I’m beginning to think that a study needs to be found or done on how many actual homeless we have, where they are and why they are homeless. Perhaps this is more of an east coast thing - I travel all over the west coast and see extremely few actual homeless. I say “actual” because we do have professional homeless people at home - these folks have homes but prefer to make a living begging on street corners for some reason. They are easy to spot because they are clean, well groomed and wearing nice clothes. :smack:
Anyway, it seems like it may be that plans like in the OP may turn out to be overkill if we find that a vast majority of real homeless people are drug addicts or alcoholics, who would be better served in a different way.
Hm, I’d want to see a study there. In my personal experience I see very little correlation between “raised on welfare” and “doesn’t want to work”–I DO see a correlation between parent’s income and child’s income, in that a welfare mom isn’t going to be able to send junior to college so the kid ends up as a welder or whatever instead. There’s also a correlation between “raised on welfare” and “on welfare” that is structural–areas with high unemployment due to lack of available jobs don’t magically grow jobs, after all, and people on welfare are not able to afford much mobility. I’m skeptical that “lazy” is inherited.
Part of this is fine-tuning of the welfare portion of the program, too. The ideal place for this, IMHO, is where you can afford housing, cheap food, some form of transportation that’s area-appropriate* and maybe if you’re very frugal you can scrimp for one semi-luxury a year in the “a TV, but not cable” range.
this ought to be self-adjusting–urban poor spend more on housing, but less on transport due to the availability of walking and buses. Rural poor spend less on housing and have more available for a cheap beater of a used car.
We probably only have 2-3 homeless people full-time in my midsize town. The homeless problem is pretty bad in the cities, though, especially in the winter–at points, you practically have to step over them in places like bus and subway depots.
At some point, I admit that my feeling is that if I can’t get an addict into counseling, at least I can hand him enough cash to prevent him from doing $300 damage to my car in order to steal my $300 stereo which he’ll sell for $10 to get a single hit.
A family of 4 can have a gross monthly income of $2,389 ($29k per year) or net monthly income of $1,838 ($22k per year). That family is eligible for $116.60 per month in benefits, totaling $1400 per year.
So here is an actual example of what I’m still trying to convince you guys of. A person making $29,000 supporting a wife and two kids has an effective salary of $30,400 when you add in SNAP. That is a person making $13.80 working full time, but with SNAP his/her effective salary goes up to $14.61 per hour.
If that person wants to make $100 more per month, he/she first loses the $116.60 per month from SNAP, meaning that he actually needs to earn $216.60 per month. So at $13.80 per hour, to make $100 more per month requires working 3.6 extra hours per week instead of just 1.7.
Working more means earning less.
And that’s just SNAP. Add in any of other programs or tax deductions/credits and the system is designed to discourage work. A person has to go from $13.60/hour up to $14.61/hour before they earn more income. Giving this guy a 5% raise will cost him money.
How much cash do you think it will cost? What makes you think he won’t take the cash, shoot up, then go after your car stereo looking for yet another hit? It sounds like you’re trying to buy your way out of a problem that money hasn’t been able to solve.
So you claim the person who earns an additional $100, actually loses $16.50 net! That would be a reverse incentive. If it were true. In fact, however, that’s not how SNAP works. An additional $100 income gives a $30 (30%) penalty; the person thus keeps $70 of his $100.
Cite, you ask? The very webpage you linked to in your post. :smack: Methinks, emacknight should invest some effort fighting his own ignorance, rather than making assumptions which have no merit beyond feeding his misconception that every government program is poorly designed.
There is, in fact, only a finite amount of drugs one can do.
Granted, if I were in charge we’d also have sensible drug regulation, but until the paperwork goes through on my dictator for life application, you guys are stuck with half-measures.
Don’t suppose in your rush to post lots of smilies that SNAP has a monthly maximum of $1,838 net for a family of 4. Going over that limit cuts you off entirely. The 30% you are referring to is for income earned up to the maximum. You really should stick to “debating” in the pit.
Of course true, but at some point a drug user can exist only in one of two states:
has taken enough drugs for that time period.
dead of overdose.
Both web research and The Wire have taught me that street drugs cost about $10-$20 per hit. Figure a hit every waking hour or so, that’s like $200-300 per day.
I don’t think this payout is going to prevent much crime beyond property crime of perceived necessity–in other words, Jean Valjean and sixty thousand heroin addicts. =P
OK, now how does any of that contradict my (and others’) statement that benefits are largely tied to having kids?
Let’s look at a few of these things, shall we?
