6 ms·

> When you are poor in Germany you can drastically improve your cash flow by not living in one of the expensive cities. Living out in the country in a small vil

by blowski 10y ago

> When you are poor in Germany you can drastically improve your cash flow by not living in one of the expensive cities. Living out in the country in a small village will enable you to stretch your welfare checks compared to living in Munich, where most things and most people around you are much more You're right, but that's the start of welfare dependency. If you have kids, you probably kill their life chances as well. I'm talking of the UK, rather than Germany, but I imagine the same is true anywhere in the rich world.

lostlogin 10y ago
Have a look at New Zealand. The current government is slashing the welfare system yet several key figures (no pun intended - PM is called Key) grew up in state housing in a welfare state. They benefitted from the system and have risen to the top of it.
- x0x0 10y ago
  America too. Paul Ryan, who never met a welfare program he didn't want to cut, received social security payments after his father died at age 16.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    What a preposterous argument, that having ever received government handouts somehow disqualifies you from thinking the programs are a bad idea. I pay plenty of money in taxes. You can bet that if I ever qualify for handouts, I'll be cashing them. You would be stupid not to.
    - lgieron 10y ago
      I'm in general anti benefits myself, but I think the payments received by a minor on death of a parent are one of the most fair, and best investment for society. They're pretty hard to game (you'd have to kill your own parent to get that money) and they prevent a child from slipping into desperate poverty and crime.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        I wasn't commenting on the specifics, just on the general line of attack. I'm inclined to agree with you.
    - ItendToDisagree 10y ago
      So your motto is "Fuck you. Got mine." right? Should get a bumpersticker printed up!
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        Okay, from now on anyone who uses Facebook can't criticize Facebook. Same with Spotify, Twitter, and Apple products. Not one peep! Come to think about it, that would stop a lot of the whining around here so maybe it'd be a good thing. Further, any advocates for higher tax rates should immediately begin to voluntarily pay the higher tax rates that they advocate for. You are allowed to donate extra money in taxes to the government if you'd please. So I demand that people put their money where their mouth is. And while we're at it, I'm sick of these affirmative action advocates at elite universities who always want to give up other people's spots. All affirmative action advocates should immediately give up their positions at elite colleges and well-regarded employers, to make space for less-privileged people. Can you see how this is not a reasonable line of argument?
- billforsternz 10y ago
  The current NZ government is not slashing the welfare system.
  - Taniwha 10y ago
    I call BS - they're not keeping up with real inflation (rents in particular are going up far faster than nominal inflation), people are living in cars because Key's people are pandering to those who are raking it in from the property bubble rather than looking aftyer those who really need help
    - billforsternz 10y ago
      The current government took office in 2008. The following numbers are NZ Government fiscal spend on Social Security and Welfare in $NZmillion for each financial year starting two years before the present government took office. Source http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data 2006 16,212 2007 17,266 2008 18,420 2009 19,844 2010 21,142 2011 22,029 2012 22,148 2013 22,737 2014 23,308 2015 23,881 Budget 2016 schedules a further modest increase in this spend. All in an environment of historically low inflation. This is entirely consistent with the nature of this government which is characterised by a steady-as-she-goes approach, with tweaks and priority adjustments much more the order of the day than dramatic policy changes. You do not get to call steady, modest increases in real expenditure "slashing the welfare system". Sure we have a housing problem. You could make an argument that the government should be taking drastic action to address that problem, but you cannot argue that failure to take any such drastic action is the same thing as "slashing the welfare system"! And you absolutely do not get to "call BS" when someone points out a simple statement of fact.