Work for a living or collect welfare? Hmmmm....

[kbot]

Saw this on the news and have been wondering why I am working at all.......


Work or Welfare: What Pays More?

Hawaii offers the most generous welfare benefits package in the U.S., but a cluster of New England and Mid-Atlantic states aren’t far behind.

That’s according to a report out Monday, “The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013 An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare Benefits by State,” from the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

The report, by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, is a follow-up to Cato’s 1995 study of the subject, which found that packages of welfare benefits for a typical recipient in the 50 states and the District of Columbia not only was well above the poverty level, but also more than a recipient’s annual wages from an entry-level job.

That hasn’t changed in the years since the initial report, said Mr. Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato. Instead, the range has become more pronounced, as states that already offered substantial welfare benefits increased their packages while states with lower benefits decreasing their offerings.

To be sure, not all of those who rely on government programs take part in every benefit to which they are entitled, and the most generous benefits are in states that have the highest costs of living.

The state-by-state estimates are based on a hypothetical family participating in about seven of the 126 federal anti-poverty programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; the Women, Infants and Children program; Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; and receiving help on housing and utilities.

In Hawaii, that translates into a 2013 package of $49,175 — up $7,265 from an inflation-adjusted $41,910 in 1995. Rounding out the top five areas for welfare benefits, along with their 2013 amounts, were: the District of Columbia ($43,099), Massachusetts ($42,515), Connecticut ($38,761) and New Jersey ($38,728).

The state with the lowest benefits package in 2013 was Mississippi, at $16,984, followed by Tennessee ($17,413), Arkansas ($17,423), Idaho ($17,766) and Texas (18,037).

http://http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2 ... pays-more/

Is it any wonder that some people would rather not work? WHY work, when you can "earn" just as much by collecting from taxpayers?

[Cherry Kelly]

About the only thing I find 'wrong' about the $$ figures - does not take into account that the cost of living (in those low $$ states) is a whole lot less than others.... so it would be interesting if it were a % say compared to average income in those states. OR a % compared to costs of living (like housing rental averages, utilities averages, food cost averages).

[Diogenes]

Saw this on the news and have been wondering why I am working at all.......


Work or Welfare: What Pays More?

Hawaii offers the most generous welfare benefits package in the U.S., but a cluster of New England and Mid-Atlantic states aren’t far behind.

That’s according to a report out Monday, “The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013 An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare Benefits by State,” from the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

The report, by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, is a follow-up to Cato’s 1995 study of the subject, which found that packages of welfare benefits for a typical recipient in the 50 states and the District of Columbia not only was well above the poverty level, but also more than a recipient’s annual wages from an entry-level job.

That hasn’t changed in the years since the initial report, said Mr. Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato. Instead, the range has become more pronounced, as states that already offered substantial welfare benefits increased their packages while states with lower benefits decreasing their offerings.

To be sure, not all of those who rely on government programs take part in every benefit to which they are entitled, and the most generous benefits are in states that have the highest costs of living.

The state-by-state estimates are based on a hypothetical family participating in about seven of the 126 federal anti-poverty programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; the Women, Infants and Children program; Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; and receiving help on housing and utilities.

In Hawaii, that translates into a 2013 package of ,175 — up ,265 from an inflation-adjusted ,910 in 1995. Rounding out the top five areas for welfare benefits, along with their 2013 amounts, were: the District of Columbia (,099), Massachusetts (,515), Connecticut (,761) and New Jersey (,728).

The state with the lowest benefits package in 2013 was Mississippi, at ,984, followed by Tennessee (,413), Arkansas (,423), Idaho (,766) and Texas (18,037).

http://http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2 ... pays-more/

Is it any wonder that some people would rather not work? WHY work, when you can "earn" just as much by collecting from taxpayers?

Our lawmakers and we who vote for them encourage folks to take a hand out as opposed to a hand up. We encourage and pay folks to have children they can't possibly afford to begin with.

We use euphemisms or feel good acronyms - food stamps no longer exist in California- it's now called Cal Fresh - one might think of it as an anglo of Baja Fresh - an upscale eatery for yuppies.

We wouldn't want anyone who is getting a hand out undeservedly, to actually feel that way so lets pretty it up.

This President removed the work restrictions previously tied to Welfare so there you go.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost ... index.html



http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost ... index.html

[Raggedyann]

In Hawaii, that translates into a 2013 package of $49,175 — up $7,265 from an inflation-adjusted $41,910 in 1995. Rounding out the top five areas for welfare benefits, along with their 2013 amounts, were: the District of Columbia ($43,099), Massachusetts ($42,515), Connecticut ($38,761) and New Jersey ($38,728).

The state with the lowest benefits package in 2013 was Mississippi, at $16,984, followed by Tennessee ($17,413), Arkansas ($17,423), Idaho ($17,766) and Texas (18,037).


Do the above amounts include all costs incurred by the federal government to deliver benefits, including administrative costs?

The link to the article didn't work for me Kbot.

[voguy]

Do the above amounts include all costs incurred by the federal government to deliver benefits, including administrative costs?

Probably not, which is the nice way of saying that complete accountability in public funds is not something the government wants, or can do. There is a reason that only 23-cents out of every dollar going to Washington goes to a legitimate purpose. And by their own admission, the GAO can't account for billions.

