What degree is welfare fraud? - Page 2

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 17:16

A good friend of mine works with welfare recipients, providing them with information to help themselves. They don't want that information. They want to know how to get more benefits for free. Welfare abuse is so rampent its sad. There are very few people who do not abuse the system.

Having said that, the welfare system is a necessary part of capitalism. Capitalism has survived this long because of it. And sadly, nothing can be done to stop the abuse.

If you really look at it, capitalism is a welfare system. Some people work and some people don't. Your compensation is only sometimes determined by your work. Welfare abuse is just an additional method of exploitation.

BustaMike · May 1, 2003, 17:58

Old Dirty Bastard cashing a welfare check on MTV. That is abuse of the system.

Dr Strangelove · May 1, 2003, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

It's mere existence in the primary problem. Eliminate social welfare, and you obviously eliminate social welfare abuse along with it.

OK, so tomorrow an 18 wheeler runs over your vehicle, with you in it. You are essentially demolished, but live. You rapidly exhaust your insurance, savings and all your personal assets. You wind up broke, confined to a wheelchair and have so little use of your upper extremities that you haven't a prayer of making a living. Let's also suppose that you have no family left.

At this point you might say: "Let me live off of private charity." Ah! But thanks to your libertarianism all the other elderly and medically disabled have exhausted charitable funds. "Oh, but freed of the excess taxes contributions to charity will swell, making up for welfare." Sorry, but that was tried in the 1960s, and the results were underwhelming. I'm old enough to remember the state of things in this country before Medicare, and before SSI was extended to the disabled under 65. It wasn't pretty then, and it wouldn't be now.

The you might say "I'd rather die than live off of someone else." I've heard that before. It remains to be seen whether you will ever put your money where your mouth is.

Felch · May 1, 2003, 18:13

It was also hilarious.

Agathon · May 1, 2003, 18:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Maybe we should eliminate cancer treatment as well. The cancer might not dissapear, but those little sh*ts scamming fantanyl lolipops will sure know what's up!

I forgive you your past insults - that was really good.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 18:17

welfare is necessary, both social welfare and minimum wage welfare.

so all we can do is try to limit the abuse as best we can.

Agathon · May 1, 2003, 18:20

Have you all considered that reforming the system to make it more intrusive and less prone to abuse might make it cost more than the original abused system.

The problem with homelessness has little to do with the amount of welfare and more to do with:

(a) Housing prices: here in Toronto there are homeless people who have full time jobs, but yet cannot afford housing.

(b) Mental illness and addiction. These people literally cannot take care of themselves, they are beyond any empirically verifiable notion of responsibility, yet the law (inhumanely) treats them as responsible adults.

And had to laugh at Lloyd's antics.

Agathon · May 1, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
welfare is necessary, both social welfare and minimum wage welfare.

so all we can do is try to limit the abuse as best we can.

If you want to eliminate abuse then attack the number one crime in terms of dollars lost that afflicts all our societies.

Of course I am talking about tax fraud and evasion.

But no, we all moan and beat up on the most vulnerable members of society - again.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 18:24

I am very for large prison sentences for white collar crimes. which include the rampant abuse of ceo's and their golden parachutes.

but we aren't talking about that in this thread are we?

Agathon · May 1, 2003, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
I am very for large prison sentences for white collar crimes. which include the rampant abuse of ceo's and their golden parachutes.

but we aren't talking about that in this thread are we?

Just something to think about for those who'd like to deprive the homeless of everything.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 18:36

)(*#@ u know now ur just bordering on lumping me for no reason. I dont see anywhere in my posts where I support abolishing welfare.

Agathon · May 1, 2003, 18:42

I wasn't talking about you. They know who they are.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 18:44

=D k then dont quote me.

Agathon · May 1, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
=D k then dont quote me.

Apologies - you were the last person before I posted, but it was a general point.

Peace.

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
welfare is necessary, both social welfare and minimum wage welfare.

so all we can do is try to limit the abuse as best we can.

Please explain how minimum wage is welfare.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 19:24

the idea that it is good to pay ppl more than they are worth in order to make them functioning members of society. and the idea that it is good to employ(in the general, not the specific), more ppl than you need because it will help your society function better.

and of course, everyone can argue "to what extent." but I do believe in the general idea.

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
the idea that it is good to pay ppl more than they are worth in order to make them functioning members of society. and the idea that it is good to employ(in the general, not the specific), more ppl than you need because it will help your society function better.

and of course, everyone can argue "to what extent." but I do believe in the general idea.

Welfare is a subsidy to those who do not produce goods and services. People who work do not recieve these benefits for their work. The wages they recieve are from their employees for producing the goods and services that they produce. They don't get anything for not working. Their labor is still more valuable than the goods or services they produce, and their employer usually recieves a profit from their labor. And the customer still recieves a surplus value.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 19:51

I'm not sure I understand exactly wut angle ur coming from. u sound like u wna start a workers revolution on me.

I think ur imposing ur own values of wut is "valuable" and wut is not. instead of listening to what the market deems valuable. which is why you are coming w/ an erroneous conclusion.

and minimum wage is set by the government. it is artificially high for a very good reason.

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
I think ur imposing ur own values of wut is "valuable" and wut is not. instead of listening to what the market deems valuable. which is why you are coming w/ an erroneous conclusion.

Why do you say that? The employer makes a volutary decision to hire the employee, and he still makes a profit. The employee earns every bit of his pay. That's not welfare.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 21:02

=] I think what I'm trying to say is clear to anyone. ur just personally insulted that I called it welfare. well tough.

go have a fit somewhere else.

