I saw this discussion elsewhere, and I thought I'd get more input here.

I was just reading an article about a couple who openly games the system.

The Sun: We get 17,680 a year in benefits, buy 40 cigs a day, have a laptop and a home with 47-inch TV ... why work?

I've never seen any standard for a metric on whether or not this is common, but would you say it's a problem? If so, why?

Is it preventable, or at least able to be limited? What would that take?

Who should handle it, if anyone?

Do you see it becoming more common as time goes on?

They look fully capable and its ridiculous.

Sorry for skimming, but they look like they are living in Europe? Why would I care about that?

If they are gaming an American system, you can't hold Cigarettes, a laptop, and TV as a standard for "gaming" the system" but 17K plus to a fully capable couple is the problem.

47-inch tv's are as low as $329 (after tax) - Look at today's Woot http://sellout.woot.com/

A 27'' tube tv cost me $349 in 1997. (so what's that say?)

A laptop could be a gift or cost from $50 to $1000? By the looks of it, it's a shitty laptop.

Seems like a "shock" article.

O-Trap;1376454 wrote:I saw this discussion elsewhere, and I thought I'd get more input here.

I was just reading an article about a couple who openly games the system.

The Sun: We get 17,680 a year in benefits, buy 40 cigs a day, have a laptop and a home with 47-inch TV ... why work?

I've never seen any standard for a metric on whether or not this is common, but would you say it's a problem? If so, why?

Is it preventable, or at least able to be limited? What would that take?

Who should handle it, if anyone?

Do you see it becoming more common as time goes on?

I don't think it is a widespread problem as it is often portrayed. There's not a large underclass of moochers in the United States who wouldn't rather have fulfilling work, imho.

However, happening even once is problematic because it clearly indicates perverse incentives, moral hazard and the ability to achieve a value transfer from the state without any type of value transfer in return.

Yes, it is preventable. The way it could be prevented is to replace our current hodgepodge welfare state with a basic job requirement/job guarantee wherein every able bodied individual could walk into their county department of jobs and family services and be provided work to do in exchange for a minimum wage.

The work would be socially valuable work that private for-profit enterprise does not provide;

For example: Planting trees in deserted areas, cleaning up graffiti, mowing grass in vacant lots, cleaning up dilapidated areas, cleaning oil off of animals in areas affected by pollution.

Beyond that, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit or Milton Friedman's/Richard Nixon's Negative Income tax to subsidize low wage private sector employment thereby encouraging the person on the publicly provided job to seek full time private sector employment.

The funding for this should be provided by spending at the federal level allocating the funds to the states. The budget would be in deficit at the bottom of the business cycle and in balance or in surplus at the top. This way, the automatic stabilizer is subsidized public employment rather than food stamps, unemployment insurance, more people on disability, etc.

It should be accompanied by a weak dollar policy to encourage net exports.

Without strong policy action to do something about crippling unemployment, more people will do more to obtain government benefits over time as they are displaced from the labor force.

BoatShoes;1376543 wrote:I don't think it is a widespread problem as it is often portrayed. There's not a large underclass of moochers in the United States who wouldn't rather have fulfilling work, imho.

I wouldn't bet on that. Surveys consistently show like 70% of Americans dislike/hate their job. Most people are working for a paycheck, and if you give them enough in handouts why would you work? If I won the Powerball I'm not "working" for a living.

gut;1376564 wrote:I wouldn't bet on that. Surveys consistently show like 70% of Americans dislike/hate their job. Most people are working for a paycheck, and if you give them enough in handouts why would you work? If I won the Powerball I'm not "working" for a living.

The presumption is that living on food stamps, TANF, etc. is a comfortable life. It isn't, at all and these folks would rather work shitty jobs because it makes them that much more comfortable. It is a myth that you can live comfortably on the dole. If you won the Powerball you could live comfortably lol.

