce the rule and make all people receiving the insurance prove they are worthy would cost compared to the cost of just giving the people who don't deserve it the Unemployment Insurance. Does anyone know approximately how many people are able-bodied and collecting Welfare as compared to what it costs to pay them? Or, how many people are receiving Unemployment Insurance overall?:-6i don't have answers to those questions. but i have heard very little speculation anywhere that there is some major problem with fraudulent unemployment benefits.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
On Welfare.
Squeeker wrote: Dear Anastrophe, (what does that mean?)
anastrophe is a term of rhetoric. it means generally to change the location of one or sometimes more words in a sentence for emphasis. for example, 'glistens the dew upon the morning grass', which would more 'normally' be written as 'the dew glistens upon the morning grass'. details can be found at the first link on my webpage, a link to which is in my signature.
When I was born, my Dad started a life insurance policy for me. When I turned 18 years old, I took over the payments for the policy. I continued paying for it until I was 34 years old. Then, when I was laid off from my job and Unemployment Insurance was not enough to cover my bills. I cashed out the insurance policy so I wouldn't have to claim bankruptcy or borrow money from my parents (trying to be self-sufficient.)
fair enough. it is a tough choice, no question about it. i've been earning practically a substistence living for a couple of years now, after a decade of making top-rate earnings in the internet biz. i'm still able to scrape together the $750 a year for my term-life insurance policy, because no matter what, i want my wife to be taken care of if i meet an untimely demise. but if my situation were just a little bit worse, i might have to make the same choice between bankruptcy and that insurance policy.
Each job I have had since then (I am only 36 years old) has offered life insurance as part of the benefits package that came with my job, and therefore I did not purchase any additional insurance. I could be wrong, but I would assume that the benefits for my last job ended on the day I lost my job and I was not determined to be disabled by SSDI until 3 months after I lost the job. So, the private insurance I had will not pay me because I wasn't determined disabled during the time it covered. It is something I will look into though.
So, to answer your question, I did make that very basic, responsible decision to have life insurance, and had been doing it since I was 18 years old!!!
most insurance that comes as part of a benefits package is pretty minimal to begin with - things like $48,000 upon death, and less for disability. however, one usually can pay an additional amount to bump the insurance up higher - and - though i may be mistaken - i believe the policy is normally on an annual basis, and one has the option to continue after leaving a job (again, paying for it after that point). but not knowing the particulars i can't say what might or might not have been possible.
What is a pyramid scheme?
a pyramid scheme, more formally known as a Ponzi scheme, is a means of defrauding investors, by paying 'earnings' or 'dividends' to the earliest investors from the investments made by new investors. a fairly well-known form is the email pyramid (formerly done in regular old snail mail), where you get a letter saying "send five dollars to each of the ten people listed below. then remove the name at the top of the list, and add your name to the bottom of the list, then mail this letter to five new people, with the same instructions. you'll be rich in no time!". it builds a pyramid of earnings for the people who start the letter, with a huge base of the gullible at the bottom who never get a dime back.
social security is currently exacty that. what current earners pay into it for their 'retirement' is being paid out a month later to current retirees. if it weren't run by the government, it would be illegal.
What does WRT stand for?
internet shorthand for With Regard To.
I don't think enforcing the rules that have been set is an assumption of guilt. In the USA, benefits start one week after you are fired or laid off and continue to be awarded for 6 months. The amount of money you receive stays the same during that period of time. No one ever does any scrutiny whatsoever, so long as you consistently call in for benefits on the date you are told to call. The documentation requirements do not increase and no one ever asks if you have made the 5 calls that you are supposedly required to make to keep your benefits. So, a person can collect benefits and not look for a job for 6 months out of every year. I know a person who is living with his Mom. He works for the first 6 months of every year, then purposely gets himself fired by not coming in on time and not meeting productivity goals. Then, he collects unemployment for 6 months and does not look for a single job. I also have a few friends who have been on unemployment for 6 months and not looked for a job -- when had they been doing the 5 required calls per week, they would have gotten a job much sooner. This is what I mean by collecting benefits longer than you should be. I have seen a lot of fraud in the system. And, appearantly, so have the people who wrote responses before I did. Have you heard the saying, "For every rat you see, there are thousands in hiding"? It would be very nice if people were as honest, responsible and accountable as you and I seem to be. However, I think it is very naive to believe that they are. :-6
i guess the requirements are different in california. the longer you are on it, the more thorough and rigorous the documentation requirements. as well, each time you re-apply, the earnings period from which your benefits are calculated will shift forward, meaning that you'll receive less and less benefits the 'further away' you are from your last full employment.
