What’s Wrong with Welfare?
January 18th, 2010 at 11:50 am (General, Rants)
If you live in Missouri, the median income (i.e. the amount of income which 50% of people make either more or less than) is $63,274 for the average 4 person household. If we assume no other deductions, filing jointly that puts you in the 15% tax bracket. So, let’s do some math.
15% of $63,274 = $9491.10
In 2009 the US Federal Government spent the following:
Housing assistance: $41,387,000,000 1.3% Total Outlays
Food and nutrition assistance: $62,431,000,000 2.0% Total Outlays
Other income security: $136,630,000,000 4.4% Total Outlays
An outlay is what the government spends irrespective of how much they collected in taxes, duties etc. Thus if we spend more than we collect there is a deficit, if we spend less there is a surplus.
Obviously in 2009 we had a deficit. But let’s assume that if we hadn’t had a deficit that the percentage of the federal budget spent on the previously mentioned items has an equal analogous amount removed from an individual’s taxes. Thus:
In 2009 the average Missouri family paid the following:
Housing assistance: $123.38
Food and nutrition assistance: $189.82
Other income security: $417.61
Grand Total: $730.81 or $60.90/month
Why do I bring this up? I’ve heard a number of people suggest that welfare programs generally benefit the unworthy. Well, here is the average cost of taking care of the unworthy if you are a Missourian.
I now challenge you with the following questions.
1. Are all recipients of welfare unworthy of aid?
2. If so what are the criteria for judging worth in this instance?
3. Many people on welfare, worthy or not have children. Should we deny all aid to these people if even a small percentage ultimately goes to helping their children?
4. Some have argued that individuals and community organizations should be responsible for social welfare programs. Is it not more advantageous to leave these programs in the hands of the government which is capable of providing aid even during hard times like an economic recession?
5. Even if these programs are wildly inefficient and ineffective, do they not employ some amount of people in an attempt to distribute aid?
6. What are the causes of poverty? Before actually answering this question, do you have proof, or is this just what you think causes poverty, or what is commonly held as the cause of poverty?
Some Sources:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/SMI75FY09.pdf
Dustin said,
January 18, 2010 at 2:51 pm
1) All recipients are not unworthy.
2) The criteria should be that a person that is capable to work should. Just because a person is “disabled” does not make them exempt from employment. I understand that there are certain jobs that a person cannot perform, but that there are some that they can.
3) I agree that children should not pay for the sins of the parent. This is why we need to do something to help the children of dead beat parents. I’m not talking about the parents who are struggling and attempting to make life better. I’m talking about the couch potato parents who don’t attempt to make things better, and no I don’t have an answer right now (wish I did).
4) no opinion here
5) Not sure I see the point to this one.
6) Poverty can be seen in many different ways. According to the state of Missouri a family of 4 with an income under about 39,000 is considered “low income”. This to me is odd. Does this mean that for the first 6 years of my marriage my wife and I lived in poverty? I don’t think we did but according to Missouri we were low income. My first job when My wife and I moved here only paid about 20,000 a year which is below the federal poverty level. I’m not sure we understand poverty….
alexpoiry said,
January 19, 2010 at 8:31 am
To begin I’ll quickly reiterate from the facebook discussion, unemployment benefits are not calculated in this particular look at welfare. The reason I left them out is because anyone, rich, poor, or otherwise are eligible for unemployment. This year an estimated $42.685 billion was spent on unemployment, about 1.2% of federal outlays. Of course this has been an atypical year in that sense.
I agree with the general statement that if a person can work and support his or herself and/or a family, they should. But you’ve actually hit the nail right on the head with answer 6. In southwest Missouri $20,000 a year is a livable wage. That same wage in Northern Virginia is a joke. When I tell people how much I made interning at Accenture they are usually very surprised. In this area you’re hard pressed to find a sleazy studio apartment in the ghetto for under $1,000/month. Missouri has an estimated population of around 6 million with about 1.5 million of those people in our large cities and even more in the greater metropolitan area. Again, the cost of living is higher so $39,000 a year for a family of 4 in St. Louis or Kansas City is a pretty low income. This means that some people in Joplin receiving aid might be able to make it on their own. But move to an area like St. Louis of Kansas City where the number of people requiring aid is larger and living is more expensive and suddenly the situation is reversed. You can’t support yourself on minimum wage anymore. There is a whole class of people, the working poor, who work very hard and still are just barely able to scratch by, even with government assistance in some cases.
I think this all leads to a deeper question, why is there poverty in this country, or even in general. The sense I get is that people think poverty is caused by laziness. But the fact that there is a class of hard working poor people contradicts that.