Is it worth working?

[The_Doc_Man]

Quotes regarding "living on the dole:"

Thomas Jefferson:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not.

Albert Camus:

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.

James Madison on the subject of "General Welfare" (in a discussion on the meaning of that term) and therefore more interest to a USA group:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers connected to them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Abraham Lincoln (again, perhaps of more interest to USA members, but relevant):

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Ronald Reagan (another of interest to the USA):

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.

Two quotes from Marcus Tullius Cicero:

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and given him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the new wonderful good society which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean more money, more ease, more security, and more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.

Paul Harvey:

They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?

Hippocrates:

Idleness and lack of occupation tend -- nay are dragged -- towards evil.

Plutarch:

The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.

Joseph Sobran:

Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money.

Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi:

The more is given the less the people will work for themselves, and the less they work the more their poverty will increase.

I could probably find more, but I think this covers a wide-enough range to show that from pre-Christian philosophers to modern politicians, welfare (specifically, living on the "dole") has been the topic of much debate.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Do you mean, literally, that if you don't own property you can't vote, or if you're homeless you can't vote? If the former you're mistaken, as I voted for years as a renter. If the latter, not to argue that it's right or wrong, but how would you track whether a homeless person has voted already or not? Without any form of ID, it would be very hard to keep track.

What system does the US use to track how the homeless vote? Must be a monumental task.

That was a response to Minty's quote about the cost to be on the 'electoral register' being based on the value of your house. Or in other words, 'if you don't pay property tax, you don't vote'.

How is it you don't grasp the idea of restating or summing things up? It's not like people don't do that all the time, and you've seen me post enough by now that you should know full well that when I quote someone, I use the quote feature.

The only thing we do to track how people vote are polls, both beforehand and exit polls during elections. Anonymity in voting is very important here in order to prevent 'punishment' for voting the way people don't like. "Here's a list of people who voted against your re-election, Mayor Kilpatrick. We have scheduled all of them for basement-to-roof home inspections with instructions to write up every single code issue, police and fire are aware they're enemies of the administration, and our direct action people have their addresses."

As to what you were really asking, it varies by state. States with Republican-controlled legislatures tend to have very strict voter ID requirements: passport, state-issued photo ID, military ID, native ID, and in some strict ID states (but by no means all of them), school ID.

Other states allow things ranging from assorted non-photo ID to signature-matching against a signature on file to affidavits to, honestly, not worrying about it.

A state-by-state breakdown can be found HERE.

After the Democratic victories in 2006, 2008, and 2012, the GOP has been pushing VERY hard to get all states to use a strict photo ID requirement, which 'just so happens' to affect students and minorities the most, and those two groups 'just so happen' to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Hell, Alabama went so far as to close every DMV office in mostly-black counties. The GOP has been attempting to justify this by referring to a 'voter fraud epidemic' - specifically, the slightly over 2000 cases of alleged (proven is MUCH lower) voter fraud out of the > 1 billion votes cast since 2000.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Doc, I do notice that all of the quotes you picked were about the evils of Welfare.

Let me point out that the vast majority of government assistance recipients do not and do not WANT to remain on it.

Trust me that I speak from experience when I say it is humiliating and something that most recipients devoutly wish they didn't need. The 1980's 'Welfare mother' is actually vanishingly rare, and most people get off it just as quickly as they possibly can. Hell, even the tuition assistance programs I've seen Blade loyally badmouth as a waste of money are designed to help poor people get a degree and out of poverty.

Also, don't forget that disaster assistance and Medicaid are public assistance, too, and Medicare was designed with poor retirees in mind. Even Social Security effectively works as such, even if you do pay into it each week of your working life.

Obviously, this primarily applies to the USA.

 

[Alc]

That was a response to Minty's quote about the cost to be on the 'electoral register' being based on the value of your house. Or in other words, 'if you don't pay property tax, you don't vote'.

How is it you don't grasp the idea of restating or summing things up? It's not like people don't do that all the time, and you've seen me post enough by now that you should know full well that when I quote someone, I use the quote feature.

It was just that familiarity with other posts that confused me. usually, I don't have any problem following what you mean, so I thought I'd clarify. No offence intended.