i guess i'm an optimist, a term i never thought i'd characterize myself with. i reject the 'for every rat you see, there are a thousand in hiding'. i consider the vast majority of people to be honest, hardworking, and of good faith. i see it as 'for every rat you see, there are a thousand people working to eradicate them, by deed and by example'.
anastrophe is a term of rhetoric. it means generally to change the location of one or sometimes more words in a sentence for emphasis. for example, 'glistens the dew upon the morning grass', which would more 'normally' be written as 'the dew glistens upon the morning grass'. details can be found at the first link on my webpage, a link to which is in my signature.
When I was born, my Dad started a life insurance policy for me. When I turned 18 years old, I took over the payments for the policy. I continued paying for it until I was 34 years old. Then, when I was laid off from my job and Unemployment Insurance was not enough to cover my bills. I cashed out the insurance policy so I wouldn't have to claim bankruptcy or borrow money from my parents (trying to be self-sufficient.)
fair enough. it is a tough choice, no question about it. i've been earning practically a substistence living for a couple of years now, after a decade of making top-rate earnings in the internet biz. i'm still able to scrape together the $750 a year for my term-life insurance policy, because no matter what, i want my wife to be taken care of if i meet an untimely demise. but if my situation were just a little bit worse, i might have to make the same choice between bankruptcy and that insurance policy.
Each job I have had since then (I am only 36 years old) has offered life insurance as part of the benefits package that came with my job, and therefore I did not purchase any additional insurance. I could be wrong, but I would assume that the benefits for my last job ended on the day I lost my job and I was not determined to be disabled by SSDI until 3 months after I lost the job. So, the private insurance I had will not pay me because I wasn't determined disabled during the time it covered. It is something I will look into though.
So, to answer your question, I did make that very basic, responsible decision to have life insurance, and had been doing it since I was 18 years old!!!
most insurance that comes as part of a benefits package is pretty minimal to begin with - things like $48,000 upon death, and less for disability. however, one usually can pay an additional amount to bump the insurance up higher - and - though i may be mistaken - i believe the policy is normally on an annual basis, and one has the option to continue after leaving a job (again, paying for it after that point). but not knowing the particulars i can't say what might or might not have been possible.
What is a pyramid scheme?
a pyramid scheme, more formally known as a Ponzi scheme, is a means of defrauding investors, by paying 'earnings' or 'dividends' to the earliest investors from the investments made by new investors. a fairly well-known form is the email pyramid (formerly done in regular old snail mail), where you get a letter saying "send five dollars to each of the ten people listed below. then remove the name at the top of the list, and add your name to the bottom of the list, then mail this letter to five new people, with the same instructions. you'll be rich in no time!". it builds a pyramid of earnings for the people who start the letter, with a huge base of the gullible at the bottom who never get a dime back.
social security is currently exacty that. what current earners pay into it for their 'retirement' is being paid out a month later to current retirees. if it weren't run by the government, it would be illegal.
What does WRT stand for?
internet shorthand for With Regard To.
I don't think enforcing the rules that have been set is an assumption of guilt. In the USA, benefits start one week after you are fired or laid off and continue to be awarded for 6 months. The amount of money you receive stays the same during that period of time. No one ever does any scrutiny whatsoever, so long as you consistently call in for benefits on the date you are told to call. The documentation requirements do not increase and no one ever asks if you have made the 5 calls that you are supposedly required to make to keep your benefits. So, a person can collect benefits and not look for a job for 6 months out of every year. I know a person who is living with his Mom. He works for the first 6 months of every year, then purposely gets himself fired by not coming in on time and not meeting productivity goals. Then, he collects unemployment for 6 months and does not look for a single job. I also have a few friends who have been on unemployment for 6 months and not looked for a job -- when had they been doing the 5 required calls per week, they would have gotten a job much sooner. This is what I mean by collecting benefits longer than you should be. I have seen a lot of fraud in the system. And, appearantly, so have the people who wrote responses before I did. Have you heard the saying, "For every rat you see, there are thousands in hiding"? It would be very nice if people were as honest, responsible and accountable as you and I seem to be. However, I think it is very naive to believe that they are. :-6
i guess the requirements are different in california. the longer you are on it, the more thorough and rigorous the documentation requirements. as well, each time you re-apply, the earnings period from which your benefits are calculated will shift forward, meaning that you'll receive less and less benefits the 'further away' you are from your last full employment.