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        They are shifting people off benefits and cutting their entitlements whilst deriding beneficiaries at every opportunity. State housing is being sold off (or they are attempting too, but judging by Friday's news that they have botched it, it isn't easy to find a buyer) and much is sitting empty. Welfare recipients do not receive enough to cover living costs, and payments have not kept up with inflation at any stretch. A welfare recipient is vastly worse off now than 10 years ago. I can't tell from those figures (on mobile and the linked site behaves badly) but do they include state pensions? Also, are you sure they are right? The figures are in millions?
- taneq 10y ago
  Sounds like the Australian government's ongoing siege of the tertiary education system, when they were the last group to enjoy a fully state funded university education. Damn hypocrites.
facetube 10y ago
IMO "welfare dependency" is by and large a myth. The vast majority of people want to work, want to make money, want to be self-sufficient, and want to participate meaningfully in society. A few people I know who are arguably dependent on government provided benefits (in the US) are that way because they're physically ill, have inadequate or no access to health care, and literally cannot work as a result. The others are full-time employees who work 40 hours a week but are paid wages that can't possibly support their family's existence.
- surfmike 10y ago
  Agreed but when you have a generous system sometimes it's just easier to stay on benefits and putting off developing career etc. Of course we should help people who cannot be self sufficient. Those who can should be given very clear incentives (and prodding) to join the workforce.
  - dublinben 10y ago
    The disincentive to work has more to do with the welfare trap that removes benefits quicker than they are replaced with income. That can happen with any level of generosity in benefits.
    - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
      Yeah I can illustrate a personal example. I lived with my dad who'd been ill for years and on welfare. His income was supplemented to about 950 euros or so a month, however, if I had a part-time job making 350 euros, he'd only receive 600, because the household income was 950. So here I am, a poor student paying my own way through college with no support from my parents, working part-time and going into debt, and they slam this on me. So I was forced to financially support my parents because there's no way to pay rent, food, insurance etc on 650 bucks. After many calls it turns out there was no solution, the -benefits was 1:1 with the +income I was earning. This created an incentive for me to stop working. If I earned 100, my dad got 100 less, if I earned 600 my dad got 600 less. It'd only make sense for me to work if I quit college and got a job that paid more than he'd get in benefits, such that if I made 1k a month, my dad would get 0, I'd give him 950, and keep 50 bucks a month for working full-time at minimum wage. So I stopped working and started desperately looking to move out (so that my income was no part of the 'household' income of my dad's place). Eventually did, got a job again and finished uni. Anyway it's just one of many bad policy planning examples that look sensible in general... which is, if you're working, you don't need benefits anymore. And if you're living with people who are making all kinds of money, there's no need to depend on the state anymore, so they're counted as part of your income that the benefit requirements are tested against. Then there's indeed examples where benefits are replaced quicker than income. Worse than 1:1. Like when you make 900 bucks, you get an exemption from a municipality tax of 150. But if you make 901, you pass the threshold, such that your effective income dropped to 751 by earning 1 euro extra, which puts you in a nasty situation in a country where rent, insurance puts you at 750 already and there's nothing left for food, culture or connectivity.
rue 10y ago
“Move somewhere less expensive” (= rural) is terrible advice, and I’m not sure how it gets bandied about so much. Ignoring the often prohibitive costs of moving itself and possibly needing to buy a car for local transport, for example, the last thing an unemployed person needs to do is move away from the available jobs.