But more to the point, we do have a problem in the U.S. with career public assistance, and there is a reason. As long as you give someone something, they are indebted to you. Politicians know this and it's been the longest play in the playbook for both parties. The problem is; a) you now have generations not knowing how to work or caring to have a work ethic, and b) when the funds run out, how are you going to appease those who expect the handouts?

[Raggedyann]

Probably not, which is the nice way of saying that complete accountability in public funds is not something the government wants, or can do.

Sorry but I'm not buying that welfare recipients can receive up to $49,000 per yr in cold hard cash. This sounds like the "Cadillac" urban tale.

[voguy]

Sorry but I'm not buying that welfare recipients can receive up to ,000 per yr in cold hard cash. This sounds like the "Cadillac" urban tale.

You're entitled to your opinion. But having worked on news stories on this subject, I'm entitled to the facts. There is a reason some of these people are eating steak and have better living standards than those working.

[SquidInk]

Oh gawd! This is just more Obama man-child incompetence and waste.

Clearly we could cut that number from $49k/per to less than $2350.00/per[size=small][1][2][/size] by simply handing the 'first responders' from the local S.W.A.T Unit a supply of M320 grenade launchers, and 40MM HEDP M433 high explosive grenades. My figure assumes one-shot-one-kill. The 40mm is a tank piercing round - just in case these freeloader maggots sit around eating taxpayer cheese while wearing full body armor.

OBAMA!!!!!

[1] http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeD ... //ammo.pdf --- pdf page 193
[2] http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeD ... //wtcv.pdf --- pdf page 179

[kbot]

About the only thing I find 'wrong' about the $$ figures - does not take into account that the cost of living (in those low $$ states) is a whole lot less than others.... so it would be interesting if it were a % say compared to average income in those states. OR a % compared to costs of living (like housing rental averages, utilities averages, food cost averages).

I think that the figures are reflective of the cost of living - which is why states like Mass and Hawaii are so much higher than the southern states. I knew Mass was bad, but this is ridiculous.....

[kbot]

In Hawaii, that translates into a 2013 package of ,175 — up ,265 from an inflation-adjusted ,910 in 1995. Rounding out the top five areas for welfare benefits, along with their 2013 amounts, were: the District of Columbia (,099), Massachusetts (,515), Connecticut (,761) and New Jersey (,728).

The state with the lowest benefits package in 2013 was Mississippi, at ,984, followed by Tennessee (,413), Arkansas (,423), Idaho (,766) and Texas (18,037).


Do the above amounts include all costs incurred by the federal government to deliver benefits, including administrative costs?

The link to the article didn't work for me Kbot.

I didn't catch the "adjusted for inflation" line. I wish my salary was adjusted for inflation, as I'm sure many workers would also wish that.....

[Raggedyann]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diogenes
This President removed the work restrictions previously tied to Welfare so there you go.

Not exactly:

Is Obama “dropping work requirements,” as Romney’s ad claims? No. He is allowing states to change the work requirements, but he is not dropping them. The changes could be made to a variety of federal requirements, including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”

A lot will depend on what a state proposes and how it is implemented. There is nothing inherent in the waivers that guts work requirements.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-o ... re-reform/

[kbot]

Oh gawd! This is just more Obama man-child incompetence and waste.

Clearly we could cut that number from k/per to less than 50.00/per[size=small][1][2][/size] by simply handing the 'first responders' from the local S.W.A.T Unit a supply of M320 grenade launchers, and 40MM HEDP M433 high explosive grenades. My figure assumes one-shot-one-kill. The 40mm is a tank piercing round - just in case these freeloader maggots sit around eating taxpayer cheese while wearing full body armor.

OBAMA!!!!!

[1] http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeD ... //ammo.pdf --- pdf page 193
[2] http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeD ... //wtcv.pdf --- pdf page 179

Ur gonna be labeled a hater........

[Raggedyann]

I think that the figures are reflective of the cost of living - which is why states like Mass and Hawaii are so much higher than the southern states. I knew Mass was bad, but this is ridiculous.....

I think that the figures are reflective of an article that appeals to those who wish to glean stuff that suits their political persuasion.

[kbot]

I think that the figures are reflective of an article that appeals to those who wish to glean stuff that suits their political persuasion.

Perhaps. But, I think that this article is based on a study that was performed to update a study from the 1990s that reports on data showing what people are collecting on a state-by-state basis, which I would think is information provided by the states. If this is the case, then, it is illuminating to see what people are getting and explains why we have cases of multi-generational support.

Look, I'm all in favor of helping people out. But when what you're taking home is exceeding what a full time employee is making, I have a problem with the way the system is working.....

[voguy]

Look, I'm all in favor of helping people out. But when what you're taking home is exceeding what a full time employee is making, I have a problem with the way the system is working.....

I'm also in favor of helping people. But for me it's difficult to keep giving, and being asked to give more. I'm tapped out, yet my neighbor girl who has three kids from two different dads, who sit out nightly drinking beer and playing their music, and have never worked a day in their life. Meanwhile, I have to figure out how to come up with some cash for my kids textbooks.

The system is broken. If someone wants to pay for the deadbeats, go right ahead. After you drain your bank account let's talk about what the word "help" really means.