Who Benefits Most From Welfare?
The administrators of welfare, that's who.
At BrackenWorld, A Very British Dude blogs:
The welfare state is supposed to prevent poverty. It is, in fact, its major cause.The problem is one of incentives, and not just those faced by the poor themselves. It's obvious to anyone who isn't paid handsomely to farm the poor, that for many people, it's simply irrational to work. Once they've paid for taxes, clothes, transport and lunch, they're considerably worse off than they would have been had they stayed in their pyjamas and watched Jeremy Kyle. Why would you take a miserable, boring, unpleasant minimum wage job instead of existing on benefits? The job insecurity at the bottom of the pyramid and the bureaucratic complexity of informing the authorities of a 'change in circumstance' is a further barrier. So when when the low-waged is "let go" after a couple of weeks, he's got to re-apply for Housing benefits, Job-seekers' allowance, Council Tax Benefit, income support and so on, from scratch. He may be genuinely destitute as a result of payments stopped, then restarted again too late, thanks to an abortive effort to "do the right thing". Is it really any wonder so many feel trapped?
So, who benefits from this system? Certainly not those getting the benefits many of whom are comprehensively trapped in a life they wouldn't have chosen. Not the Children of those getting benefits, who learn no other life thanks to the distorted incentives faced by their parents, but in whose name the benefits are paid. Certainly not the people paying the bill, John Q. Taxpayer, who thanks to the system face a sullen and resentful underclass, some of whom spend their non-working lives looking for ways to relieve you of your easily saleable property in order to buy sufficient narcotics to break the tedium for a few hours.
The main benefit of the benefits system accrues to those employed on secure graduate salaries to administer the system. These people are the farmers of the poor.
via @LibertarianView
(Does anyone remember Bracken's World?)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 2, 2014 11:52 PM
Prepare yourself before listening to this... calling on her self-admitted Obamaphone, Texas welfare recipient Lucy, 32, explains why "taxpayers are the fools"...
"...To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare... can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day, visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRwZDSmTVI&
H/T smalldeadanimals.com
Steve at February 3, 2014 4:35 AM
"calling on her self-admitted Obamaphone"
Did you call it a Bushphone when President Bush's administration instituted the policy?
Just curious.
Welfare abuse has been going on for decades and it's a national disaster, as bad as the war department budget.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 3, 2014 8:35 AM
I can understand the reasons the free phone program was implemented, and still not like the way the dems turned it into vote buying machine.
Isab at February 3, 2014 11:59 AM
Like Bush never pointed to this policy when trying to garner votes for his party.
Gog_Magog, you ask a very good question. But I'm also curious about how it's a "self-admitted Obamaphone." Did the phone actually say, independently of any voice on the line and not out of programming that it was an Obamaphone? If so, artificial intelligence has made some very scary but impressive strides.
Patrick at February 3, 2014 12:35 PM
"Like Bush never pointed to this policy when trying to garner votes for his party."
Cite?
Isab at February 3, 2014 1:39 PM
Does it come as a shock that poverty is an industry? It's not exactly new. Those in power would lose both wealth and authority were the lower classes to become independent of them. It's been going on for at least a couple thousand years, and isn't likely to change until a new economic system is in place, which is even less likely.
wtf at February 3, 2014 3:31 PM
When are you guys going to stop arguing about which President is providing cell phones for people, and address the program itself?
You guys ought to be ashamed. You know, or should know that all money comes from Congress. But it's more important to argue about who is president than whether a program is worthwhile.
Radwaste at February 3, 2014 6:12 PM
I can't disagree with your assessment.
I'm going to argue that if there were true free market capitalism and true charity, without government interference, things would be much different.
There should be a safety net, but it should not be a gill net but more of large tuna net. I.e. I have a five year disability from work. If
I can't get better in five years I'm going to be on SSI. But in that five years I have a chance to find/change to a new career. But I don't expect special treatment of living like a king either on SSI But going straight to SSI I am fucked to try and grow.
Jim P. at February 3, 2014 6:39 PM
> Cite?
☑
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 3, 2014 6:47 PM
"I'm going to argue that if there were true free market capitalism and true charity, without government interference, things would be much different."
Agreed. A pipe dream, but agreed.
wtf at February 3, 2014 10:30 PM
I've been on disability and I will never go back on it. While looking for work to get off of it, I was going crazy sitting at home doing nothing. At the end of March, I may have to go on unemployment but I have enough time to hopefully not let that happen. It was hell trying to make ends meet on what little I received and it was soul sucking.
Kendra at February 4, 2014 4:06 AM
"Does it come as a shock that poverty is an industry? It's not exactly new. Those in power would lose both wealth and authority were the lower classes to become independent of them. "
Yep, the object is to create a built-in client class. And it's been successful. The government now has various client classes at all economic levels, from big-business CEOs to inner-city welfare mothers. Together they make up the Entitlement Class, and as things stand now, they outnumber the productive classes. I leave the rest as an (easy) exercise to the reader.
Cousin Dave at February 4, 2014 7:17 AM
Good point, well put, Cousin Dave.
Ken R at February 4, 2014 11:01 AM
wtf: "It's been going on for at least a couple thousand years, and isn't likely to change until a new economic system is in place..."
Seeing that it's been going on for thousands of years it seems more like a characteristic of human nature than a feature of an economic system.
Ken R at February 4, 2014 11:16 AM
Very good point Ken.
A question tho; With the barter system, or perhaps another economic model, would it still work the same way?
wtf at February 4, 2014 11:34 AM
Very good point Ken.
A question tho; With the barter system, or perhaps another economic model, would it still work the same way?
Posted by: wtf at February 4, 2014 11:34 AM
Money is a barter system. It represents goods in an abstract form.
Politicians have been buying votes since at least ancient Rome. And Tribal leaders buy support too.
All economic systems exchange things of value for other things of value. The only difference in political systems is who controls the rules of exchange and how strictly those rules are enforced. Generally the more stupid rules you have, the less they are enforced.
I have a cousin who has lived and worked in Sweden for the last twenty years. Their transaction taxes were so high, that almost everything from haircuts to pizza, was a black market transaction., off the official tax radar,
Isab at February 4, 2014 1:24 PM
"Money is a barter system. It represents goods in an abstract form."
Another good point.
I think though, that corruption would be more difficult to come by were we not exchanging abstract values?
wtf at February 4, 2014 4:58 PM
I think though, that corruption would be more difficult to come by were we not exchanging abstract values?
Posted by: wtf at February 4, 2014 4:58 PM
The logistics of exchanging bulky fresh food are difficult to overcome, Spoilage and transport costs really eat into the efficiency of it.
Gold and gems are even more vulnerable to theft, and corruption than money is. They are also much harder to trace than an electronic transaction.
Isab at February 4, 2014 5:14 PM
Also true.
wtf at February 5, 2014 8:06 AM
Also true.
wtf at February 5, 2014 8:06 AM
Leave a comment