IGX

Perhaps it's because, while poor people are not lazy, they are not stupid either. If you pay people more not to work than they can earn at a job, many won't work.

A new study by the Cato Institute found that in many states, it does indeed pay better to be on welfare than it does to work.

Most reports on welfare focus on only a single program, the cash benefit program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. This focus leaves the misimpression that welfare benefits are quite low, providing a bare, subsistence-level income. In reality, the federal government funds 126 separate programs for low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals.

A new study by the Cato Institute found that in many states, it does indeed pay better to be on welfare than it does to work.

Still, what is undeniable is that for many recipients in the most generous states — particularly those classified as long-term recipients — welfare pays substantially more than an entry-level job.

milosz wrote:

Still, what is undeniable is that for many recipients in the most generous states — particularly those classified as long-term recipients — welfare pays substantially more than an entry-level job.

This is a painfully dishonest sentence. Welfare theoretically pays substantially more.

Nowhere in the Tanner op-eds that the Cato Institute is peppering the gol-darned lib'rul media with does he actually cite people who are collecting all of the benefits he claims. The potential haul for a full welfare package is a wonderful stat - now how many people are receiving that package? How much is received by the average welfare recipient?

So the obvious question is why did Tanner and Hughes include it at all? Probably because it pushes the final welfare benefits figures up. For instance, in Hawaii, only 15.4% of TANF recipients also receive housing assistance, which the authors include in their Hawaii figure. That figure, $49,175, is driven largely by housing assistance, $23,798. Likewise, Ohio has a TANF – Housing Assistance percentage of 10.2%, just above the cutoff point, yet housing assistance, $8,152, consumes 28% of the total welfare benefits package of $28,723. Of the states above the authors’ cut-off, housing assistance is the largest welfare benefit in all but three, adding between $8,061 and $23,798 to the final welfare benefits figures.

milosz wrote:Wait, a tabloid (which endorsed Mitt Romney, the dirty lib) writing about the joke that is minimum and near-minimum wage in this country "makes the same argument" as op-eds claiming welfare queens are out there cashing $40k in bennies?

I wonder why Tanner just uses the theoretical numbers re: housing and not its real-world application?

http://www.dirigoblue.com/2013/08/catos ... n-welfare/

Pinky wrote:The comparison to the minimum wage also exaggerates the authors' case. Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage. That's one of the reasons why the minimum wage is not an efficient way to help the poor.

The July government employment report released Friday showed the job market treading water.

And a closer look at one of the two measures the Labor Department uses to gauge employment suggests that part-time work accounted for almost all the job growth that’s been reported over the past six months.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/02/1 ... rylink=cpy

Turdacious wrote:Your argument is foolish, other papers are reporting the same thing.

milosz wrote:some incomprehensible bullshit

milosz wrote:You've got a low barrier for incomprehensible. ESL?