[worry]

Pretty interesting stuff. The chart actually shows a variety of programs, some with significantly >50% and some with less than. With these numbers, you can tell it's not a strictly partisan thing either.


http://www.good.is/p...ment-programs/#

We see it pop up in the news all the time: The people who most hate on the idea of government assistance are sometimes the ones getting it. Just last week, there were reports that Michele Bachmann's husband gets farm subsidies and reportedly received $137,000 in Medicaid money. A new paper from Cornell University puts this dynamic in chart form, and the results are kind of shocking:


Half of people getting federal student loans don't think they've ever used a government social program. Forty percent of Medicare recipients have no idea their health insurance is funded by the state. And 25 percent of the people receiving that emblem of All That Is Bad About Big Government, welfare, don't connect that paycheck to the "enemy." Given the fact that one in six Americans use anti-poverty programs alone, there's a hell of a lot of people who are deluded about how much the government helps them out. But the point isn't really whether or not these people are hypocrites or uneducated or ungrateful; more compelling is why they'd see themselves as exceptions. Shame about government help is ingrained into our culture, and so is the narrative of the "culture of dependence." It's not only rightwingers and deficit hawks who feel this way. When my contract position ended temporarily, it didn't even occur to me to apply for unemployment to fill the gap until my father suggested it to me. When I waved him off, feeling embarrassed, he balked. "Are you kidding?" he replied. "That's what those deductions on your paychecks were for."

The contempt for so-called welfare queens and the lazy unemployed masses looking for "handouts" still endures, and has intensified lately as government programs are on the chopping block. Sure, there are a few people who abuse the system, but many have made the point that this is a skewed racist way of looking at how government assistance operates. And many people might not realize that "government programs" constitute much more than just welfare and unemployment.

We need to stop thinking that people who receive government help are "them." Not only does that attack poor and middle class people without boosting them up, but there's also a good chance we're talking about ourselves.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 12 July 2011 - 12:26 AM

[Gust Hubb]

You know, this is such an ugly issue in America, I really wonder how other places keep such things under wraps. I'm going into medicine myself, and the whole insurance/hospital reimbursement things (which pretty much mean that anyone without insurance is paying massively over inflated costs) are just one of the many things beleaguering our government and finances. I think I may have mentioned this before, but at least in Chicago, there is a sizable homeless population that continually purposely break the law in small ways to get arrested and get the healthcare they need in jail.

I don't think that raising taxes is going to save us (though, I think we may complain a mite bit too much about them), but on the other hand, I'm not sure what will. There are so many tangles in our crappy system with bureaucracy gumming up the works that I am surprised anyone gets anything at all. For those non-Americans, just ask about any of the government run installations (driver's license offices for instance) or hell, just public education. The "welfare nation" is just the tip of the iceberg. Frankly, and yes I have government loans, I wonder if we would be better either with a massive tax like 70%+ or with no help at all. This in-between, special interest lobbying crap is killing us.


Also, I think the country would be far better off if we just cut defense spending, which consumes a massive portion of our tax income/borrowed money (I am expecting Gatekeeper to have a comment on this).

Sorry for the loose stream of consciousness, I just wanted to provide yet another native opinion.

[HoosierDaddy]

Hot off the presses! This just in: American population ignorant of where their money goes and from where it comes!

[Illuyankas]

I remember reading about a woman called Ann O'Connor applying for medicare in her sixties, staying under that and other benefits until her death. Well, some called her Ann O'Connor, a lot more people knew her as Ayn Rand.

[Shinrei]

I feel claiming a tax credit as being a "benificiery of a government social program" is a little dishonest IMO. That's just the goverment taking less from me, not 'giving' me something.

[Shinrei]

worrywort, on 12 July 2011 - 12:25 AM, said:

And 25 percent of the people receiving that emblem of All That Is Bad About Big Government, welfare, don't connect that paycheck to the "enemy." .

Is this why people on government assistance keep crying for the goverment to help them out? This explains a lot...

