You also can’t receive Social Security Disability benefits without paying something into the system UNLESS you’re receiving the benefits based on either a parent’s or spouse’s earnings. If someone was disabled prior to age 18 and was entitled to child’s benefits on a parent’s account, those benefits are payable for life. When I was working for Social Security I remember several cases where people in their 50s and 60s were receiving “disabled child” benefits on the account of a deceased parent.
Um, what? Which term? Obamacare? It’s been used in the Globe and the NYT, so I’m pretty sure it’s not a loaded term.
ETA: “Obamacare” is easier to say than “the recent health care overhaul/bill”
What about unemployment compensation?
How many people pay into SS, but then die prior to collecting anything?
(serious question, not rhetorical… I know a lot comes from redistribution from higher paid folks, but certainly some must come from people who die young.)
I don’t know the numbers, but here are some categories who pay in and get nothing out:
(1) people who die before retirement, particularly those without dependents to collect.
(2) illegal immigrant workers.
(3) people who pay into the system for less than 10 years.
Categories (2) and (3) do overlap, but they aren’t the same: my wife will be in category (3), since she’s a green-card holder who will have worked about 6 years in the US when she retires.
My child receives SSDI and has since birth and she still receives it currently in the same amounts she always has even though our family’s only income currently is unemployment. When my unemployment runs out, her SSDI will not be cut off even though neither of her parents has any income.
(1) When my mother died she was not yet eligible for retirement benefits, had no children under age 18, and was divorced so even the $255.00 death benefit went unpaid.
(3) I had paid into the system for less than 10 years before I got my federal job, and it’s not likely that I’ll ever bother to try to earn the additional credits I’d need to collect Social Security, since under the current rules I’d only be paid a small amount anyway.
Your current income has nothing to do with it, it’s past income which determines eligability.
Careful. A lot of Medicaid actually goes to the elderly occupants of nursing homes.
The Op asked: “What percentage of the Federal budget goes to Welfare?
By welfare, I mean actual handouts to the poor.”
I think the answer is about 3% at the federal level. I count food stamps, WIC, and TANF programs, which cost roughly $105 billion, or 2.8%
TANF & WIC replaced AFDC during the Clinton era. In 1993, the budget for food stamps and AFDC was $24.9 billion, or 1% of the total budget.
The NY Times has a great interactive graphic which breaks it down.
Like my sister in law, diagnosed with MS at age 29 who gets to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair, not needing* to move a muscle below her neck for the rest of her life, sucking off the taxpayers’ teat for free.
*or “able”. But we’re using the term loosely.
Great, another welfare queen* sponging off my hard earned money.
*unless her skin is the same color as mine
Here are my calculations based upon the Historical Tables of the FY 2009 Budget (.pdf).
All data is for 2006:
Outlays: 2655.4 Billion
deficit: 248.2 billion
defense: 521.8 billion.
“Means tested Enrollment”: 354.3 billion
1 Includes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children’s health insurance and veterans pensions.
354.3 billion is 13.3% of all outlays. Of that 6.8% was medicaid. Of Medicaid, about 60% goes to nursing homes: that figure should increase over time. (Source: Sorry, this is a rough estimate of the nursing home share. I took the 62% number from the state of Arkansas and rounded down to 60%. I couldn’t find a national number).
So nursing homes are ~4.1% of the budget. Those freaking elderly invalids really piss me off. Sixty percent of all occupants of nursing homes are on medicaid, though only a minority of them enter the nursing home that way.
Anyway, net out nursing homes and you get 9.3% of the 2006 budget on “Welfare”, broadly defined to include means tested veterans pensions. Coincidentally, that outlay was very close to the 2006 budget deficit.
Don’t forget the earned income credit.
I would posit the question as this:
The people of the nation through their elected representatives have decided that certain dollars raised through taxation should be used to assist a proportion of the population in need of basic sustenance without the ability to do so themselves. What is the percentage of the national budget that goes to these programs?
Interesting. I knew my parents’ income had something to do with how much money I got, but I didn’t know it had to do with my eligibility in the first place. They basically got disability on me to pay my medical bills, as they had exhausted their funding on me after a while.
I will point out that it isn’t quite for life: I can lose the money if I go to work, which, before my withdrawal, was just something I chose not to do unless I could get more money than I was already making, as we’re still not that well off financially. Only recently did I learn that I could make a fairly significant amount of money and still get my check–but by then I was housebound.
That is a very good way to phrase it.
Then we can ask a second question where we replace “in need of” with “beyond the levels of”
… and a third question where we replace “the ability” with “the desire or incentive”.
According to wikipedia, the EITC in 2004 cost $36 billion. That’s a highball estimate, as encouraging people to work often removes their eligibility for other federal programs. I’m not sure I would call the EITC a “Handout” (as per the OP) but it is certainly an outlay.
My numbers were rough above. 36/2655.4 = 1.4%. So if you want to add it in, change my figures to 10.7 - 14.7% of the budget.
oliversarmy and What the:
Recall:
Of these means tested enrollment programs, which meet your definition? EITC certainly would not qualify according to the original criteria.
Sorry, I don’t understand the question.
FWIW, it’s often pointed out that EITC recipients pay into social security so they are just getting that money back. Those who suggest that rarely (never?) point out that their SS benefits are not reduced by having actually put less in.
I wasn’t sure how to operationalize oliversarmy’s definition. Or yours.
EITC is not a “Handout” as it involves a work requirement. The word “Handout” was part of the OP. EITC is a program for the working poor: it’s a way of propping up their incomes without resorting to higher minimum wage requirements. Whether it is “Welfare” is a matter of definition. But it doesn’t seem to fit oliversarmy’s definition, which seems to apply to the most basic safety nets.
So I wanted to ask which programs fall under which definitions. If this is still unclear (and it may be) I can try again.
Personally, I consider welfare to be AFDC+TANF, but I’m not insisting that everyone accept those definitions. Foster care, adoption assistance and means tested veterans benefits don’t spring to mind when people complain about those shiftless poor.