Could it, would it work?From The Sunday Times June 13, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 149119.ece
This is why Field — who for 10 years was director of the Child Poverty Action Group — has the “unthinkable” opinion that this country should have emulated the welfare reforms of President Bill Clinton. Essentially, these introduced a time limit on out-of-work welfare payments to those who were not mentally or physically unfit. The results were startling (at least to Democrat opponents such as the late Edward Kennedy who raged that Clinton’s measures would “condemn millions of innocent children to poverty in the name of welfare reform”): within 10 years there had been a doubling in the employment rate of both single and never-married mothers, and welfare rolls fell from more than 12m to under 5m.
Some argued that this was merely a reflection of the growth of the economy in the 1990s; but during the boom years of the late 1960s and early 1970s there had been no such significant drop in welfare dependency. The director of the independent Congressional Budget Office concluded that roughly three-quarters of the growth in employment among the least well-off had been due to welfare reform, or, as she put it, “changed policies”.
The critics also asserted that millions had been pushed by a form of shock treatment out of welfare and into “dead end” jobs. Yet there is no deader end than welfare dependency; and the confidence instilled by actually earning, rather than being just a passive recipient of the taxpayers’ grudging largesse, is what enables the newly employed to move up the rungs — and to earn more.
To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
"To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare"
The statement is over-generalized. It is important to note what was actually changed. AFDC was a system of cash payments mostly to women with children, single women. And the size of the monthly payment was based on the number of children. This created a system of perverse incentives to both remain single (so you still qualify) and to have even more children (to increase the size of the monthly check).
Cutting welfare generally would mean cutting medical care, dental care, food stamps, free school lunch programs, and housing assistance which were not cut in this case. And it is important to note that it was the time-duration of the entitlement which was cut more than the monthly benefits. This made the program more like unemployment insurance, which has a time-limit for benefits.
The most effective anti-poverty programs in the past 60 years have been Medicare/Medical, SSI, and Social Security. Cutting any of those would increase poverty.
Cutting the marginal taxes rates on the richest Americans has caused poverty to rise every time it has been done since Reagan. The eras of the lowest poverty coincide with eras of higher marginal tax rates on the top 1% and 5% in income.
yrs,
rubato
The statement is over-generalized. It is important to note what was actually changed. AFDC was a system of cash payments mostly to women with children, single women. And the size of the monthly payment was based on the number of children. This created a system of perverse incentives to both remain single (so you still qualify) and to have even more children (to increase the size of the monthly check).
Cutting welfare generally would mean cutting medical care, dental care, food stamps, free school lunch programs, and housing assistance which were not cut in this case. And it is important to note that it was the time-duration of the entitlement which was cut more than the monthly benefits. This made the program more like unemployment insurance, which has a time-limit for benefits.
The most effective anti-poverty programs in the past 60 years have been Medicare/Medical, SSI, and Social Security. Cutting any of those would increase poverty.
Cutting the marginal taxes rates on the richest Americans has caused poverty to rise every time it has been done since Reagan. The eras of the lowest poverty coincide with eras of higher marginal tax rates on the top 1% and 5% in income.
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
I have said a number of times, that The Welfare Reform Act (which was produced by a Republican Congress, and wisely signed into law by Bill Clinton over the vociferous objections of the left-wing of his party) was the most important, positive piece of social legislation to have been produced in a generation.
As the article in the OP clearly shows, the results speak for themselves.
As the article in the OP clearly shows, the results speak for themselves.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
The results were of cutting taxes on the bottom 40% and raising them on the top 5% and to a lesser degree 20% and of a booming economy which resulted from higher incomes for all segments of the population. The booming economy was due to rising wages of all income segments.
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
The biggest effect on poverty was due to this:
70% of GDP is due to consumer spending. Consumer spending increases when the bottom 80% of incomes rise. When the top 5% rise they contribute little or nothing to consumer spending by comparison.
Under Clinton, and because of his economic policies, all incomes rose. Under Bush, and because of Republican policies, incomes went down for 60% of households and were otherwise flat except for the top 0.1 - 5%.
Highest income of each 5th and bottom of the top 5% adjusted for inflation (real income change, not nominal). All data from US Census.
2008 DOLLARS
……… ……….. 95% …..…… 96% …..…… 97% ……..… 99% ……..… 98% <---Republican agenda. Falling incomes, rising poverty and weak economy heading into disaster.