BoatShoes;1376606 wrote:The presumption is that living on food stamps, TANF, etc. is a comfortable life. It isn't, at all and these folks would rather work ****ty jobs because it makes them that much more comfortable. It is a myth that you can live comfortably on the dole. If you won the Powerball you could live comfortably lol.

The difference is one's lifestyle on the "dole", or a lifestyle actually working.

I had a pro bono client that worked 25-30 hours/week at most, got subsidized housing at about $200/month, received food stamps and with child credits and EITC probably netted about $25,000/year. That is net. It isn't rich by any means but that is the net income. If she went to college and became a teacher she would gross more but after taxes and student loans probably wouldn't be that much more well off, if at all. Our welfare society has created an underclass that has no reason to work.

Manhattan Buckeye;1376624 wrote:Our welfare society has created an underclass that has no reason to work.

/thread

Manhattan Buckeye;1376624 wrote:The difference is one's lifestyle on the "dole", or a lifestyle actually working.

I had a pro bono client that worked 25-30 hours/week at most, got subsidized housing at about $200/month, received food stamps and with child credits and EITC probably netted about $25,000/year. That is net. It isn't rich by any means but that is the net income. If she went to college and became a teacher she would gross more but after taxes and student loans probably wouldn't be that much more well off, if at all. Our welfare society has created an underclass that has no reason to work.

You talk about the benefits of the EITC and then in the very next sentence say our welfare society has created an underclass that has no reason to work. The EITC creates an incentive to work in the same vein as Milton Friedman's negative income tax.

believer;1376628 wrote:/thread

The person in Manhattan's story probably actually was incentivized to work more than otherwise because of the EITC, etc. She would've been much worse off if she did not work.

BoatShoes;1376606 wrote:The presumption is that living on food stamps, TANF, etc. is a comfortable life. It isn't...

Not to you and me, maybe, but certainly people can live rather comfortably, albeit simply, on the dole. $10/hr at Walmart is only about $20k a year, if you get full-time work. They can receive about the same amount on the dole and NOT work at all at Walmart. I really don't get why you fail to see the lack of incentive here.

And that's not even scratching the surface on ways to game the system, such as cash under the table or remaining unmarried so one can collect benefits.

BoatShoes;1376606 wrote:The presumption is that living on food stamps, TANF, etc. is a comfortable life. It isn't, at all and these folks would rather work shitty jobs because it makes them that much more comfortable. It is a myth that you can live comfortably on the dole. If you won the Powerball you could live comfortably lol.

Except those living on the dole aren't working. They are getting FREE benefits for sitting on their ass all day. I say cut their benefits to zero and cut the minimum wage. We'll have full employment by tomorrow morning.

Our welfare society has created an underclass that has no reason to work.

Sums it up nicely.

BoatShoes;1376687 wrote:The person in Manhattan's story probably actually was incentivized to work more than otherwise because of the EITC, etc. She would've been much worse off if she did not work.

It isn't a story, it is fact. And another fact is she wasn't incentivized to do more than show up for her employer (a doctor, she was a receptionist) that paid her minimum wage. I'm not questioning whether her work was good, or not good. But she started college, dropped out and what incentive would she have to seek a better job given all of the government benefits?

Manhattan Buckeye;1376811 wrote:It isn't a story, it is fact. And another fact is she wasn't incentivized to do more than show up for her employer (a doctor, she was a receptionist) that paid her minimum wage. I'm not questioning whether her work was good, or not good. But she started college, dropped out and what incentive would she have to seek a better job given all of the government benefits?

In Boatshoes' keynesian world the only incentive is to spend more money. A trade-off between not wanting to work to spend marginally more money does not compute.

sleeper;1376808 wrote:Except those living on the dole aren't working. They are getting FREE benefits for sitting on their ass all day. I say cut their benefits to zero and cut the minimum wage. We'll have full employment by tomorrow morning.

Eliminate the minimum wage. But yeah, this.