Perplexing Economic Welfare

People generally enjoy working and being productive members of society. The positive effects of the Welfare Reform Act is moving to eventually end poverty in America and promote economic growth. According to the 2005 report measuring welfare dependents “Poverty in 2003 remains much lower than in 1996, the year of passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The official poverty rate for 2003 was 12.5 percent, compared to 13.7 percent in 1996.” ( Gil Crouse, Susan Hauan, Julia Isaacs, Kendall Swenson and Lisa Trivits, 2005 ) States that design welfare-to-work policies that emphasized getting recipients into jobs by shifting to “work-first” welfare systems can modify program rules to allow more earned income,

“The Economic Policy Institute recently reviwed dozens of studies of what constitutes a “living wage” and came up with an average figure of $30,000 a year for a family of one adult and two children, which amounts to a wage of $14 an hour.” (213). According to Ehrenreich, about 60 percent of American workers earn less than $14 per hour. In all of places where Ehrenreich worked paid seven dollars or less per hour, which means those of people who work in those place cannot even afford to have some essentials services such as health insurance and telephone. Since they cannot even struggle to get out, politicians could takee an action; however, they didn't do any works. “The Democrats are not eager to find flaws in the period of “unprecedented prosperity” they take credit for; the Republicans have lost interest in the poor now that “welfare-as-we-know-it” has ended.” (217). And, they also had a catastrophic error. “In fact, very little is known about the fate of former welfare recipients because the 1996 welfare reform legislation bithely failed to incude any provision for monitoring their postwelfare economic condition.” (217). Congressmen need to read this book to realize the problem, and not satisfy themselves by ignoring failures because they have

Changes within the welfare system as a result of policy shifts and by new thinking, more generally in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), have had many methods, but the one that seemed most important, was that welfare recipients were required to do much more to justify their income support payments than before. The foundation of this new idea is that income support programs should allow individuals to maximise their participation in work. Due to the general shift in welfare administration, the number of activity test requirements an individual in Australia must meet in order to receive unemployment benefits, has expanded significantly since the early 1990s. This complex, overly bureaucratic process means that disadvantaged individuals cannot access the income support payments they require.

No matter which country you would look into whether it’s from wealthier to those less wealthy countries through the eyes of economics, there are bound to be types of inequity within their borders. Inequity is a very crucial problem in the United States, you would think that our economy here in the states is booming, and the citizens are living life easy or without worry. Life is the United States isn’t as it seems, in fact, Inequity is in fact a big problem even in the United States. Over the years, there has been millions of Americans that were considered to be in poor or in poverty line that are not able to provide for themselves and their families. We can sadly see those Americans on the streets, cars or shelters unable to keep-ends meet that are not able to keep a decent paying job. That is why throughout this paper I’ll be discussing why inequity is a big issue in the United States from how income is distributed through causes of income inequality, social status, and even how the government interventions is trying to alleviate income inequity.

One reform argument is centered on the ?burden? for taxpayers to support people who are not trying to help themselves. Gilens reported, ?The economic self-interest explanation of welfare reform is widely assumed to be true, and debates over public policy often remain on the assumption that the middle class resent paying for programs that benefit only the poor? (Gilens, p. 2, 1996). Reform efforts often focus on general stereotypes of welfare recipients not wanting to work and preferring to take advantage of taxpayer money. Conservatives and liberals refer to ?welfare spending? as excessive and unnecessary. However, prior to the popularity of welfare reform, the U.S. Bureau of Census reported actual money spent on AFDC was only 7% of the $613 billion spend on social welfare which included health care, veterans? programs, education, housing, and pubic aid (tables 579, 583, 1993). With government statistics contradicting claims of excessive spending, there is

The number of Americans taking part in the welfare system today has hit 12 million, an all-time high, proving its significance in government. Americans not on welfare complain about the unfairness it causes, but have yet to propose a better plan. Changing these government assistance programs sounds easier than it really is, because while it may rid of those who take advantage of the free money, it also leaves plenty of helpless Americans to fend for themselves. In a society where Americans are compensated for idleness through government social programs, there exist many ecclesiastical institutions striving to reclaim dependent Americans by teaching self-reliance using more organized and functional welfare programs, from which the United

So if the poor of today earn roughly the same in current dollars as those many years ago, how do they afford their “elevated” lifestyle? The answer lies in over 200 Federal and State programs designed to support them until they are able to thrive independently. The most popular include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps,

In Leslie Reynolds’ “Misuse of Welfare in American Low Class Citizens,” she employs various logical methods to support her argument that welfare in the United States is being misused by our citizens and something must be done to prevent the welfare misuse. Reynolds relies on definition, facts, statistics, personal and public experience, and also tries to find different solutions for this heavily impacted issue. Reynolds believes something should be done to prevent the many low class recipients from abusing and misusing the welfare system. For example, Reynolds suggests the government could restart the welfare system, have stricter guidelines, and have more monitoring of the system itself to prevent our money being misled. Reynolds blends her

In 2008 total money spent on welfare was equally about $16,800 for each person in poverty, equal to about $50,000 for a family of three below the poverty line. Now the author explains in his opinion Americans can do a better job with the money we already spend, while saving the government (ultimately saving us the taxpayers) money. His ideas is similar to the block grant reforms utilized in the 1990s, where welfare recipients gained nearly 25% more income through actually working, while the government reduced welfare recipients and benefits saving the taxpayers 50% over ten years(Ferrara, 2014).