2008 …… 20,712 …… 39,000 …… 62,725 …… 100,240 …… 180,000
2007 …… 21,071 …… 40,602 …… 64,382 …… 103,842 …… 183,801
2006 …… 21,395 …… 40,338 …… 64,073 …… 103,619 …… 185,824
2005 …… 21,151 …… 39,704 …… 63,593 …… 101,141 …… 183,081
2004 …… 21,072 …… 39,525 …… 62,955 …… 100,311 …… 179,133
2003 …… 21,053 …… 39,803 …… 63,747 …… 101,693 …… 180,425
2002 …… 21,442 …… 39,946 …… 63,625 …… 100,552 …… 179,525
2001 …… 21,854 …… 40,515 …… 64,456 …… 101,549 …… 183,030
……… ……… 118% ……… 114% ……… 114% ……… 117% ……… 122% <-- Clinton leadership. Rising incomes, falling poverty, booming economy and no deficit and prosperity for all.
2000 …… 22,405 …… 41,260 …… 65,233 …… 102,232 …… 181,568
1999 …… 22,143 …… 41,247 …… 65,106 …… 102,383 …… 183,492
1998 …… 21,259 …… 40,113 …… 63,764 …… 98,936 …… 174,390
1997 …… 20,598 …… 39,057 …… 61,528 …… 95,636 …… 169,269
1996 …… 20,180 …… 37,933 …… 60,133 …… 92,940 …… 163,347
1995 …… 20,201 …… 37,756 …… 58,922 …… 91,359 …… 158,521
1994 …… 19,288 …… 36,203 …… 57,608 …… 90,279 …… 157,771
1993 …… 19,026 …… 36,211 …… 56,920 …… 88,477 …… 153,535
1992 …… 18,945 …… 36,296 …… 56,985 …… 87,217 …… 148,883
_____________________________
A straight line between cause and effect.
yrs,
rubato
70% of GDP is due to consumer spending. Consumer spending increases when the bottom 80% of incomes rise. When the top 5% rise they contribute little or nothing to consumer spending by comparison.
Under Clinton, and because of his economic policies, all incomes rose. Under Bush, and because of Republican policies, incomes went down for 60% of households and were otherwise flat except for the top 0.1 - 5%.
Highest income of each 5th and bottom of the top 5% adjusted for inflation (real income change, not nominal). All data from US Census.
2008 DOLLARS
……… ……….. 95% …..…… 96% …..…… 97% ……..… 99% ……..… 98% <---Republican agenda. Falling incomes, rising poverty and weak economy heading into disaster.
2008 …… 20,712 …… 39,000 …… 62,725 …… 100,240 …… 180,000
2007 …… 21,071 …… 40,602 …… 64,382 …… 103,842 …… 183,801
2006 …… 21,395 …… 40,338 …… 64,073 …… 103,619 …… 185,824
2005 …… 21,151 …… 39,704 …… 63,593 …… 101,141 …… 183,081
2004 …… 21,072 …… 39,525 …… 62,955 …… 100,311 …… 179,133
2003 …… 21,053 …… 39,803 …… 63,747 …… 101,693 …… 180,425
2002 …… 21,442 …… 39,946 …… 63,625 …… 100,552 …… 179,525
2001 …… 21,854 …… 40,515 …… 64,456 …… 101,549 …… 183,030
……… ……… 118% ……… 114% ……… 114% ……… 117% ……… 122% <-- Clinton leadership. Rising incomes, falling poverty, booming economy and no deficit and prosperity for all.
2000 …… 22,405 …… 41,260 …… 65,233 …… 102,232 …… 181,568
1999 …… 22,143 …… 41,247 …… 65,106 …… 102,383 …… 183,492
1998 …… 21,259 …… 40,113 …… 63,764 …… 98,936 …… 174,390
1997 …… 20,598 …… 39,057 …… 61,528 …… 95,636 …… 169,269
1996 …… 20,180 …… 37,933 …… 60,133 …… 92,940 …… 163,347
1995 …… 20,201 …… 37,756 …… 58,922 …… 91,359 …… 158,521
1994 …… 19,288 …… 36,203 …… 57,608 …… 90,279 …… 157,771
1993 …… 19,026 …… 36,211 …… 56,920 …… 88,477 …… 153,535
1992 …… 18,945 …… 36,296 …… 56,985 …… 87,217 …… 148,883
_____________________________
A straight line between cause and effect.
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
I wonder if it would work in the UK though, the benefits culture there seems far more ingrained.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
I think it would be successful Strop....there were many dire predictions over here when this was first implemented.
It's amazing what some folks can do for themselves once they have an incentive.
It's amazing what some folks can do for themselves once they have an incentive.
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
One would hope so..