[worry]

I suppose you could look at tax credits as negative space if it eases that bizarro world conscience that insists making reasonable, routine financial contributions to the collective good is an undue burden. But the ones mentioned on this list are still definitely government programs: one that encourages post-secondary education for those who might otherwise not be able to afford it, and the other to keep families afloat in an age where average income lags behind cost-of-living increases. They're optional, people have to meet certain criteria to receive them, and they reduce the amount of tax you pay directly (as opposed to deductions etc. that refine you AGI). Your tax credit is made up for elsewhere by other taxpayers, and is essentially a subsidy.

As far as the "crying for the government" line, I would appreciate it if you found an even more dismissive, inhumane way to phrase that before I give it some thought. Just didn't hit the right nerves, as is.

[Gothos]

I must say that despite my general assumption that any given american taken under scrutiny is very likely to be vastly ignorant (and, before you cry antimaericanism, they're not unique in that matter), this comes as a major surprise. It would seem that these people are fine with receiving the aid, but don't want others to get it.

As for your costs of living galloping forward, Americans do have the image of a people that spend ostensively and waste lots of energy (again, not unique in the world). Being born in the USA is still like winning the lottery on your first birthday, though.

I'll have to agree on tax credit with Shin, though, as it's basically more of a government tool for steering the masses than a government fund.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Hell, it must be my sheltered existence, but I've never even HEARD of some of these.

As to tax credits - it's two sides of the same coin.

[Cyphon]

Tax credits work in exactly the same way than if the state gave people money for certain work. Just in this capitalist era the supposed fiscal freedom of removing tax is more PR-friendly to these people who cry out against government expenditures. You are right though it is just a form of steering.

[Shinrei]

Well, in general I'm with both sides of the aisle in believing tax reform is in order - including closing some of the bizarro loopholes that people can claim on their tax returns which result from weird regulations and taxcode hiccups.

worrywort, on 12 July 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

I suppose you could look at tax credits as negative space if it eases that bizarro world conscience that insists making reasonable, routine financial contributions to the collective good is an undue burden. But the ones mentioned on this list are still definitely government programs: one that encourages post-secondary education for those who might otherwise not be able to afford it, and the other to keep families afloat in an age where average income lags behind cost-of-living increases. They're optional, people have to meet certain criteria to receive them, and they reduce the amount of tax you pay directly (as opposed to deductions etc. that refine you AGI). Your tax credit is made up for elsewhere by other taxpayers, and is essentially a subsidy.

Re: the underlined part. Isn't this where we disagree though? The line of what is "reasonable" and what is "the collective good"? I'm not against taxes. I'm not even against the rich paying a higher percentage, but if you think everything as happens in Washington now is "reasonable" and all for the "collective good" I want whatever it is you're smoking.

worrywort, on 12 July 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

As far as the "crying for the government" line, I would appreciate it if you found an even more dismissive, inhumane way to phrase that before I give it some thought. Just didn't hit the right nerves, as is.

I'm sensing sarcasm here and if so, we must be reading this in very different ways because I don't see how what I said could be construed as inhumane.

[Morgoth]

I don't think it's ever possible to entirely remove the embarrassment most people feel when they find themselves in need of government welfare such as unemployment benefits. In Norway the welfare state is considered pretty much universally positive as well as fundamental for the health of the country, yet even so people are loathe to admit that they're receiving aid. I guess most people don't like to admit that they can't manage on their own, even if the money they receive is something they've in all likelihood paid for several times in taxes already.

[worry]

Shinrei, on 12 July 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

Well, in general I'm with both sides of the aisle in believing tax reform is in order - including closing some of the bizarro loopholes that people can claim on their tax returns which result from weird regulations and taxcode hiccups.

worrywort, on 12 July 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

I suppose you could look at tax credits as negative space if it eases that bizarro world conscience that insists making reasonable, routine financial contributions to the collective good is an undue burden. But the ones mentioned on this list are still definitely government programs: one that encourages post-secondary education for those who might otherwise not be able to afford it, and the other to keep families afloat in an age where average income lags behind cost-of-living increases. They're optional, people have to meet certain criteria to receive them, and they reduce the amount of tax you pay directly (as opposed to deductions etc. that refine you AGI). Your tax credit is made up for elsewhere by other taxpayers, and is essentially a subsidy.

