PDA

View Full Version : Welfare, What Would You Do?


EmeraldFields
07-03-09, 03:31
As an assignment for Sociology, my teacher told us to make up our own welfare system. We have been studying the current system in place in the U.S. and then were asked what we would do to change it.

My Questions for you are:

Is welfare necessary? Why or why not?

If you could change the current welfare system in your country, what would you add, take away, or keep the same?

Mr.Burns
07-03-09, 03:47
This is based off of my experiences from what I see in the poor sections.

Welfare on paper is a good idea but as is typical with human nature, it's abused and that's exactly what I see every day. The problems I see are as follows:

A. People are raised to think that welfare is the way to go, no need to really attempt to make something with their lives. These people mooch off the system while either slothing about from government check to check, or resort to illegal activities as a means of suplimental income.

B. Some people honestly need the assistance but become used to it and find it difficult to free themselves of this assistance and thereby become addicted to it.

C. Some who use it, but only as a temporary means to get back on their feet.

From a fiscal perspective, welfare is funded by the taxpayers. With more and more people out of work, the welfare system will be tapped more heavily than in the past and that will require more funds, which in turn require more taxes. However with fewer people out of work and unable to pay taxes, less money flows into the state and federal treasuries.

Idealistically I would enforce more guidelines and oversight into the program. Those that sign on to the services must agree to find a job and break themselves of the need for welfare, otherwise their funds are cut off. While this in paper would be ideal since it's forcing people to actually make an effort, there is too much room for abuse and red tape, which could screw over those that honestly need the services to get back on their feet.

Is it necessary? I would call it a necessary evil. We already have it, if we remove it, it will harm a lot of families. If we keep it but without changes, the system will continue to be sucked on by leeches. Attempt to reofrm the system to remove the leeches and we run the risk for more corruption.

Nefertiti_89
07-03-09, 03:47
I think it is necessary but you shouldn't allowed to be on it indefinitely unless disabled or a pensioner.

In Australia its really screwed up that the only way you can really get welfare is to not work, and a lot of the time the money you get from welfare is more than you would doing say bartending or waitressing or something, so people just dont work and instead go on welfare because its easier than working for less. You can get benefits when you work but they make it so impossible. So it basically rewards people for not working and punishes the people who do work in the ****kicker jobs like me. Whats worse is you can just keep getting it indefinitely so there is also no incentive to get out and find a job.

So to change it I'd make the welfare check only just enough to live off so that it would **** people off that they wouldnt have enough money to do things they want or buy luxury items, and then as a result they would get motivated to get a job. There would also be a small bonus available for those in ****kicker jobs as a reward for actually trying to earn money.

EmeraldFields
07-03-09, 03:49
If we keep it but without changes, the system will continue to be sucked on by leeches. Attempt to reofrm the system to remove the leeches and we run the risk for more corruption.

Sounds like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.:p

spikejones
07-03-09, 03:55
Is welfare necessary? Why or why not?

yes it is.. some people get displaced from work and home and need the support.

If you could change the current welfare system in your country, what would you add, take away, or keep the same?make it a bit easier to obtain perhaps? I know that for stuff like unemployment benefits, there are strict regulations in place regarding who can get it - I think that perhaps those regulations need to be relaxed a bit. I for one have been out of work for over a year and I sure could use the benefits, but I am ineligible because of the terms of my departure from my last job. I don't think it should necessarily be that the only way you get it is because of some fault of the employer. If a person has been out looking for a job for an entire year and hasn't been able to land one - something is horribly wrong with the system already, but to deny that person the ability to draw unemployment is just adding insult to injury.

Now... they will know that you are out looking for work because they have you file a weekly check in report telling them whether you did any work or not for that week. Yeah I realize it presents the opportunity for someone to abuse the system by lying and such, but as soon as a person gets a tax paying job... the state and federal government will see it and cut the benefits. Add on top of that the fact that the benefits are NOT indefinite.. there is a strict cut off limitation of which time the government feels should be adequate time to have secured employment. Whether or not reacquisition of benefits will be made possible at that time is something I am unaware of, as I have not even been able to get qualified the first go around.

more than anything though, I think that it is prudent for the government to provide a better introduction to the work force for indigent persons. if the government would be willing to take in homeless people and other "qualified" people for work doing things like roadside cleanup or making license plates (something which is currently relegated to prison inmates) then I think people will fare a better chance at not dying on the streets due to starvation.

EmeraldFields
07-03-09, 04:12
Personally, I would expand the welfare system. Some people tend to think that many just siphon off of the government, but that fact is that the average person stays on welfare for only two years.

Currently, the head of every family must work at least 20 hours a week to receive benefits from the state. But, those benefits are limited to five years. What if a single mom had to take care of two kids? How could she work and take care of her kids at the same time? Also, if you want that person to get a good paying job, then they will need to get some form of higher education. Five years of assistance will barely get you out of college with a bachelor's degree, depending on the major.

This also goes for teenage mothers as well. The law says that an unwed mother under 18 must attend school and live with an adult to receive care. I've known girls at my school who have been kicked out of their home because they got pregnant. Why would you punish the child by not allowing the mother to get prenatal care just because she isn't living with an adult?

