Corporate vs. personal welfare
- Thread starter outside looking in
- Start date
Justintime
Guest
Justintime
Guest
Jeslek said:Nah. It just so happens I agree with him.
for all the wrong reasons though
ris
New Member
Jeslek said:I fail to see how that is welfare. I don't get checks from the government. I don't get money that other worked for.
nonsense, you declare an objection the government redistribution of wealth, equating it to personal theft. you have previously explained that you have made use of the tax system in canada to effectively pay a zero sum, through your parents tax allowance, which is a perfectly legal method.
in effect you are using the system to avoid paying tax yourself, a degree of state support through not paying the tax.
if you object to the nature of a system that allows breaks to passed on to lower income earners or through passing allowances then do not partake in it. if partaking in it then your moral stand is somewhat undermined.
Jeslek
Banned
Except I didn't pay a zero sum.
That is not welfare. That is paying the government the tax you are legally bound to pay them. Welfare is receiving aid from the government. I did not receive any aid from the government. Are you telling me I'm on welfare? Because I am not.
And if my mom uses the same sort of way to pay less tax, is she on welfare too? Because you have now effectively put the entire country on welfare, including both my parents, me, my brother, and the rest of the country. Even though none of us receives any aid from the government.
ris
New Member
we use a similar system here of tax breaks that in effect mean that people pay less tax rather than go through the hoops of paying and claiming it back. it is a direct tax credit in effect. it forms part of the social and welfare system. your benefit for example, might be the additional allowance for being a student.
if the system is similar in canada then you are recieving tax benefits due to circumstance. it is a benefit, therefore a form of personally based state support.
it forms part of the tax system but is there to carry out a redistribution of wealth according to income.
you still recieve the benefit, the only difference is the government do not pay it out to you after you pay it to them.
the inference that i said you were 'on welfare' is incorrect. i merely stated that you recieve a form of state benefit. the two are not the same thing.
if the system is similar in canada then you are recieving tax benefits due to circumstance. it is a benefit, therefore a form of personally based state support.
it forms part of the tax system but is there to carry out a redistribution of wealth according to income.
you still recieve the benefit, the only difference is the government do not pay it out to you after you pay it to them.
the inference that i said you were 'on welfare' is incorrect. i merely stated that you recieve a form of state benefit. the two are not the same thing.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Personally, I object to welfare cheques. And to welfare in and of itself. Here's a better solution.
All unemployed citizens sign up for mandatory minimum manual labour. They then spend 2 days a week doing menial tasks like clearing trash from the side of highways, washing floors in gov't buildings, and the like. 3 days a week, they pound the pavement looking for jobs. They carry with them a booklet of tickets that they give to the HR agent of every company they apply to. That HR agent returns the ticket, stamped with their company number, to the welfare office. A minimum number of applications per day is required.
Payment at the end of the week is done in the form of foodstamps, and a direct payment to the utilities and landlord. No cash. Books and educational requirements are allowed, through an education stipend. Nintendo, cable TV, and such are not.
Anyone see any problems with this?
All unemployed citizens sign up for mandatory minimum manual labour. They then spend 2 days a week doing menial tasks like clearing trash from the side of highways, washing floors in gov't buildings, and the like. 3 days a week, they pound the pavement looking for jobs. They carry with them a booklet of tickets that they give to the HR agent of every company they apply to. That HR agent returns the ticket, stamped with their company number, to the welfare office. A minimum number of applications per day is required.
Payment at the end of the week is done in the form of foodstamps, and a direct payment to the utilities and landlord. No cash. Books and educational requirements are allowed, through an education stipend. Nintendo, cable TV, and such are not.
Anyone see any problems with this?
Jeslek
Banned
How do you figure? How do you figure that, when the government gives back your own money to you, it is welfare?
Like what? Because I am in a low income group I pay less tax? Had I earned a few thousand more dollars I'd have been in a higher group. So anyone that isn't in the highest group is now on welfare because they are receiving a benefit?
You really need to explain how the government giving back my own money equates welfare.
We are not discussing state benefits, are we? This thread is about welfare.
