

A Brief History of Welfare for Middle-Class Americans - michaelchisari
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/a-brief-history-of-welfare-for-middle-class-americans/68991/

======
shawndumas
Wait; let me get this straight... The government not taking as much of my own
money away from me is welfare?!

~~~
michaelchisari
The point is broader than that. For instance, many people (excepting children)
who go on food stamps, disability, or welfare are often people who have paid
into the system over the course of their life. In that sense, the social
safety net is an example of the government simply giving back their tax money.

So in that same sense, there exist massive programs of subsidization of the
middle class and even the wealthy, just as there is of those who take in
welfare or unemployment benefits.

Ultimately, the point the article is making is that society is an interlocking
set of dependencies, and that demonizing one group for receiving government
payouts ignores the complex social dependencies that all economic classes have
in some form or another.

~~~
shawndumas
Are there people that are on food stamps, disability, or welfare that haven't
paid sufficiently into 'the system' to off set the cost of them consuming said
services?

~~~
michaelchisari
Of course there are, but determining someone's access to basic survival based
on how much they had paid into the system would be problematic and Dickensian,
to say the least.

And most importantly, societies don't benefit from denying basic survival and
dignity to people. Crime rates rise, social stratification increases, the net
effect of social problems due to economic entropy of a class of people can be
detrimental to the health and well-being of a society as a whole. Especially
for the middle class, which lacks the wealth to isolate itself from said
social problems the way the upper classes can.

~~~
shawndumas
That's not what I was getting at.

You said '[people on] welfare are _often_ people who have paid into the
system' (emphasis mine). Right? What would you guess the ratio was of what the
_majority_ of people on welfare paid in as opposed to what they get in pay
outs? (I am getting to an important point; stick with me; please and thanks.)

~~~
michaelchisari
I don't have access to that information, and haven't known any studies to have
been done.

Assuming the statistics would fit your expectations, what would your point be?

~~~
shawndumas
I want to see _your_ expectations.

I started by saying that not taking more of _my_ money does _not_ constitute
welfare. You countered my point by saying that _many_ people that later get
paid out first paid in. So I am asking -- how many people? What ratio for
paying in and taking out?

You're saying that me keeping more of my own money (you know, the money I
worked for) should be called welfare because I _might_ take some of the money
-- taken from me in the first place -- back.

In effect: we all put in to a kitty. One day Cardboard holding, Camel smoking,
Corner lollygagging, 'Carl' takes some out -- next day I take some out. Right?

Well I am asking you; how much does 'Carl' put in and how much does he take
out? It's easy for me to say I have tax withholdings and I know how much
welfare I've used.

What's _your_ guess for the average 'Carl'?

~~~
michaelchisari
My guess is that a specific number for who "deserves" what social investment
is a chaotic system which cannot be quantified properly. And I would consider
it an exercise in futility to determine a social theory based on something so
chaotic.

Conversely, I would suggest that my payment into a welfare system benefits me,
since I am merely middle class, and cannot escape the detrimental social
effects of abject poverty nearly as easily as the wealthy.

~~~
shawndumas
for the sake of argument let's say I agree with everything you said. Further,
let's say I am so moved by your argument that, even though it doesn't seem
like it, I now see that it is in fact better for all men for me to have even
more of my money pilfered.

what I still don't understand is why we should call pilfering my money from my
hands should be called me receiving welfare?

~~~
michaelchisari
Is it possible that you find the word "welfare" to be an emotionally and
politically loaded term?

For instance, libraries exist as a form of social welfare.

~~~
shawndumas
so all this time you where primarally talking about roads and libraries?

~~~
michaelchisari
Nowhere near that narrow. I'm talking about the totality of the social
contract.

~~~
shawndumas
for the sake of clarity: could you tell me what you think should be the upper
bound as a percentage of my income in this social contract should entail?

~~~
michaelchisari
Since I agree with Thomas Paine's view on the necessity of progressive
taxation, what you specifically are taxed would be dependent on your income,
but given the extraordinary circumstances (two major wars, numerous conflicts,
near economic collapse, etc), I would support a temporary 90% tax rate on the
upper income brackets similar to what Eisenhower enacted in order to pay down
the debts and make major necessary social investments (education,
infrastructure, etc).

That said, I favor the Nordic social democracies to be good economic models,
as they have been proven to support greater class mobility than the current
U.S. system. Norway, for instance, ranges from 0-49% tax rates.

However, as this may be relevant to the important point that you would like to
make, I don't think my personal views on the proper rate of taxation take away
from the need to recognize the importance of the existence of economic social
relationships.

~~~
shawndumas
wait; let me guess... and I would pay 49% and Carl would pay 0%, right? So his
ratio would be 0:1 and mine would be 1:0.09 (for roads and libraries, of
course. Can't forget my welfare benefits now can I?). Thank you for finally
answering that question.

And when I forked it over I should say, 'thank you for my welfare' and Carl
will say, 'thank you for my wel-fairer'!

Got it!

.