After the Democratic victories in 2006, 2008, and 2012, the GOP has been pushing VERY hard to get all states to use a strict photo ID requirement, which 'just so happens' to affect students and minorities the most, and those two groups 'just so happen' to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Hell, Alabama went so far as to close every DMV office in mostly-black counties. The GOP has been attempting to justify this by referring to a 'voter fraud epidemic' - specifically, the slightly over 2000 cases of alleged (proven is MUCH lower) voter fraud out of the > 1 billion votes cast since 2000.

Yeah, I heard something about that. I can see how it could be disguised as an attempt to be stricter on "cheats" but it's pretty clear what's really going on.

 

[Frothingslosh]

It was just that familiarity with other posts that confused me. usually, I don't have any problem following what you mean, so I thought I'd clarify. No offence intended.

Fair enough, and I was honestly just confused, not offended. It just happened to be the same kind of question our arch-conservatives here like to use when they're intentionally mistaking a summary of mine as a falsified direct quote, thus the 'WTF' tone. Sorry about that.

Yeah, I heard something about that. I can see how it could be disguised as an attempt to be stricter on "cheats" but it's pretty clear what's really going on.

Not that they will ever admit it.

 

[Alc]

Fair enough, and I was honestly just confused, not offended. It just happened to be the same kind of question our arch-conservatives here like to use when they're intentionally mistaking a summary of mine as a falsified direct quote, thus the 'WTF' tone. Sorry about that.

Apology not accepted - you just want to feeeeeel gooood

 

[Frothingslosh]

 

[Brianwarnock]

Let me clear a few things up


1 I was wrong to say the uk poll tax was on a sliding scale, it was not, but some people eg students, only paid 20% of the rate.

2 you had to pay poll tax to be on the voting register

3 yes I do object to those who contribute nothing having a say in how the money is spent.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

So in other words, by being poor, they forfeit their citizenship.

Disgusting.

 

[CJ_London]

@Froth, how do you equate being poor with forfeiting citizenship?

if you want to vote (if that is how you are defining citizenship) then you need to be on the electoral role. The electoral role requires to know a) your age if under 18, b) your name and c) your address.

The council tax (not called a poll tax) has absolutely nothing to do with being able to vote - and 'poor people' if they can't afford it, can apply and the tax is paid by the council.

And by the way, please do not misquote me by suggesting that I don't feel poor people are citizens - I never suggested that. I said if people choose not to work - that might make them poor by their own actions, it does not mean they are not citizens.

you say

All I see is you spouting that old belief that the poor are not deserving of the same rights as those who aren't poor, that they are somehow 'inferior to you'.

please highlight from my post this spouting

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Let me point out that the vast majority of government assistance recipients do not and do not WANT to remain on it.

FrothingSlosh, let me point out in turn that one of those quotes related to the would-be tyrants who use welfare as an excuse to stay in power. In the case of the USA, by buying votes through those handouts. I don't blame all welfare recipients. In fact, I very strongly condemn the modern-day equivalents to the robber barons whose excesses gave rise to the labor movement. It is why, even though I am more Republican than Democrat, I am far from pure orthodoxy for either side.

Business, in order to survive, has to be able to make a profit. People, in order to survive, have to be able to add to their savings at the end of the year. In either case, if they sustain a loss too many years in a row, they go under. It is finding the balance point (and slapping the faces HARD of the REALLY greedy executive types) that becomes a more difficult proposition. If I truly had an idea about how to equitably define the balance point, I would offer it.

However, there is that old saying that applies originally to government economists (but actually could apply to anyone): An acceptable level of unemployment is when the person making that evaluation still has a job. An unacceptable level of unemployment is when that person is no longer employed.

 

[Steve R.]

And by the way, please do not misquote me by suggesting that I don't feel poor people are citizens - I never suggested that. I said if people choose not to work - that might make them poor by their own actions, it does not mean they are not citizens.

Frothingslosh has a habit of misstating what others have written.

 

[Rabbie]

It is a tax that prevents people below an arbitrary income from voting. It is blatantly and obviously disenfranchisement of the poor.

Just because you (Brian and CJ) don't feel that poor people are citizens, it doesn't mean you're right. All I see is you spouting that old belief that the poor are not deserving of the same rights as those who aren't poor, that they are somehow inferior to you.