No, I think it is an excellent idea. And you can then perhaps let companies hire these groups of people too?
The only problem would be there are a lot of people out there that would rather sit on the corner of the street begging than picking up trash.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I'm not sure if I agree with that reasoning ris. Conservatives in general (though I don't like to generalize) disagree with their money being forceably taken and given to those who didn't earn it.
If you do your best when filing taxes to keep more of your money, that you earned, so it isn't taken from you and given to others, how is that a conflict?
How is using the tax laws to keep your money in any way similar to using the tax system to take someone else's money? They are morally and ethically two very different things.
If you do your best when filing taxes to keep more of your money, that you earned, so it isn't taken from you and given to others, how is that a conflict?
How is using the tax laws to keep your money in any way similar to using the tax system to take someone else's money? They are morally and ethically two very different things.
ris
New Member
the notion i was intending to illustrate is the somewhat interesting position of on one hand suggesting that people take responsibility for their actions and their choices while using others tax credits to reduce their tax paying responsibility.
the rest was all semantic argument over terminology in essence.
the rest was all semantic argument over terminology in essence.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I guess the difference is that I don't see those two "hands" as being in any way incompatible.
Professur said:
I was going to agree then it hit me. There would have to be a limit on the utilities, Bob the useless, living right next door to Sarahs auto body shop may take up an under the table body repair job. Using power & gas & water supplied by us.
Nice start though.
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
Jeslek said:
You are deliberately missing the point or choose not to recognise it. A benefit does not necessarily equate to welfare, not in this system anyway. You seem to be very hung up on that word or the notion of not paying your own way.... sadly some people have no choice... and I admit it pisses me off to be lumped in with lazy bastards who won't even attempt to better their situation and expect everything just to fall into their laps for no effort.
There are other ways of paying your way which don't equate to "earning "a living, but to putting back time and effort into the community that supports you to help others to attain that goal.... it's called voluntary work, which is what I do.
Personally I'd rather pick up trash than sit on my bum. Not working damages your self esteem. I do have a job, even if it isn't paid.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Gonz, of course, all those things being paid for are monitored. And the requirements of pounding the pavement on his off days would limit his time to work under the table. But the policing of it would have to be done as it is now.
Em, this idea is for the dole loungers. Registered disableds are (should be) a different gov't dept. But .... I know several companies where Down's Syndrome sufferers work full shifts. And usually not mindless, menial labour either. Simple stuff, but work they can be proud of. I'm told that the boost to their self esteem is the best treatment for them. And Stephen Hawking is one of the most disabled people I've ever encountered. And the guy at the mall that does the engraving from his wheelchair is a true artist.
I guess my opinion of disabled doesn't often match most other people's.
Em, this idea is for the dole loungers. Registered disableds are (should be) a different gov't dept. But .... I know several companies where Down's Syndrome sufferers work full shifts. And usually not mindless, menial labour either. Simple stuff, but work they can be proud of. I'm told that the boost to their self esteem is the best treatment for them. And Stephen Hawking is one of the most disabled people I've ever encountered. And the guy at the mall that does the engraving from his wheelchair is a true artist.
I guess my opinion of disabled doesn't often match most other people's.
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
What pisses me off is that Katie is good at art and crafts but that she is unlikely to ever be able to work in that field over here. She'll probably get pushed into some sheltered workshop to do "therapeutic" work for peanuts. No matter how they talk about equality of oportunity and employment for disabled people over here it only exists for a very few. Having a disabled member effectively disables the whole family.... it shouldn't be so.
They go on about all these child care initiatives that they are creating but although they are supposed to be for disabled kids as well, they just aren't suitable for kids like Katie i.e. a one to eight adult:child ratio and if a older child were to walk out of the building they won't stop them. I can get assistance with child care costs until shes 16 but what then? She's always going to need a carer if I'm not there, plus the few child minders available around here that I've approached have been unwilling to take her. BTW they charge the minimum wage rate/hr.