Section 8 Housing: The shortest waiting list for section 8 in my area is 8 YEARS. Where are you supposed to live in the meanwhile? Think about that, ok? Where do you live for the 8 years you are on the waiting list? On top of that - the waiting list for Section 8 in my county is closed. That means if you weren’t already on it, YOU CAN’T EVEN GET ON THE WAITING LIST. It doesn’t matter how qualified you are, you can’t get on the waiting list, much less wait out the 10 years those at the bottom of the list are expected to wait. This is why my area has squatters in abandoned buildings. I know we have them, because when I worked on the US Census I found and documented some of these people.
School food programs - great, the kids get breakfast and lunch. What the frack are the parents supposed to eat? And what about dinner? Oh, right -
SNAP - the number you quote is the MAXIMUM benefit. Not everyone gets the maximum. If you are completely destitute you might get that, but someone earning near the top of the eligibility range will NOT get the maximum amount. If you’re earning (I’m trying to remember what I was quoted) about 80-90% of the maximum eligibility range you’ll only get about $50/month per person. Did you take that into account? Disability payments are calculated into income, so a “generous” disability payment per month may entirely disqualify someone disabled from getting SNAP at all. If you need a specialized diet for medical reasons… well, sucks to be you then. You’re treating SNAP as if you get the maximum benefit right up to the eligibility line and you don’t - I know that from experience.
Just because you’re poor does NOT mean you qualify for benefits!***
Getting one particular benefit can disqualify you from others.
Look again at your links - most deal with benefits to children and/or the disabled. If you don’t fall under one of those two categories you’re screwed.
I don’t think it is inherited as much as it is ingrained as the kids grow up - “this is how life is lived” type thing. Particularly in areas with high unemployment - from what I’ve seen, they don’t even bother looking for a job because they’ve been taught there is no point. They also tend to have a bad attitude towards the rest of the world, very entitled, rarely seeing anything wrong with scamming, etc.
I doubt there are any studies on it out there. All I have are my experiences of living among folks who seem to be just fine with living in poverty, and their kids tend to take after them.
You mean lumping them together in ghettos like Watts? That hasn’t worked out all that well in the past…
I used to work in Seattle and rode the bus back and forth. I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of homeless I saw. Now, that was over 15 years ago. I rarely get up to LA, but the city I live in has 300K+ people in it and I have yet to see a “real” homeless person here.
There isn’t enough cash out there for your stereo to be safe. You want to make sure addicts are stealing stuff, lock them up. It’s the only way, other than just handing them enough junk to OD on.
A couple years ago my sister was homeless for three months. She slept on the couches of friends, used their bathrooms, etc. and never looked disheveled and never had to sleep outside or in a bus station. She still didn’t have a home.
Most homeless people who are functional have family and friends they can stay with for awhile. They’re still without a home, though.
I wonder if part of this is an urban vs. rural thing in terms of perception. Most of the welfare-riding folks I know personally are from towns with populations in the sub-1000 range, and most of their kids (whom I went to school with) were nigh-obsessed with breaking out of the cycle. A fairly large number did.
I actually kinda mean the opposite–one of the benefits to having this come as a cash payment rather than something like Section 8 housing is that (I’d hope) you’d see some trending towards reverse ghettoization where they spread out and integrated a bit more. Less concentration of poverty leading hopefully to less crime and better role models for the kids.
In Philly and Harrisburg, it’s rare I go through the bus terminals or train stations without seeing several homeless folks. Hell, in my current town of 42,000, we’ve got at least 2-3 people ostentatiously homeless (by which I mean, sleeping on park benches).
Oh well if you are talking about someone who is only getting $1 in interest because they are investing in treasuries rather than getting $2 in interest by investing in junk bonds, I don’t really have a problem with that sort of “gaming” of the system.
If you are trying to argue for a wealth tax, I can be convinced into supporting a wealth tax.
Those sort of cutoffs are probably not a good idea.
I did not know that. So what is to prevent me from creating a corporation to own my home and then rent my home from the corporation (which presumably CAN take interest deductions for the mortgage)?
For example the most progressive proposal here in the USA is to revert to the Clinton tax rates. There is little to no evidence that this dissuaded work or drove income underground. You seem to be exxagerating the progressivity of proposed taxes to reach undesirable results.
This is a very frequently asked question that has a very simple answer: You aren’t allowed to run a company at a loss (obvious jokes of the financial sector aside). The business would have to show some profit, which would then be taxed. So in the end all you’ve done is create a lot of extra paperwork for yourself.
Essentially, Canada Revenue would flag your “company” after the first couple of zero profit years then audit you, where they would find out that all you’re doing is renting yourself a house. My wife lived with a friend whose father bought a house that he then rented to her and some friends as a way to get around this but even then he found it wasn’t worth it because has a landlord he was required to follow a different set of codes and zoning laws than a home owner. One thing they wanted him to do was put in “exit” signs!
