A Brief History of Welfare for Middle-Class Americans | Hacker News Reader

A Brief History of Welfare for Middle-Class Americans

theatlantic.com

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

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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?

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'?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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...

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.

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'?)

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com