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 21:09

Just asking you to explain your opinion. I don't think it's clear at all. I've explained to you what welfare is. I have no idea why you think that setting a minimum wage is welfare. If you have an opinion back it up.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 21:15

the government artificially enforces a minimum wage higher than the market would normally set. while this is a GOOD thing. it is artificial. that is why I called it minimum wage welfare. it is giving people on the lower end more money w/o them posessing more value.

Dr Strangelove · May 1, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I have seen the odd bag person myself. I do not understand why, with our system of handouts, these people still need to seek warmth when the temperature hits -20c. But they are still there, and so are those who suck the *** while they could work. Oh, but don't worry, we'll open the undergrounds and let them sleep there when it gets too cold.

I don't think we have perfected Nirvana yet.

I don't know what the situation is in Canada, but in the US you can't detain a mentally ill person against his will unless he or she is overtly suicidal or homicidal. Unfortunately suicidal does not mean preferrimng to sleep in -20 degree weather. A large portion of the bag person type chronically homeless are burnt out schizophrenics who are also addicted to alcohol and or drugs. They do not like to live in shelters because the shelters demand that they give up their alcohol and drugs. They have to do this because having a large number of psychotic inebriated/stoned persons gathered at one site tends to lead to blood shed. With regards to working, would yopu employ an active, uncontrollable alcholic or junkie with or without the additional burden of an organic brain syndrome?

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
the government artificially enforces a minimum wage higher than the market would normally set. while this is a GOOD thing. it is artificial. that is why I called it minimum wage welfare. it is giving people on the lower end more money w/o them posessing more value.

First, government action is not welfare by its action alone unless it results in a subsidy. But it seems that you are stretching the definition. So I will follow along.

But value is not equal to the price of something whether that price is set or whether it is determined by a free market (something which doesn't exist). The value of something is the maximum price that a consumer would pay for something if they had too. The actual price that the consumer pays is sometimes equal to the value of the good, but is usually less than the value of the good. The difference between the value and the price is called consumer surplus.

Now lets look at the price of the good. The price of the good is equal to the cost of producing the good plus the profit which the owner of the business recieves. Most of the cost of producing the good is the wage recieved by the employee who actually produces the good. So the compensation that the worker recieves from his work is less than the actual value of the good. The owner recieves a profit, the consumer paid less than the real value, and there are some others who also recieve a benefit from the work performed.

If the worker were to recieve a welfare subsidy that would mean that someone would have to pay this subsidy, but everyone involved has benefited from this work. Even when you raise the wage of the worker, everyone still benefits. Therefore, it can't be welfare.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 21:48

when u raise the minimum wage everyone benefits? hardly.

it still seems like ur more upset w/ my definitions of words than u r with wut I am actually saying. so u twist ur own lil definition of value. big deal. words are not the end product they only convey ideas. and I'm not going to fight semantics w/ u. looks like u r picking a fight.

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
when u raise the minimum wage everyone benefits? hardly.

it still seems like ur more upset w/ my definitions of words than u r with wut I am actually saying. so u twist ur own lil definition of value. big deal. words are not the end product they only convey ideas. and I'm not going to fight semantics w/ u. looks like u r picking a fight.

I'm not picking a fight. You're the one who made the outrageous assumption that you won't support.

You're saying that a decrease in a benefit is a cost. It's not. When a benefit is decreased it remains a benefit until there is no benefit at all, but either a cost or there is zero benefit and zero cost. There is no cost associated with increasing the minimum wage. When you increase the minimum wage you only decrease the benefits that all parties recieve. If there was a cost involved then the person paying the cost whould not participate and there would be no trade. No one is forced to make the trade.

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 22:08

u r making the assumption of an economic vacuum(only one economy exists), which is very poor and nearly troubling. and even if we did live in an economic vacuum minimum wage increases would still have effects, for one if we were to keep increasing them we would decrease the overall wealth of the nation. in accordance w/ the savings tendencies of people in different income levels. we would also de-emphasize things like risk and entrepreunership. the typically overlooked values of capitalism(by the left).

and in general u r trying to turn this into a meta argument when I'm still convinced u r perfectly capable of understanding what I am saying, unless of course u really do believe that the minimum wage benefits everyone regardless of its level. in which case then u r an extreme socialist.

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 22:16

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
u r making the assumption of an economic vacuum(only one economy exists), which is very poor and nearly troubling. and even if we did live in an economic vacuum minimum wage increases would still have effects, for one if we were to keep increasing them we would decrease the overall wealth of the nation. in accordance w/ the savings tendencies of people in different income levels. we would also de-emphasize things like risk and entrepreunership. the typically overlooked values of capitalism(by the left).

and in general u r trying to turn this into a meta argument when I'm still convinced u r perfectly capable of understanding what I am saying, unless of course u really do believe that the minimum wage benefits everyone regardless of its level. in which case then u r an extreme socialist.

This has got nothing to do with the price of tea in China

. We are discussing whether or not an increase in the minimum wage is welfare. Do you have an argument?

yavoon · May 1, 2003, 22:20

umm u brought up all those points I was responding to them. so dont yell at me for responding to what you bring up.

and I dont care if u dislike how I use welfare, use wutever word u like. I'm not willing to sit here and fight over the political connotations w/ u cuz thats just childish. u asked me to explain why I used welfare and I did. u still dont like it? then go file a complaint.

Kidicious · May 1, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
and in general u r trying to turn this into a meta argument when I'm still convinced u r perfectly capable of understanding what I am saying, unless of course u really do believe that the minimum wage benefits everyone regardless of its level. in which case then u r an extreme socialist.

Why should I be a socialist if I believe that people make rational decisions? People only participate in an action if it benefits them. If participating would cost them they wouldn't participate. Believing that doesn't make me a socialist. If it does then there are a lot of socialist, because most people believe this.