I will admit that I don't know your unwritten constitution as well as I know the written American one, but so far I have found anything in your laws and other documents saying that poor people are less deserving of rights than affluent people. It's the same 'they aren't really people' crap we have to deal with here, too.

There's a reason we amended our Constitution to flat-out outlaw the poll tax.

Frothy, do pay attention. The tax in the UK did not affect people's right to vote. It was a flat rate levy on every adult to raise money for local government. It is a fundamental principal of UK law that all are equal before the law and have equal rights so perhaps you need to do some more research.

 

[Frothingslosh]

By your own laws, citizens have the right to vote. Implementing a tax of any sort on that right, be it paid at the ballot box or in order to be added to some list of eligible voters, is a direct infringement of that right, because it literally means that if you do not pay that tax, then you can't vote.

I cannot make it any clearer than that. That is what a poll tax is - a tax paid to be allowed to vote. They are blatantly discriminatory attempts at disenfranchising the poor, and that is why poll taxes are banned by our Constitution over here.

If you remove a group's right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary income target, then you have infringed on their rights and created a group of second-class citizens. It doesn't matter if they choose not to work - and very few people CHOOSE not to work, and those who do are usually weeded out in short order - they are still citizens with all the rights thereof. Poll taxes do just that, and have been, since their inception, used with the express purpose of disenfranchising the poor. If you back the idea of poll taxes, then you're supporting the idea that the poor don't have the same rights as the rest of your citizens.

If the UK really needs that money, they could instead tax driver's licenses, or vehicle registration, or gasoline, or a slightly higher sales tax or property taxes, or 'sin taxes' on liquor and cigarettes, or any number of other things. Taxing the right to vote, on the other hand, goes against the very underpinnings of Democracy and the underlying concept of 'one person, one vote'.

And I ask again - WHY should someone receiving government assistance lose the right to vote? What hubris allows you to decide that the government helping them means they should lose one of the most basic rights granted by their citizenship? All that does is punish the poor for the crime of BEING poor.

 

[Lightwave]

I generally think that barring unpredictable illness / disability if you are between the ages of 18 and 65 you should be on your own for financial support.
That includes child benefit (just reduce tax on everyone)

I do think education should be free for everyone with the potential for one vocational or higher qualification available (with living costs paid for). I am happy with the idea that these may be limited on a meritocratic basis (why educate people in skills the state will never get a return on).

I am of the opinion that it is unlikely that everyone can have everything they want so it is maybe best for society that we leave those that can survive to survive. As a child you don't get to choose your parentage and the idea of them getting a restricted education as a result of lack of funds from the parents is deeply divisive for society long term (although I can see how parents would use short-termism to prefer nepotism of their children).

I would hope if I was destitute and poor I would not compromise my opinions but you never know what will be going through your mind.

I don't really believe in taxing the rich but I would heavily tax capital gains in the form of capital gains tax as I don't believe its healthy to lock away usable assets as investment vehicles (I also believe unchecked property markets lead to price bubbles). This I believe is a major source of poverty in the world. Having a piece of the world to shelter from (even if its a cupboard) aids I think citizenship engenders sustainability.

In an ideal world I might even base all taxes on some kind of consumption tax. I like the idea of individuals who do not pollute paying less tax and those that are responsible being rewarded.

Failing that income tax levels must be some kind of equation. What is the most efficient level to motivate individuals prevent social unrest and generate the maximum "taxation revenue" which in an ideal world would have an optimal solution.

I bet there been a lot of economic studies trying to find that out.
I am happy with the destitute and poor voting.
I would not like criminals to be given the vote.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Doc - 'vote buying' is, depending on how you define it, either a bogeyman waved about by politicians to describe any public benefit with which they disagree or something both parties do religiously. 'Vote buying' is what happens when giant corporations get sweetheart tax breaks or Medicare gets a flashy new program that actually does nothing. It's also an accusation leveled against ANY AND ALL Democratic policies to aid the poor, be it improved Medicaid, longer unemployment benefits after an economic crash, or a slight bump in food stamp allowances. It's also a base accusation implying that the people who are theoretically being 'bought' are too unintelligent, too uninformed to make rational decisions, and a libel based on the GOP's narrative that poor people and minorities are this gigantic mass of unwashed illiterates who do nothing but sit around sucking up caviar and Don Perignon, driving their hummers around doing drug deals and smoking crack wrapped in hundred dollar bills, all on government money, and all on the government dime. Unfortunately, that has about as much relation to reality as does the last Avengers movie.