Re: the underlined part. Isn't this where we disagree though? The line of what is "reasonable" and what is "the collective good"? I'm not against taxes. I'm not even against the rich paying a higher percentage, but if you think everything as happens in Washington now is "reasonable" and all for the "collective good" I want whatever it is you're smoking.

worrywort, on 12 July 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

As far as the "crying for the government" line, I would appreciate it if you found an even more dismissive, inhumane way to phrase that before I give it some thought. Just didn't hit the right nerves, as is.

I'm sensing sarcasm here and if so, we must be reading this in very different ways because I don't see how what I said could be construed as inhumane.

@Shin: Obviously I don't think that, and while it's clear we disagree on plenty I would imagine you'd still prefer the surgical tool approach over the chainsaw in terms of reform. At least, more often than not. I do think that the "crying for the government" line was dismissive, demeaning, and even mean-spirited -- which I think is atypical of you, and haven't really sensed in our previous discussions. But the implication in your phrasing isn't that these are people in need simply crying/weeping while they await government aid, it's that they are crybabies dogging the government for whatever scraps they can get. That, to me, is an inhumane caricature of the vast majority of social aid recipients. If you were just kidding and I took it too seriously, that's cool and no big deal, mark it down as just a particularly touchy subject with me.

@everyone: As far as the two sides of the same coin thing, I suppose that's fair enough. But I do think there's an important distinction between something that alters your adjusted gross income, on which your tax is based, and something that actually just credits you money on the amount you owe, which is what a tax credit does. To me it's akin to a store having a sale where they pay the sales tax for you...you aren't actually receiving money when you buy something, but the sales tax still gets paid by somebody, it hasn't disappeared. In the case of a tax credit, it's closer to the point Stormy makes because it's the government that gets the taxes AND issuing the credit, but as we all know, spending costs aren't necessarily linked directly to revenue, so it's not like the tax here disappears either. It's still being paid, just by someone else...or I suppose we just default on everything, the country collapses, disaster spreads worldwide, and everyone who mocked the 2012 predictions will have sheepish looks on their faces. That's a pretty sweet option, I guess.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 12 July 2011 - 10:25 PM

[Shinrei]

Well, the first problem I suppose is "crying" was meant to be "calling out", not "weeping".

As for the meaning of the comment itself, I was making the deduction that if a portion of welfare recipients aren't even aware they are already being helped by the government, then that might explain why they might be calling out for the government for benefits because they aren't aware they are already receiving benefits. i.e., it distorts the numbers of people asking "why doesn't the government do anything to help."

And I'm a little surprised - I realize it seems to be a part of your sarcastic humor so I've never mentioned it, but if I hauled out my quote-fu I could come up with probably a dozen comments you've made that were disparaging to people who think differently than you, so I'm a little surprised you'd call me out over this.

[worry]

I dunno, I think I do a fairly decent job of distinguishing the position/POV from the person, even when I'm using sarcasm (so do you, in fact, which is why it stood out to me -- mistaken or not). I'm sure I've slipped up though, and I wouldn't expect not to be called on it when I do. This board collectively does a fairly rigorous job of not letting the Discussion section get overly heated or vitriolic, and also of calling on people to back up their claims, even if they consider them common knowledge. I appreciate your clarification -- I mean, I know you didn't mean crying, but the connotation I read into "calling out" was "whining," not something more neutral -- and I still consider that an accurate reading of your tone, though maybe it was meant more tongue-in-cheek than caustic, as I took it. Also, absent a thriving welfare recipient lobbying firm I don't know about, I don't really know who you're talking about, so it seemed you were painting welfare recipients with a broad brush as whiners and wheedlers trying to unfairly get more benefits (ie the prototypical hardworking taxpayer's money, I suppose). Welfare recipients certainly made this list, and it's kinda surprising, but it is one of the lower percentages on it. Everybody underestimates how much they get back from the gov't.