I would raise minimum wage as well. By July the minimum wage will be up to $7.25. Although it seems like a lot, you'd be surprised. In Lancaster County, Nebraska (where I live) with a population of only 250,291 people you would think that $7.25 would be enough. However, for a family of four the minimum wage would have to be around $16 to get them above the poverty line.

spikejones
07-03-09, 04:39
yeah... with the inflation of prices everywhere.. the raise in minimum wage doesn't amount to much but a mirror of that inflation. Basically... the value of the dollar is deflated.

as per that regulation about the pregnant teenager.. it may be circumvented by going through emancipation - other such government funding programs that look at the applicants age can be circumvented by that. the Pell Grant is one example. Of course.. its not a perfect solution - but it works. If a person has no legal parents... you can't legally require them to live with one.

lets look at unemployment in NC (http://www.ncesc.com/individual/UI/UiClaims2.asp):

Eligibility Requirements
Potentially eligible claimants must have become unemployed through no fault of their own. All claimants, except those who are still attached to an employer's payroll, must (a) register for work with the Employment Security Commission; (b) file a claim for each calendar week of benefits they request, and (c) actively seek work during any week for which unemployment benefits are claimed. Actively seeking work means doing those things that an unemployed person who wants to work would normally do. Unless otherwise instructed, a claimant must seek work in person on two different days with at least two different employers and must keep a written record of all work search contacts for periodic review by Commission staff.
I propose the following changes:
1. strike the first sentence... but instead change it to read something to the effect of:

"those who wish to receive unemployment benefits must undergo a screening process. where it is deemed that the claimant has lost their job through no fault of their own, benefits can begin immediately. If on the other hand, it is deemed that the claimant lost their employment through their own decision, there will be a waiting period to be determined based upon the claimant's current assets and liabilities.

(in essence.. you can't collect until your assets are diminished by your liabilities)

2. increase the number of job applications required to a more realistic number. 2 per week is ridiculous. I do more than double that in one day.

(ESC is a joke by the way... been registered there 3 times before and never got a frakin job.)

-----------

food stamps. (EBT) (http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/foodstamp/ebt.htm)
been on those a few times actually. works great for those who need it. :tmb: I don't think I would change anything about it because it seems to work fine for what I needed. yes.. there are those who abuse it by selling their card for beer and such (you can only buy FOOD with food stamps... not beer or cigarettes etc..) but.. crime happens everywhere regardless of what is being abused. There's really no stopping that unless they make finger print scanners that connect to a database that will say "ah yes... this guy has 20 dollars left in his EBT account"

-----------

WIC (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/)..

My older sister was on this program while she was pregnant with and raising my nephew during the early years. it was a blessing for her.


so yeah.. welfare is pretty important and should not be taken away whatsoever.

Punaxe
07-03-09, 20:18
(...) Idealistically I would enforce more guidelines and oversight into the program. Those that sign on to the services must agree to find a job and break themselves of the need for welfare, otherwise their funds are cut off. While this in paper would be ideal since it's forcing people to actually make an effort, there is too much room for abuse and red tape, which could screw over those that honestly need the services to get back on their feet. (...)

Just last week they accepted a law in the Netherlands that force people living on welfare for a year to accept any job offer they get, even if it's below their education level or earns them less than welfare does (the state will fill it up to welfare level). That's a very good change I'd say, because indeed, some people just rely on welfare and don't bother to do anything for it. That's not what it is for.

Trinity34
13-03-09, 16:14
Just last week they accepted a law in the Netherlands that force people living on welfare for a year to accept any job offer they get, even if it's below their education level or earns them less than welfare does (the state will fill it up to welfare level). That's a very good change I'd say, because indeed, some people just rely on welfare and don't bother to do anything for it. That's not what it is for.

Actually I think thats a great idea... so many people stay on unemployment benefits because they could not find the same job they had before... oh well!! A job stocking shelves at a supermarket is not that bad and it will bring in money while you still look for the job you want. I don't understand why people don't do that more....finding a job that you don't necessarily like to pay the bills while you look for a better one. It shows future employers you are not lazy and are responsible.

SpArKy
19-03-09, 20:17
I would make sure they only received there welfare if they went to skills courses and did community service. Not sit at home and eat, drink alchohol, get fat and depressed and suck more money out of the health system....

Oh and slowly poke them with a fork until they realise they need to get a job..

Joely-Moley
19-03-09, 21:03
Is welfare necessary? Why or why not?

I think it's necessary. Some people do need it, look at all the people who can't get a job at the moment. Or the people who are physically unable to work, I think it is necessary for those people.

However, there is a big difference between the people that can't work and the people that wont because they can't be bothered. The amount of people I see who just go down to the job centre to sign on and and really have no intention of getting a job because they are getting money for nothing and aren't going to start working for it.

I think that's the problem, there are too many perfectly able people who aren't even trying to get a job, just happily living of the tax payer who are working.

If you could change the current welfare system in your country, what would you add, take away, or keep the same?

I think mandatory job interviews would be good, I'm not 100% but as far as I'm aware, there aren't currently in place. Maybe a time limit on the length of time you can have it for, as I've said previously, I know there are many people who are out there, desperately looking for a job and no getting anywhere, while others are thinking oh, free money for nothing - Brillant!