'Vote buying' is basically the accusation of having modern-day bread and circuses. It is also a really terrible way to stay in power - if it weren't, then the Democrats, since they're the ones almost always accused of vote buying, wouldn't have lost the House and the Senate. The people who successfully stay in power as tyrants have always used FEAR instead, because fear works, and it can be kept sustained.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Frothy, do pay attention. The tax in the UK did not affect people's right to vote. It was a flat rate levy on every adult to raise money for local government. It is a fundamental principal of UK law that all are equal before the law and have equal rights so perhaps you need to do some more research.

A poll tax is defined as a tax that must be paid, typically at the polls themselves, in order to vote. They were eventually outlawed in the US for federal elections by the 24th Amendment in 1964 after a century of using them to specifically disenfranchise black people in the American South:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

A straight tax on every man, woman and child that doesn't at all infringe on voting rights would not be a poll tax. That's a head tax, so perhaps you should be doing more research instead.

 

[Rabbie]

A poll tax is defined as a tax that must be paid, typically at the polls themselves, in order to vote. They were eventually outlawed in the US for federal elections by the 24th Amendment in 1964 after a century of using them to specifically disenfranchise black people in the American South:



A straight tax on every man, woman and child that doesn't at all infringe on voting rights would not be a poll tax. That's a head tax, so perhaps you should be doing more research instead.

Frothy, you are of course correct in a pedantic way. However the Community Charge brought in by Mrs T was popularly known as the Poll Tax in the press and by the general public and politicians so no need for any research.

But putting my pedantic hat on I could point out that poll can be used as a synonym for head. It gained its modern meaning of voting from the practice of counting heads in early elections

 

[Frothingslosh]

*SNIP*

Wow, you went from right-wing Libertarian to a mix of socialist and left-wing eco-nut.

That...takes some doing.

And honestly, I think that is more along the line of where this thread definitely needs to go - not whether or not people should even bother to work, but specifically what purpose public assistance serves.

Mind you, this is going to be in regards to American public assistance.

According to my research on this over the years, the various welfare plans have always been meant as temporary assistance to help people get back on their feet. Here in the states, it was born out of the Depression, when so many people lost everything and would have starved to death had the government not stepped in. (In the UK, I believe 'the Dole' goes back rather farther than that.) Medicaid was born from the idea that people deserve access to life-saving medical care regardless of their finances, and Social Security was created as a program to allow the elderly to be able to retire rather than being forced to work (in an era where virtually all work was manual labor) until the day they died.

I do find amusing that these days, Medicaid is basically a severely limited, substandard approach specifically only for poor people at the kind of government-mandated health care provided by most industrialized nations.

Also note that the GOP has ALWAYS fought these programs, even when they were the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives. My guess, based on the history of the parties, is that this was largely due to the fact that, even then, the GOP was strongly aligned with big business.

There are all sorts of fights and diversions and misdirections, with 'thugs' and 'welfare queens' and 'Obama phones' being bandied about, but what it really boils down to is this:

Does government of the people, for the people, and by the people have an obligation to its citizens to attempt to make life better for everyone, or do the obligations of government end at taxation, trade, diplomacy, and war? And on an even more basic level, do we as humans have an obligation to help our fellow man?

That really is, at the end, what the whole 'welfare' argument is about.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Frothy, you are of course correct in a pedantic way. However the Community Charge brought in by Mrs T was popularly known as the Poll Tax in the press and by the general public and politicians so no need for any research.

But putting my pedantic hat on I could point out that poll can be used as a synonym for head. It gained its modern meaning of voting from the practice of counting heads in early elections

Pedantic my ass, what I provided IS the definition, at least in the US. It's like saying that pointing out that a jet is not a helicoptor is pedantic simply because both are aircraft.

Perhaps you simply have a different definition in the UK. Wouldn't be the first time.