- Thread starter
- #21
You definitely would not be considered to be on welfare. All the Social Security I'm now receiving I paid for by mandatory pay deductions I've made over decades of work since a teenager. It is not a government "hand-out" like many conservatives here feel. Social security alone is sub-subsistence level. You need savings to supplement it.I am unfamiliar with US welfare. Old age pensioners are considered welfare recipients?
I remember talking about subsides with my kids. It is easy for 95 people out of a 100 to support the other 5. Not so easy for 75 to support 25.
Did your census numbers say how many people are net taxpayers compared to tax recipients? The last time I saw any figures like this the bottom half of the population were net negative. Just sayin'. I am all for taking care of people but I don't think we should demonize the people who foot the bill either.
In five years I will collect the Canadian Old Age Pension. Between paying taxes for all my pensions, property taxes, income taxes, etc, I doubt I will become a net negative taxpayer. Will I still be a welfare recipient in your eyes?
Welfare in the US is largelyAid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food and nutrition programs (SNAP) (Food stamps)
Welfare does not includeUnemployment insurance (Very temporary)
Social Security (Old age pensions paid by lifetime salary deductions)
Medicare (Generally over 65)
Poverty trends analyst, LaDonna Pavetti:
In an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment.I don't know exactly how many are in the negative tax bracket here. I believe around 45% do pay zero or less taxes. There are lots of problems looming up on how to handle the increasing subsistence level people, but that's another story.
You definitely would not be considered to be on welfare. All the Social Security I'm now receiving I paid for by mandatory pay deductions I've made over decades of work since a teenager. It is not a government "hand-out" like many conservatives here feel. Social security alone is sub-subsistence level. You need savings to supplement it.I am unfamiliar with US welfare. Old age pensioners are considered welfare recipients?
I remember talking about subsides with my kids. It is easy for 95 people out of a 100 to support the other 5. Not so easy for 75 to support 25.
Did your census numbers say how many people are net taxpayers compared to tax recipients? The last time I saw any figures like this the bottom half of the population were net negative. Just sayin'. I am all for taking care of people but I don't think we should demonize the people who foot the bill either.
In five years I will collect the Canadian Old Age Pension. Between paying taxes for all my pensions, property taxes, income taxes, etc, I doubt I will become a net negative taxpayer. Will I still be a welfare recipient in your eyes?
Welfare in the US is largelyAid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food and nutrition programs (SNAP) (Food stamps)
Welfare does not includeUnemployment insurance (Very temporary)
Social Security (Old age pensions paid by lifetime salary deductions)
Medicare (Generally over 65)
Poverty trends analyst, LaDonna Pavetti:
In an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment.I don't know exactly how many are in the negative tax bracket here. I believe around 45% do pay zero or less taxes. There are lots of problems looming up on how to handle the increasing subsistence level people, but that's another story.
We have two systems. CPP by workplace contribution, OAP for everyone over 65 with supplements for need or clawbacks for the wealthy. Basic healthcare for everyone but limited by wait list.
Our welfare is probably like yours, used by people in temporary financial straights or disabled by physical or mental handicaps. I don't begrudge them benefits. I do get offended by those seem to think the people paying for those benefits got the money by keeping the downtrodden poor.