by blowski 10y ago

lostlogin 10y ago

Have a look at New Zealand. The current government is slashing the welfare system yet several key figures (no pun intended - PM is called Key) grew up in state housing in a welfare state. They benefitted from the system and have risen to the top of it.

x0x0 10y ago
America too. Paul Ryan, who never met a welfare program he didn't want to cut, received social security payments after his father died at age 16.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  What a preposterous argument, that having ever received government handouts somehow disqualifies you from thinking the programs are a bad idea. I pay plenty of money in taxes. You can bet that if I ever qualify for handouts, I'll be cashing them. You would be stupid not to.
  - lgieron 10y ago
    I'm in general anti benefits myself, but I think the payments received by a minor on death of a parent are one of the most fair, and best investment for society. They're pretty hard to game (you'd have to kill your own parent to get that money) and they prevent a child from slipping into desperate poverty and crime.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      I wasn't commenting on the specifics, just on the general line of attack. I'm inclined to agree with you.
  - ItendToDisagree 10y ago
    So your motto is "Fuck you. Got mine." right? Should get a bumpersticker printed up!
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      Okay, from now on anyone who uses Facebook can't criticize Facebook. Same with Spotify, Twitter, and Apple products. Not one peep! Come to think about it, that would stop a lot of the whining around here so maybe it'd be a good thing. Further, any advocates for higher tax rates should immediately begin to voluntarily pay the higher tax rates that they advocate for. You are allowed to donate extra money in taxes to the government if you'd please. So I demand that people put their money where their mouth is. And while we're at it, I'm sick of these affirmative action advocates at elite universities who always want to give up other people's spots. All affirmative action advocates should immediately give up their positions at elite colleges and well-regarded employers, to make space for less-privileged people. Can you see how this is not a reasonable line of argument?
billforsternz 10y ago
The current NZ government is not slashing the welfare system.
- Taniwha 10y ago
  I call BS - they're not keeping up with real inflation (rents in particular are going up far faster than nominal inflation), people are living in cars because Key's people are pandering to those who are raking it in from the property bubble rather than looking aftyer those who really need help
  - billforsternz 10y ago
    The current government took office in 2008. The following numbers are NZ Government fiscal spend on Social Security and Welfare in $NZmillion for each financial year starting two years before the present government took office. Source http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data 2006 16,212 2007 17,266 2008 18,420 2009 19,844 2010 21,142 2011 22,029 2012 22,148 2013 22,737 2014 23,308 2015 23,881 Budget 2016 schedules a further modest increase in this spend. All in an environment of historically low inflation. This is entirely consistent with the nature of this government which is characterised by a steady-as-she-goes approach, with tweaks and priority adjustments much more the order of the day than dramatic policy changes. You do not get to call steady, modest increases in real expenditure "slashing the welfare system". Sure we have a housing problem. You could make an argument that the government should be taking drastic action to address that problem, but you cannot argue that failure to take any such drastic action is the same thing as "slashing the welfare system"! And you absolutely do not get to "call BS" when someone points out a simple statement of fact.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      They are shifting people off benefits and cutting their entitlements whilst deriding beneficiaries at every opportunity. State housing is being sold off (or they are attempting too, but judging by Friday's news that they have botched it, it isn't easy to find a buyer) and much is sitting empty. Welfare recipients do not receive enough to cover living costs, and payments have not kept up with inflation at any stretch. A welfare recipient is vastly worse off now than 10 years ago. I can't tell from those figures (on mobile and the linked site behaves badly) but do they include state pensions? Also, are you sure they are right? The figures are in millions?
taneq 10y ago
Sounds like the Australian government's ongoing siege of the tertiary education system, when they were the last group to enjoy a fully state funded university education. Damn hypocrites.

facetube 10y ago

IMO "welfare dependency" is by and large a myth. The vast majority of people want to work, want to make money, want to be self-sufficient, and want to participate meaningfully in society. A few people I know who are arguably dependent on government provided benefits (in the US) are that way because they're physically ill, have inadequate or no access to health care, and literally cannot work as a result. The others are full-time employees who work 40 hours a week but are paid wages that can't possibly support their family's existence.

surfmike 10y ago
Agreed but when you have a generous system sometimes it's just easier to stay on benefits and putting off developing career etc. Of course we should help people who cannot be self sufficient. Those who can should be given very clear incentives (and prodding) to join the workforce.
- dublinben 10y ago
  The disincentive to work has more to do with the welfare trap that removes benefits quicker than they are replaced with income. That can happen with any level of generosity in benefits.
  - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
    Yeah I can illustrate a personal example. I lived with my dad who'd been ill for years and on welfare. His income was supplemented to about 950 euros or so a month, however, if I had a part-time job making 350 euros, he'd only receive 600, because the household income was 950. So here I am, a poor student paying my own way through college with no support from my parents, working part-time and going into debt, and they slam this on me. So I was forced to financially support my parents because there's no way to pay rent, food, insurance etc on 650 bucks. After many calls it turns out there was no solution, the -benefits was 1:1 with the +income I was earning. This created an incentive for me to stop working. If I earned 100, my dad got 100 less, if I earned 600 my dad got 600 less. It'd only make sense for me to work if I quit college and got a job that paid more than he'd get in benefits, such that if I made 1k a month, my dad would get 0, I'd give him 950, and keep 50 bucks a month for working full-time at minimum wage. So I stopped working and started desperately looking to move out (so that my income was no part of the 'household' income of my dad's place). Eventually did, got a job again and finished uni. Anyway it's just one of many bad policy planning examples that look sensible in general... which is, if you're working, you don't need benefits anymore. And if you're living with people who are making all kinds of money, there's no need to depend on the state anymore, so they're counted as part of your income that the benefit requirements are tested against. Then there's indeed examples where benefits are replaced quicker than income. Worse than 1:1. Like when you make 900 bucks, you get an exemption from a municipality tax of 150. But if you make 901, you pass the threshold, such that your effective income dropped to 751 by earning 1 euro extra, which puts you in a nasty situation in a country where rent, insurance puts you at 750 already and there's nothing left for food, culture or connectivity.

rue 10y ago

“Move somewhere less expensive” (= rural) is terrible advice, and I’m not sure how it gets bandied about so much. Ignoring the often prohibitive costs of moving itself and possibly needing to buy a car for local transport, for example, the last thing an unemployed person needs to do is move away from the available jobs.