[TaxManATX]

Very interesting, thanks for posting this. I am curious as to how the survey was conducted. I would be very surprised if the majority of those that stated they had never used a governmental social program were actually considering the listed tax credits and interest deduction. I'd be interested to see the results if the question was presented with assurance that the subject was aware of all the listed programs.

This post has been edited by TaxManATX: 13 July 2011 - 01:38 AM

[HiddenOne]

These numbers are subject to the same manipulation that all statistics presented to the public endure, possibly to enforce whatever points the publisher of said stats is trying to make.

Gothos's comment about about the ignorance of Americans was partially true, if a bit unadulterated and biased. There are many who receive aid, some deserving and in need despite their best efforts, and many who abuse the system. A govt. is responsible for its citizens wellbeing, I think, but should also be proactive in trying to alleviate whatever conditions are causing the hardship. The things I see going wrong are these:
1. Corporate welfare - The effort to entice business to operate in the US goes too far. We've lost way too many jobs overseas due to cheaper labor, taxes, whatever.
2. Welfare state - People have been allowed to live their entire lives on the state's dollar, and breed endlessly while teaching the next generation how to work the system for maximum benefit. We are seeing 2nd & 3rd generations who've never worked. If one is willing to cheat a little, the world can be your oyster. Case in point: I know of people who draw unemployment, work for cash under the table, get free healthcare & food stamps from the state due to low income & their 5 kids, sell their free drugs for more cash, and still get refunds from the IRS. That kills me.
3. Tax reform - Tax the rich, tax the upper middle class, tax them all. End loopholes that let people get away with it. Our country is being sold to foreign interests at an alarming rate because the US can't afford to continue pretending everything is cool.
4. Government reform - If I fail to do my job, or screw up the whole operation and cost the company money, I can get fired. I don't get to give myself a raise and ride it out until everyone forgets. Officials need to be held to a higher standard.
5. There isn't enough work to go around, let's all move to China.

I'm not trying to start arguments here, and welcome any comment not accompanied by name calling. Sometime I feel more moderate, other times not so much.

[cerveza_fiesta]

HiddenOne, on 22 July 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

2. Welfare state - People have been allowed to live their entire lives on the state's dollar, and breed endlessly while teaching the next generation how to work the system for maximum benefit. We are seeing 2nd & 3rd generations who've never worked. If one is willing to cheat a little, the world can be your oyster. Case in point: I know of people who draw unemployment, work for cash under the table, get free healthcare & food stamps from the state due to low income & their 5 kids, sell their free drugs for more cash, and still get refunds from the IRS. That kills me.

RE 2

I have to end the conversation or politely change the subject when friends who are too lazy to work start talking about all the unemployment $ they've been drawing since they left their job. I do so in order to avoid punching faces.

It's set up now so folks here can really only work about 5-6 months of the year and if they're "smart" about it, can collect unemployment for the remainder. They'll brag all day about their paid "vacation" and in the same breath they'll bitch and moan about high gas taxes, long wait times at our publicly funded hospitals and potholes in the road. I am the guy fucking paying for that! I am the guy paying YOUR BILLS!!! For reals! I am middle class worker with an average salary and I get whacked with a huge amount of income tax to help pay for all the social programs that we collectively benefit from. It drives me fucking insane that nobody on the receiving end seems to get that or is even thankful for it when we live in one of the poorest have-not povinces in the country - almost entirely because our social programs cost too much compared to our tax income.

It's like when I met the people in the adjoining downstairs apartment at my old place when we invited them to a party one day. I was complaining about how high my electricity bill was despite having an apartment on a middle floor, flanked on both sides by other apartments. I speculated that maybe it was a problem with older windows with poor insulation values. They proceeded to tell me gleefully that their power bill was super low because they just keep their heaters turned off all winter and leech heat off the neighbors. It was all I could do not to push them both off the balcony.

