I have long maintained very few if any men in America get cash “welfare” payments. I have made this statement knowing most of what we call “welfare” is Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Further, “Food Stamps” is not really cash.
While some (how many?) men might get help with rent or groceries, almost none get any form of cash.
Am I mistaken?
I’m not from the US and I am aware rules might be different from state to state, but wouldn’t ‘Social Security Benefits’ count? From the few cases I know about (people I know) it’s a cash benefit with no gender bias.
Most “Welfare” is called Aid for Dependent Children. Since almost all children living in low or no income households live with their mothers, most of it does go to women.
As for Social Security, it is certainly the biggest welfare program. But we Americans refuse to consider it welfare. We loudly tell everyone “That is the money I paid in.” But of course that is not true.
Thinking on it a little bit, I’d say Social Security does count, because there is a redistributive side to it. It is like a forced retirement plan, where upon retirement you get back a certain amount each month which basically increases the more you put in, except it is front-loaded. People who made less money per year will get back much more than they put in, while those firmly in the upper middle class will get back less*.
In addition Social Security has Disability Insurance, where you can start to draw benefits if you are disabled and unable to work, no matter what your age is. I’d say whether that is “welfare” is more debatable because when people say “welfare” they mean “welfare that is means-tested by income and/or wealth”.
*The truly wealthy on the other hand don’t pay social security taxes because they get their income from investments.
Certainly not all payments from the Old age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (OASDI) program sometimes called Social Security count as welfare, but some certainly do. Social Security disability payments would be welfare, as well as the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments made to people on Social Security who do not exceed certain income and asset limits.
Which means they get nothing out of it, unless they’ve got 40 quarters of contributions.
Not sure what the rules are, they vary between states and countries. The last time I recall a discussion on this was in the 80’s, when there were protests because single able-bodied males in Quebec got a monthly payment of about $325 a month. Even back then, that was barely enough to live - at best, a room in a fire-trap rooming house and not enough to eat. It was relevant because at the time (hard to imagine now) unemployment among poorly educated males was quite high. My impression was that most of North America was similar - payments for single people with no dependents was abysmal. Today, I would have trouble imagining anyone satisfying the “look for work” criteria… too many fast food and retail jobs out there. Plus, you need an address, and if you share that address with anyone else, you are considered part of a “family” and household income counts - and with the amounts paid, you’d need a “roomie” to afford any sort of housing. You can see why those with mental challenges have trouble meeting these demands and end up on the street.
Once you have children to support, apparently it gets easier. However, the news I read from the 80s and 90s suggested the biggest problem was any woman who had a boyfriend, welfare officials were looking for any excuse to make him pay. If he stayed overnight too often, the guy was labelled “common law husband” and her benefits cut off. Similarly in the days before deadbeat dad laws, and with high young male unemployment, the incentive was for the father to not be present so the mother could collect welfare which provided a better “paycheque”.
I perceive no clear significant gender difference in the SS disability cases (DIB and SSI) I encounter.
Today my 4 claimants are evenly divided - 2 M/2F.
If pressed, I’d say SLIGHTLY more claimants are female - maybe 60/40.
Stats are probably available somewhere if someone cared to search…
And, IMO, there is no question but that SS disability is (in large part) today’s welfare.
Definitely, but I’m comparing them to the upper middle class, some of whom contribute less than they get out of it, which is worse than not contributing at all.
This emphasis on “cash” is odd.
I mean, it’s really, really odd.
Subsidized housing for men and women is common. This is no more “cash” than food stamps (to use the ancient term).
Amazon for 2018 paid no Federal taxes and received $129M tax rebate (on $11.2B profits). That’s $129M in “cash” welfare. I don’t see Amazon as a woman.
I don’t know if I’d call you mistaken exactly, because it depends on what you mean by “almost none”. If you mean fewer men than women, that’s almost certainly true simply because some states only provide cash public assistance to families with children and more of those are headed by women than men. If you mean small absolute number- maybe not. Because some states ( such as New York) provide cash benefits to childless men and women.
It also depends on what you consider 'welfare" - does it include SSI or Social Security?
All amazons are women.
“Welfare” generally I take to mean support payments because the person could work but doesn’t, and no longer qualifies (if they did) for unemployment insurance.
I guess we then have to divide the question into those with a debilitating (physical) medical condition, those with mental issues, ad those who are able-bodied but seem to have difficulty finding or holding a job. In the good old days of high unemployment, the last category was probably more common than today. (But then, in the “good old days” if someone found a job, it was usually full time 40 hours a week.)
I assume there is a standard for doctors to certify a person as sufficiently medically challenged that they qualify for SS Disability payments.
As for the OP, I don’t recall any suggestion that women had it easier than men - healthy single women had just as hard a time qualifying for welfare from what I’ve heard. Most of the stories I’ve read about welfare of various flavours involve some sort of disability. I assume people without physical limitations face a good hard look at the details of their condition.
I don’t think there’s a requirement that one be female in order to obtain AFDC.
Do you have more information on this?
Y’all know that AFDC hasn’t existed since 1996, right? The only cash welfare available is TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and there’s a lifetime limit of 60 months available for any family with an adult in it. So “welfare” as I’m sure people are imagining it does not exist and hasn’t for over twenty years.
I’m confused. Your second sentence seems to presume that someone “with a debilitating (physical) medical condition [or] mental issues” is a person who “could work but doesn’t.” 
At least as SS is concerned, the term “disability” essentially means someone who is incapable of working. (Yes, many specific details, but sufficiently accurate for this general discussion.)
As far as your first sentence is concerned, I’m not aware of gov’t programs that provide cash to people who are able to work but don’t. I admit, however, that SS disab is the only gov’t program I have any familiarity with.
sorry if I’m not clear. The disabled fall into two categories - mental and physical. Physical implies the doctors have shown that for whatever reason, the person is physically incapable of working; strength, endurance, missing limbs, debilitating pain, etc. I presume that with proper screening, it is possible to get disability SS for the second category, proven conditions that are mentally but not physically limiting (schizophrenia comes to mind).
People who simply don’t work are the third category. While I don’t know the details, I recall that the UK, for example, had a history of many people of all ages “living off the dole” for the simple reason that there was no work for them. (Although some suggestion that many didn’t try too hard) Some countries don’t feel it’s appropriate for their citizens to starve and freeze in the dark simply because there is no work available.
Amazon paid no federal tax in 2018 because of carry forward of past year losses, the research investment tax credit, the investment in property and equipment tax credit and because the increasing stock price makes paying people in stock more expensive.
Those programs are in no way welfare in any way the term is used.