Well, either way 90%!? My friend I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

~~~
michaelchisari
49% assumes you are in a very, very high income bracket. And 0% assumes that
your mythical Carl would not be able to survive if he were taxes on what
little income he had. You would benefit greatly from a society that does not
allow Carl to fall through the cracks, this has been proven. Carl may use
public infrastructure and a social safety net to pull himself out of poverty
and set himself on a path of entrepreneurship. Conversely, you may find
yourself without your high income, your savings eliminated, and in need of the
social welfare that was used to help others out of a cycle of poverty.

I'm not clear on what your important point was, but I think the point you try
and make here is relatively short-sighted.

~~~
shawndumas
Well the point was that I started by saying that you should not be calling the
government _not taking as much_ of my own money welfare.

You turned it into the government _taking more_ of my own money as being
welfare.

So in the end my initial statement still stands. You cannot call the
government letting me keep my own money welfare 'cause no body's building
libraries for me with that money, are they?!

~~~
michaelchisari
I think the term "welfare" fully applies, because it pertains to the welfare
of the society you live in. Again, I believe you're reacting based on an
emotional response to what is often termed "welfare" by detractors of social
programs

All classes benefit from social welfare programs, albeit in different ways. If
your tax dollars are not paid towards society you benefit from, but instead
returned as a tax credit, that is as much a form of welfare as the person who
pays into the system for 30 years and then receives disability, TANF, or
unemployment benefits.

~~~
shawndumas
Maybe this will help; are the following two statements contradictory in your
mind?

    
    
      1.) The government taking *more* money from me should be called welfare.
    
      2.) The government taking *less* money from me should be called welfare.
    

You see, I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did
it. The next step was to have you either explain how both of those (to me at
least) mutually exclusive statements can be true or you have to accept one or
the other as true and reject the other. (Or you can also say that the
Aristotelian law of non-contradiction is phooey...)

You might be tempted to change the sense in which you are using the term
welfare (I have noticed sacre quotes showing up in your last posts) but that's
what i would called a fallacy of the fourth term. (And since you keep
qualifying the term with 'social programs' I think it would be disingenuous to
switch to the general second term and then back to the specific first without
making it abundantly clear that you are doing so.)

In my mind (and in most common dictionaries) welfare means a. _governmental_
provision of economic assistance to _persons in need_ ; _or_ b. absolutely
anything that aids or promotes anyone's well-being regardless of their prior
need.

(So at best you could say all of the first sense are of the second but you
could not then say that all of the second sense are of the first. i.e. it
would be a a concentric venn.)

I thought that the article, you, and I where all using the term in the first
sense but, once it became expedient to you, you seemed to switch to the
second.

The only other option as I see it is that you think it all belongs to the
government and I should just be happy that they let me keep any of their money
at all. And surely if I had it I wouldn't be as enlightened in my use of it
anyway so it's really best for me if I just hand it over.

But, and this is a very important 'but', the fact that you have declared that
a 90% income tax rate is fine in your mind I now see that all hope of us
becoming of one mind is utterly hopeless. I have no category that allows for
that detestable state of affairs regardless of any circumstances. So, really,
I think the best we can do is agree to disagree...

~~~
michaelchisari
_I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did it._

Simply because, and I don't this this is difficult, but social welfare is not
what is taken, but the result of what is done.

I would hope at least you've gotten some sense from this the idea of
considering your role as a small part in a greater social tapestry, than
simply an argument about what percentage of your income should be taxed.

~~~
shawndumas
So, as you see it, my roll in society is to work hard so that I will have
money that the government can then take by force?

How 'bout the charity work I do, or the two homeless guys I got off the street
and got jobs, or the orphanage on Kat Island I supported with groceries, or
the goat and 2 chickens I sent this Christmas, or the tithes I donate that go
to benevolence, or the family that lived with me for six months (a mother and
her _four_ daughters in our three bedroom house)? (And I mean it all and could
share more!)

Do you have any idea how much more I could help if the government would stop
giving me 'welfare'?

And since no matter whether they take my money or let me keep my money you'll
still call it 'welfare' I guess everyone is on 'welfare' too, huh?

But the thing that gets me is that I am supposed to _thank_ my government for
letting me keep what is _my personal property_ to begin with. Or do you not
believe in personal property either? (Or are we only supposed to call 10% of
our money personal and the rest is the government's and that's why I should
call them letting me keep it 'welfare'?)

~~~
michaelchisari
Who you decide to thank is immaterial. Public investment in infrastructure,
education, etc., all public goods, is how you built your wealth. Your wealth
is as dependent on society as anyone else. And while your charity is
commendable, it is utterly undemocratic.

~~~
shawndumas
Right; and so that's why all my wealth belongs to the public. I got it. Thanks
for clearing that up.

------
fleitz
Just because gov't programs for the middle class cost a lot of money doesn't
mean they are delivering actual benefit.

Given the example of medicare vs. insurance tax deductions for employers, I
think the economy would be much better off with insurance tax deductions for
everyone and no medicare. Or no insurance tax deductions and no medicare.
There are plenty of ways to make healthcare cheaper and less bureaucratic.

If the middle class put the squeeze on gov't expenditures that won't mean that
middle class benefits will be the first to be cut, they'll likely be last.