i guess i'm an optimist, a term i never thought i'd characterize myself with. i reject the 'for every rat you see, there are a thousand in hiding'. i consider the vast majority of people to be honest, hardworking, and of good faith. i see it as 'for every rat you see, there are a thousand people working to eradicate them, by deed and by example'.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
On Welfare.
In Canada, disability and welfare are two separate systems. We have had a very difficult time the last few years with cut backs in the disabled benefits. Who ever really thinks they will end up being disabled? What about the parents of children born disabled. There is an issue in Canada where the government would only grant half the amount to the childs parents as they were paying out to foster parents of disabled children. They, apparently, prefer to have the child removed from it's home? The system is flawed, but at least it's there.
The original comments on the welfare system were, I feel, centering out single mothers quite prominently. Thinking about the thread about how troubled modern children are, I wonder if it is wise to think mothers should be forced to leave small children in dubious daycare facilities so they can work for a little more money than the daycare costs them every week. Many single mothers can't afford cars so getting their children to daycare and themselves to work is a difficult task. Bus drivers won't even help mothers get their strollers on board anymore. Imagine if they have more than one child to transport at 6 or 7 am?
I am a single mother and had a career in film working 65-70 hours/week. I didn't plan on having a child when I chose this career but things change. I am proud of not having had to collect welfare but I do not resent those who do. I am me, with my set of circumstances and they are them. We all do the best that we possibly can. If you don't think that is good enough...you may be right, but that is all they are sadly capable of for whatever reason. There is a price to pay to reap the benefits of belonging to a society. If your money didn't go to them it might end up building more bombs. I don't think you'd get a rebate, anyway.
The original comments on the welfare system were, I feel, centering out single mothers quite prominently. Thinking about the thread about how troubled modern children are, I wonder if it is wise to think mothers should be forced to leave small children in dubious daycare facilities so they can work for a little more money than the daycare costs them every week. Many single mothers can't afford cars so getting their children to daycare and themselves to work is a difficult task. Bus drivers won't even help mothers get their strollers on board anymore. Imagine if they have more than one child to transport at 6 or 7 am?
I am a single mother and had a career in film working 65-70 hours/week. I didn't plan on having a child when I chose this career but things change. I am proud of not having had to collect welfare but I do not resent those who do. I am me, with my set of circumstances and they are them. We all do the best that we possibly can. If you don't think that is good enough...you may be right, but that is all they are sadly capable of for whatever reason. There is a price to pay to reap the benefits of belonging to a society. If your money didn't go to them it might end up building more bombs. I don't think you'd get a rebate, anyway.
-
illuminati
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:00 pm
On Welfare.
capt_buzzard wrote: On Welfare. And I can only speak on Gt Britain & Ireland. There are more single mothers, young males ect, living on welfare/social security. Free handouts from the state. Some of them have never done a day's work in their life. 300,00 single mothers and others,in Ireland receive some sort of free hand outs .i.e social weffare/security from the Irish government each week.
Now we have an influx of refugees from East Africa + new EU member state youths coming into Ireland. Its a free for all.
Most of the people/refugees that come from East Africa are working here now,paying the taxes, its the others who just mope about and live off the fat of the land.These get free housing, free travel and even free mobile phones. A married man with two or three kids working his butt off has less money after taxes ect.
It takes two to make a baby. The fathers should be financially responsible for the child. At least 50/50 with the mother.
There is no excuse that society should allow a mother to raise a child by herself without any financial support from the man.
Now we have an influx of refugees from East Africa + new EU member state youths coming into Ireland. Its a free for all.
Most of the people/refugees that come from East Africa are working here now,paying the taxes, its the others who just mope about and live off the fat of the land.These get free housing, free travel and even free mobile phones. A married man with two or three kids working his butt off has less money after taxes ect.
It takes two to make a baby. The fathers should be financially responsible for the child. At least 50/50 with the mother.
There is no excuse that society should allow a mother to raise a child by herself without any financial support from the man.