I just don't get how things like that are rationalized in peoples' heads. I mean, I get it. We used to be a major wood products exporter and fish product exporter. It was the backbone of our provincial economy for the first 100 years of confederation. Well guess what....the fish all got fished out and the big trees all got cut down due to irresponsible fishing/cutting practices. Then all the big industry moved to provinces where it was possible to operate profitably. Now all but a handful of sawmill towns have dried up and all the little fishing villages are rampant with unemployment. All those folks that worked in the woods or on the ocean for generations can no longer do what they know. When it dries up, instead of innovating and finding something new to drive our economy, they all sit around saying they "don't know how to do anything else", bitch and moan about unemployment rates, too-short fishing seasons, lament the downfall of once-bustling towns, complain about too-high gas taxes and do absolutely nothing to turn the foundering economic ship back to safer waters. All the while they multiply and teach all their children how to work the system like they did and how to get some cash and without giving anything back.

Meanwhile the provincial government is so mired in debt and so burdened by social aid that they can no longer afford to give tax incentives to heavy industry or commerce that might bring a bit of economic power back to the region. School funding is cut to the bone (we already have the worst schools in the country), wait times at the hospital go up, the small towns grow more destitute, more people grow reliant on an ultimately unsustainable downward-feeding economic model (rob the rich to feed the poor) when nobody at the bottom has the courage or motivation to fix the situation and start feeding back upward because they're safe and carefree in their welfare state.

And of course the government itself, which relies on the mass of leeches for votes announces that they will decrease the unemployment rates in such-and-such town by opening a government office there and "HOLY SHIT CREATE 200 JOBS"...each of which contribute virtually nothing to the economy, since each one is paid by the government. Then they turn around and announce millions in funding for some fucking stupid wind power project in a region where wind power is not really feasible and "HOLY SHIT CREATE 200 JOBS"...each of which will disappear upon completion of the project. Then on the rare occasion that the gov't shows the faintest glimmer of brilliance and actually convinces an industrial employer to set up shop in the province using tax incentives or energy rate incentives, the population starts crying "NO TAX BREAKS FOR INDUSTRY! NO TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH". The gov't inevitably caves in to keep votes and the industrial company fucks off, leaving us in the same position we started. Like nobody picked up on the fact that if we don't give them a tax break they won't be here at all and everybody is STILL unemployed. IT FUCKING DRIVES ME INSANE. FOR REALS.

I've done my part. I pay my taxes. I've never accepted money from the government that wasn't owed due to income tax adjustments. I paid back all my student loans. I started a company that I intend to keep 100% New Brunswick owned and operated, paying corporate tax into the provincial economy. I even emply two highly trained PhD graduates to work here, keeping a couple of brains in the province instead of letting them go off to Ontario, Alberta or elsewhere like the rest of the PhD graduates. I have no idea what more a guy can do FFS. AAAAAAAAAAAARGH

wow....nice venting there.

I love my province and the people here, but holy shit is this place EVER fucking stupid sometimes. I need to listen to less talk radio.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 26 July 2011 - 05:08 PM

[Daemonwolf]

HiddenOne, on 22 July 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

1. Corporate welfare - The effort to entice business to operate in the US goes too far. We've lost way too many jobs overseas due to cheaper labor, taxes, whatever.
3. Tax reform - Tax the rich, tax the upper middle class, tax them all. End loopholes that let people get away with it. Our country is being sold to foreign interests at an alarming rate because the US can't afford to continue pretending everything is cool.

While I enjoyed your post, these two comments are what always confuses me on the "tax the wealthy" debate.

Everyone seems to understand that businesses are finding it more and more expensive to try and operate in the US, versus cheaper out of country expenses, yet still manages to think that raising taxes even higher on the wealthy (the people who own and oversee these same companies) is the best idea, while concurrently allowing the number of people living on entitlement programs to increase thus reducing revenue options.... It's just baffling to me.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Taxes in the US clearly need to go up. Who do you think should bear that burden?