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
NB. This is more in benefiits than the AVERAGE wage, not the MINIMUM wageRevealed: 100,000 households on benefits higher than the average wage
By Gerri Peev
Last updated at 9:56 PM on 6th August 2010
Britain's benefits bonanza has been laid bare as it emerged 100,000 households rake in more than the average wage in welfare every year.
They collect £30,899 before tax, while many workers can only aspire to an average wage of £23,422.
Meanwhile 50,000 of those households are entitled to more than £500 a week - which adds up to more than £26,000 a year. Officials at the Department for Work and Pensions highlighted the figures after the coalition pledged an overhaul of the welfare system to make work pay.
Employment Minister Chris Grayling said: 'Yet again we see more evidence for why reform is so desperately needed. 'When thousands of people are earning more on benefits than hard working families struggling to get by there must be something wrong and I'm shocked that this was allowed to happen.'
He insisted the Government's paper published last week - 21st Century Welfare - would start changing the current system, which 'punishes those who do the right thing by going out to work'.
Mr Grayling added: 'We will make work pay so that the system is fair - fair for those who need a hand up and fair for the taxpayer who pays for it.' The shocking scale of welfare dependency built up under Labour has seen almost 700,000 families pocketing more than £15,000 a year in benefits and nearly two million children living in households where not a single person works, the highest level in Europe.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0vsQKUSuq
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
100,000 households have a benefit higher than the average single person's wage.
What percentage of households have two adults of working age? Based on the numbers in the article for those households the comparison is between 26,000/yr (welfare) and 46,000/yr (both adults working earning average wages). So that the positive incentive to work is an increase of 77% in income, a substantial amount. But of course the point of posting the numbers in the deceptive way they did was to promote the idea that if only we make people suffer enough, who are not doing what we think they should, then all difficulty will vanish and the new millennium will begin.
Making people suffer was the strategy during the era of the 'bread laws' in England. That experiment was run for decades and all it produced was more death and disease. This has been true everywhere in the world this experiment has been run throughout all of history.
Fortunately for the sadists who consistently propose such ideas causing misery is the certain outcome of their plans unfortunately for the rest of us social benefit has never been achieved by this route.
Yrs,
rubato
What percentage of households have two adults of working age? Based on the numbers in the article for those households the comparison is between 26,000/yr (welfare) and 46,000/yr (both adults working earning average wages). So that the positive incentive to work is an increase of 77% in income, a substantial amount. But of course the point of posting the numbers in the deceptive way they did was to promote the idea that if only we make people suffer enough, who are not doing what we think they should, then all difficulty will vanish and the new millennium will begin.
Making people suffer was the strategy during the era of the 'bread laws' in England. That experiment was run for decades and all it produced was more death and disease. This has been true everywhere in the world this experiment has been run throughout all of history.
Fortunately for the sadists who consistently propose such ideas causing misery is the certain outcome of their plans unfortunately for the rest of us social benefit has never been achieved by this route.
Yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Things you couldn't make up. Part...
The president of Romania has publicly thanked the tens of thousands of his countrymen who do jobs in Britain instead of claiming benefits back home.
In an extraordinary TV broadcast, Traian Basescu paid tribute to the two million Romanians who live and work abroad instead of claiming benefits at home. 'Imagine if the two million Romanians working in Britain, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, came to ask for unemployment benefits in Romania,' he said. 'So to these people we have to thank them for what they are doing for Romania.'
And Mr Basescu blamed the boom in emigrant Romanian workers on lazy Westerners. 'In those countries, the social protection is at a level that makes it more comfortable to be unemployed.' 'Romanians do that hard labour for them and to earn better and make more money than they could at home,' claimed President Basescu.
Romanians workers have flooded into Britain with other eastern European citizens after joining the EU following the collapse of Communism. When they they arrive the immigrants are immediately entitled to child benefit, Tax Credits and housing support. After 12 months in Britain they can receive generous income-related benefits like unemployment benefit.
At home in Romania, they would receive just £20 a week for 12 months.
Mr Basescu said Romania did not have enough jobs for its workforce: 'Romania comes in behind states like Italy and Spain. In those countries , their social protection is at a level that makes Italians and Spanish, for example, feel comfortable to stay unemployed rather than working in hard manual tasks.
'Romanians do that hard labour for them to earn better and make more money than they could at home.'
Fiona McEvoy of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: 'President Basescu has held a mirror up to our welfare culture and identified the lack of incentives to work that mean so many UK nationals pick welfare over work, and so many migrants flock here to cash in'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0vxwcqbQI
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Some action at last;
Private firms will be paid bonuses to hunt down benefit cheats by trawling through household bills and credit card applications.