Sykes (2015) had found that families felt a relief from financial stress when it came to receiving their yearly lump sum from the government. They were able to pay back many of their debts, just as a responsible family should. This allowed them to enhance the amount of consumption they were given leeway for. Such as toys or brand name foods. For families in Welfare who were given limited room to grow, EITC left enough money to lift dreams off the ground and making it possible for families to invest in their futures. All of these factors made it easier for the families to feel a sense of citizenship. Social inclusion plays a larger factor than once thought. Using government programs like SNAP (food stamps) ostracized people in public areas; making it difficult to feel proud or in a sense “normal”. I strongly believe that this article found what they set out to look for. The results clearly show that EITC gave low wage families a sense of dignity, but since the population interviewed and tracked was so small it’s difficult to believe that all families in the same program live entirely the same.

The welfare system has a been a debatable topic for many years now. People have various viewpoints that relate to the welfare system. Most people believe that the welfare system is abused. On the other hand, people do not mind paying more money for the less fortunate to be provided with food, shelter, etc. This is a hard topic to consider because there are countless variables that play a major role in how much money one could receive from welfare or other forms of government assistance. Mountain Heights Academy presents an argumentative speech. In this argument, the unknown author addresses that the welfare system must be reformed because the current system has only increased poverty levels. It additionally addresses that there is a wide range

However, the government assistance programs system are often misused. Although some people are unable to obtain government assistance, it is the duty of the American government to take care of the people. An example of the American government taking care of its citizens is the military protecting the country. Government assistance programs are meant to benefit the low class and lower middle economic classes, but even with government assistance programs and support there are still Americans living under the poverty line. Government programs such as welfare, among others, are intended to aid citizens but, are not intended for long term or high capacity use. Impoverished Americans desperately need government support, a raise in the minimum wage is not sufficient. Deciding on who gets aid and who does not should not be an issue of resources for the

However, this system of measuring poverty is flawed because if a family makes a dollar more above the set limit, they do not qualify for financial help from the government (NCCP, 2008).The poverty threshold is an inadequate measure of whether people are considered poor or not. Current poverty measures are flawed because it assumes how much a family spends and does not accurately include family resources such as Earned Income Tax Credit (NCCP, 2008). The way that the government measures poverty is based on outdated information that was set in the 60s. Because it has not been sufficient to keep up with the standard of living, those who are living in “high cost cities like New York and those who live in rural areas of the country” (NCCP, 2008) are barely getting by.

In his article, “Give Poor People Cash,” Charles Kenny presents a simple way to reform welfare: send money to those who need it without conditions. The author explains how when cash is given to poor people with no strings attached, the underprivileged use it to buy goods and services that increase the potential of their future earnings and thoroughly improve their lives. This evidence contrary to many Americans’ belief that the money would be wasted on alcohol, cigarettes, and flat-screen TVs. However, Kenny is confident that the best and simplest way to lift people out of poverty is to give them cold hard cash. Many policymakers shy away from this system because they argue the safety net could breed dependency.

The current system of welfare gives benefits to some people but not to others. That means we spend a lot of resources inquiring through the details of people’s private lives to see if they really qualify or not. The difficulty of this patchwork is overwhelming to individuals experiencing it directly. Monitoring people, Coordinating hundreds of arbitrary and ever-changing rules, ensuring people are destitute first before qualifying for welfare or social housing increases unnecessary complexity to government (Perieira, 2015). And that also means that there’s a big incentive for special interest groups to gain the system to their own advantage, or even to oppress or disenfranchised groups they don’t like. But what if what you really need is something completely different. What if you want to forego present consumption, and save your benefits for the future? Under the current system, when the government gives you housing vouchers, or food stamps, you have to use those benefits on what the government thinks you need. This is only one of many examples of an individual facing multiple welfare bureaucracies. Clearly, you cannot save food stamps in the bank, but you can save cash and you can spend it on whatever you think you need. In this way, a basic income gives people the freedom to make their own decisions about how to improve their own lives. In this way, a simple rule namely basic income is not only fair, it is also more stable. In the case of the