Those people are already not working. So, instead of spending more on officials and offices and paperwork determining if they can have welfare or not, let's just give them the money directly.
I don't see how your comment is a counter-argument. Those who will work will indeed be paid more than a welfare check is worth. But you should still be able to live decently on a welfare check.
No. The government is still having to provide welfare because the company is shirking it's responsibilities.
I'm sorry, but I will not accept the argument that it is ok for a company to have their employees on welfare. They are a for-profit entity. I should not be subsidizing them because they choose not to pay their employees enough.
Perhaps. But a person with only one kid? Doing a job that the company needs to have done, even if no great skill is required? If that person doesn't make enough for food and rent, then I repeat, it is the company that is on welfare.
And if someone is incapable of producing more than $15/hr worth of value with their labor, should they remain perpetually unemployed and dependent on welfare? Or should they earn what they can and allow for public benefits to top them up to a survivable standard of living?
Sure, and it's a disincentive to work. The welfare program you describe taxes those $100 of earnings at a rate of 25%. Fewer people will be willing to do $100 of work for $75 than would do it for $100.
Or working in the other direction, that welfare program represents a standing offer to people working for $100 that it will pay them $25 to quit.
Yea I've been on welfare myself and it wasn't enough but I wasn't trying to make a job out of it and applying for all the different extra plans and what not, I was just trying to find a new job.
reply