The tough stance comes as David Cameron launches a crackdown on the £5.2billion lost each year to fraud and error in the welfare system.
The Prime Minister will vow to take more cheats to court while Ministers will also give credit ratings agencies payment for every fraudulent applicant they identify.
The move means the firms will have access to the Government's records on housing benefit, incapacity and unemployment benefit claimants.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0wGCJY18f
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Fuck me!!!
The largest rise in employment for more than 21 years was mainly down to the influx of foreign workers, campaigners said today.
New official figures showed employment levels in the three months to June rose 184,000 to 29million in the biggest quarterly hike since 1989.
But the data from the Office for National Statistics reveals about three-quarters of this increase was due to workers born outside the UK.
Sir Andrew Green, from Migrationwatch UK, said the employment figures were 'further evidence that immigration really does affect the job prospects of British-born workers'.
'An astonishingly high proportion of the increase in employment is down to foreign workers getting jobs in Britain,' he said.
The quarterly rise in non-UK born workers was 145,000, compared with an increase of just 41,000 UK-born workers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rs-42.html
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Other than the famous British racism against all immigrants that statistic isn't even slightly alarming.
All of the employed immigrants are paying taxes and contributing to the UK economy exactly like a UK-born worker would do. A net benefit.
yrs,
rubato
All of the employed immigrants are paying taxes and contributing to the UK economy exactly like a UK-born worker would do. A net benefit.
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Gob wrote:Some action at last;
Private firms will be paid bonuses to hunt down benefit cheats by trawling through household bills and credit card applications.
The tough stance comes as David Cameron launches a crackdown on the £5.2billion lost each year to fraud and error in the welfare system.
The Prime Minister will vow to take more cheats to court while Ministers will also give credit ratings agencies payment for every fraudulent applicant they identify.
The move means the firms will have access to the Government's records on housing benefit, incapacity and unemployment benefit claimants.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0wGCJY18f
Emotionally satisfying, but there is no evidence that it is anything but economically insignificant. People enjoy watching the guilty being punished so much that they are less exacting in the proof of fault than they are in making the punishments painful.
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
More of the sort of lunacy which exists within the UK..
A benefits claimant whose partner is expecting her 12th child boasted today that they 'have enough for a football team'.
Out-of-work Gary Bateman, 46, and Joanne Shepherd, 36, have been moved into a free five-bedroom house in which to raise their brood.
The £1,200-a-month rent on their home is covered by the more than £30,000 a year they claim from the taxpayer.
Soon after moving into the new property, mother-of-11 Miss Shepherd was pregnant for a 12th time. She is to give birth at the end of the year.
Fiona McEvoy, of the Taxpayer's Alliance, said: 'It's disgraceful that this family is being given more than taxpayers earn, our benefits system needs real reform.'
But Mr Bateman, 46, said: 'People should mind their own business. We're not doing anyone any harm. It's a nice place. We outgrew the last house. It was a bit of a nightmare being on top of each other.'
Speaking about his partner's 12th pregnancy, he told The Sun: ' It was an accident. Something happened that wasn't supposed to. We've enough for a football team.'
Mr Bateman says he has been out of work for as long as he can remember.
His partner Miss Sheppard, who currently has 11 children by three men, has not worked for 19 years after she fell pregnant with her first child aged just 17.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0woQYcnQL
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Pass me the barf bag. 
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
People who have that many children are not completely right in the head, but I have always been a firm believer that children should not be punished for the sins of their parents, and any system designed in a way that does so is a bad system.
So you cut benefits to this family by, say, not increasing benefits after x number of children, or by some global cut that applies to all families. Where are thsse kids going to end up when their parents can't afford to keep them? Do you think it will be cheaper to make them wards of the state? And, btw, there is no better way to perpetuate multigenerational welfare than to put kids into the system.
So you cut benefits to this family by, say, not increasing benefits after x number of children, or by some global cut that applies to all families. Where are thsse kids going to end up when their parents can't afford to keep them? Do you think it will be cheaper to make them wards of the state? And, btw, there is no better way to perpetuate multigenerational welfare than to put kids into the system.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
I agree with you in the case where children are already born, but surely cutting the incentives to have more would be a good thing?
There is free contraception available to all in the UK, there is no excuse for these people to breed kids for the taxpayer to fund.
There is free contraception available to all in the UK, there is no excuse for these people to breed kids for the taxpayer to fund.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Benefits in exchange for contraceptive implants.
Same freebies, different incentive.
Same freebies, different incentive.