Most jobs around here that you can do part-time during school hours (agency) only pay the minimum wage rate £4.75/ hr and at 4.75 x 25hrs = £118.75 before tax and NI - I wouldn't earn enough to get off benefit but would earn enough to lose my Carer Allowance of £43.75/wk (if you take home more than £76/wk you lose it)which would mean we'd also lose the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit credits which reduces the rent and CT I would pay every week. Which is one of the reasons I have chosen to teach as the pay is much better, which means I could work fewer hours and be able to get out of the benefits trap. But actually I've always enjoyed teaching other people anyway and wanted to be a clinical nurse tutor before my nursing career ended.
But I still have to take the second part of the certificate which will be harder as I have to be teaching 20 hrs/wk - it doesn't say I have to be paid for that though so if I can find more voluntary work where I'm teaching that should be good enough. I'm considering teaching basic skills as well - English, Maths - anything to get me enough teaching time to do the course. There is also a PGCE through the Open University which I am investigating at the moment. They also recently brought in laws to allow parents more flexible working hours but I don't know how that will effect carers - if at all.
Until my marriage broke down I didn't have this problem, my ex and I shared the childcare between us. Up till the end of my degree in 2000 it wasn't so bad either because I didn't claim any income related benefits because I had a student loan and dependants grant besides Katie's disability benefits. But since then It's been one big pain in the ass. It's really frustrating being in this situation. The most frustrating part is that even other single mothers don't understand the barriers that I face.
I'm hoping that the situation will improve when Katie leaves school and goes into Adult Services - if the hours are longer then I will have more opportunity to work and support us myself. In the meantime if I can get a job teaching just a few hours a week for less that £76 take home pay I will still be getting the work experience and practicing my teaching skills until I can. The system seems to be designed to keep me at home caring for Katie, but I have a mind and I want more than that. I had a career before I had her and I want it back, I don't like being dependent!
They go on about all these child care initiatives that they are creating but although they are supposed to be for disabled kids as well, they just aren't suitable for kids like Katie i.e. a one to eight adult:child ratio and if a older child were to walk out of the building they won't stop them. I can get assistance with child care costs until shes 16 but what then? She's always going to need a carer if I'm not there, plus the few child minders available around here that I've approached have been unwilling to take her. BTW they charge the minimum wage rate/hr.
Most jobs around here that you can do part-time during school hours (agency) only pay the minimum wage rate £4.75/ hr and at 4.75 x 25hrs = £118.75 before tax and NI - I wouldn't earn enough to get off benefit but would earn enough to lose my Carer Allowance of £43.75/wk (if you take home more than £76/wk you lose it)which would mean we'd also lose the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit credits which reduces the rent and CT I would pay every week. Which is one of the reasons I have chosen to teach as the pay is much better, which means I could work fewer hours and be able to get out of the benefits trap. But actually I've always enjoyed teaching other people anyway and wanted to be a clinical nurse tutor before my nursing career ended.
But I still have to take the second part of the certificate which will be harder as I have to be teaching 20 hrs/wk - it doesn't say I have to be paid for that though so if I can find more voluntary work where I'm teaching that should be good enough. I'm considering teaching basic skills as well - English, Maths - anything to get me enough teaching time to do the course. There is also a PGCE through the Open University which I am investigating at the moment. They also recently brought in laws to allow parents more flexible working hours but I don't know how that will effect carers - if at all.
Until my marriage broke down I didn't have this problem, my ex and I shared the childcare between us. Up till the end of my degree in 2000 it wasn't so bad either because I didn't claim any income related benefits because I had a student loan and dependants grant besides Katie's disability benefits. But since then It's been one big pain in the ass. It's really frustrating being in this situation. The most frustrating part is that even other single mothers don't understand the barriers that I face.
I'm hoping that the situation will improve when Katie leaves school and goes into Adult Services - if the hours are longer then I will have more opportunity to work and support us myself. In the meantime if I can get a job teaching just a few hours a week for less that £76 take home pay I will still be getting the work experience and practicing my teaching skills until I can. The system seems to be designed to keep me at home caring for Katie, but I have a mind and I want more than that. I had a career before I had her and I want it back, I don't like being dependent!