When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

Exactly two years ago, some of the more politically biased progressive media outlets (who are quite adept at creating and taking down their own strawmen arguments, if not quite as adept at using an abacus, let alone a calculator) took offense at our article "In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year." In it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045." realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits, and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff, have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for most Americans who find themselves in a comparable situation: either being on the left side of minimum US wage, and relying on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and... have the same disposable income at the end of the day.

Naturally, the topic of wealth redistribution is paramount one now that America is entering the terminal phase of its out of control spending, and whose response to hike taxes in a globalized, easily fungible world, will merely force more of the uber-wealthy to find offshore tax jurisdictions, avoid US taxation altogether, and thus result to even lower budget revenues for the US. It explains why the cluelessly incompetent but supposedly impartial Congressional Budget Office just released a key paper titled "Share of Returns Filed by Low- and Moderate-Income Workers, by Marginal Tax Rate, Under 2012 Law" which carries a chart of disposable income by net income comparable to the one above.

ut perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current taxpayers:

• For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
• For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.

And since nothing has changed in the past two years, and in fact the situation has gotten progressively (pardon the pun) worse, here is our conclusion on this topic from two years ago:

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.

But for now, just stick head in sand, and pretend all is good. Self-deception is now the only thing left for the entire insolvent entitlement-addicted world.

* * *

Full must read presentation: "Welfare's Failure and the Solution"

The article, "When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy of America's Welfare State," published on ZeroHedge, discusses the dichotomy between welfare benefits and employment in America. It asserts that for many Americans, it's more lucrative to stay unemployed and collect welfare entitlements than to work. The article refers to an illustrative chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, indicating that a single mother earning a gross income of $29,000 with welfare benefits has more disposable income than if she earned a gross income of $69,000.

Here's an outline for this argument:

a) Fundamental beliefs or principles one must reject to also reject this belief: 

- The current welfare system is fair and doesn't disincentivize work.

- All welfare recipients are in desperate need and cannot survive without assistance.

b) Alternate expressions(e.g., metatags, mottos, hashtags):

- #WelfareStateTragedy

- #WorkVsWelfare

- #WelfareIncentive

c) Objective criteria to measure the strength of this belief:

- Comparison of disposable income of working individuals and those on welfare.

- Number of people who choose not to work due to more advantageous welfare benefits.

- Studies showcasing welfare system exploitation.

d) Shared interests between those who agree/disagree:

- Both sides typically want a fair system that supports those in need without creating a disincentive to work.

- Everyone wants a thriving economy.

e) Key opposing interests between those who agree/disagree (that must be addressed for mutual understanding):

- Differing views on the role of government and welfare.

- Disagreements over the extent of welfare abuse or the incentive it creates to not work.

  

f) Solutions:

- Welfare reform that balances the need for social safety nets and incentivizing work.

- More rigorous checking mechanisms for welfare eligibility.

  

g) Strategies for encouraging commitment to a resolution to evidence-based solutions:

- Public awareness campaigns about the unintended consequences of welfare exploitation.

- Legislative advocacy for welfare reform.

- Constructive dialogue between differing viewpoints to foster understanding and compromise.

Sure, here are some supporting elements for the belief expressed in the article:

1) Logical arguments:

   - The financial incentive argument: If welfare benefits result in higher disposable income than working, there is a logical financial incentive to remain on welfare rather than seek employment.

   

2) Supporting evidence (data, studies):

   - The article refers to data from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. More research and studies would be needed for robust evidence.

3) Supporting books:

   - "Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980" by Charles Murray discusses some of the negative impacts of welfare.

4) Supporting videos (movies, YouTube, TikTok):

   - Various YouTube videos and documentaries discuss the impacts of welfare on work incentives, although specific examples would need to be sought out.

5) Supporting organizations and their Websites:

   - Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, often publishes reports and articles discussing the drawbacks of the current welfare system.

   

6) Supporting podcasts:

   - "The Daily Signal" is a podcast from the Heritage Foundation that often discusses topics related to welfare and work incentives.

7) Unbiased experts:

   - Economists, sociologists, and public policy experts could provide unbiased analysis, but specific names would depend on the research and analysis they've conducted on the topic.

   

8) Benefits of belief acceptance (ranked by Maslow categories):

   - Economic (Basic needs): Reforming welfare to encourage employment could potentially lead to improved economic outcomes for individuals and society as a whole.

   - Esteem (Psychological needs): Individuals moving from welfare to work may experience improved self-esteem and sense of accomplishment.

   - Self-Actualization (Self-fulfillment needs): People might achieve more personal and professional growth through employment as compared to long-term welfare reliance.