Hypothetical: How would you improve the welfare system for families?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel like this is another issue with the welfare system, there are many moderate-income folks (your working class?) who could use the help and many of whom are doing what they can (working 40 to 60 hours/week while balancing family life) but don’t receive any recourse. This is especially true in high cost of living areas such as many population centers in the cities (i.e New York, San Diego, Los Angeles, etc).

On one hand, expanding benefits to them would do them a great deal of help in some cases (like imagine the wonders expanding Section 8 would do for a lot of working families in the cities) and there does seem to be a gap between the comfortable middle class and your destitute. On the other hand, there seems to be concerns about increasing government dependency such as financial sustainability and potential effects on beneficiaries.
 
Yeah that’s really the problem with the whole system. It’s pretty obvious that people where I was - on the bottom end of the spectrum - needed some help that the system wasn’t giving. But it hit way too hard on people in the middle class who didn’t have that much money to spare.

I’ve heard issues from the fact that the income standards were national too. So people in the lower income tier in high cost of living areas got hit hard. I had a friend who was working retail in the california bay area get hit by that - by national standards she had a decent income, but was actually barely getting by.
 
RCIAGraduate said:
I feel like this is another issue with the welfare system, there are many moderate-income folks (your working class?) who could use the help and many of whom are doing what they can (working 40 to 60 hours/week while balancing family life) but don’t receive any recourse. This is especially true in high cost of living areas such as many population centers in the cities (i.e New York, San Diego, Los Angeles, etc).

On one hand, expanding benefits to them would do them a great deal of help in some cases (like imagine the wonders expanding Section 8 would do for a lot of working families in the cities) and there does seem to be a gap between the comfortable middle class and your destitute. On the other hand, there seems to be concerns about increasing government dependency such as financial sustainability and potential effects on beneficiaries.
Click to expand...
It’s not expanding section 8 that would do any good, it would be really the encouragment and mandate to build more affordable housing. Cities want cash so they do not want reasonable homes. They want ones that will increase the tax base. By approving only reasonable housing developments (ie walkable house developments that are under $300k in HCOL and under $150 in other markets) you would see a huge jump in quality of life. Section 8 simply raises rents and makes eventual homeownership more unreachable.
 
Regarding this specific policy, could a gargantuan influx of funding for the National Housing Trust Fund or simply massively scaling up the Public Housing Operating Fund/Capital Fund serve as possible solutions to this predictament?

In regards to revenues, could imposing a tax on financial “speculation” help support such endeavors? Other solutions could include equalizing capital gains rates with individual income tax rates or even diverting estate tax revenues to fund this project (just mentioning possibilities).

Does this even necessitate a federal response, for instance, in cities can use bonds to build stadiums, why not bonds for affordable housing? I also understand zoning (namely NIMBYism) is an issue as well.

Additionally, there’s the issue of ensuring good quality affordable housing (in safe and strong communities), public housing seems to have lost a lot of political capital/appeal due to the deterioration of some developments which seems to be influenced by outside factors (but with the working/middle class squeeze in many population centers, could that perhaps change sooner or later?). What do you think regarding all this (sorry for the rambling, I really LOVE delving into social discussions such as theses).
 
Last edited:
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
It’s not expanding section 8 that would do any good, it would be really the encouragment and mandate to build more affordable housing. Cities want cash so they do not want reasonable homes. They want ones that will increase the tax base. By approving only reasonable housing developments (ie walkable house developments that are under $300k in HCOL and under $150 in other markets) you would see a huge jump in quality of life. Section 8 simply raises rents and makes eventual homeownership more unreachable.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t mind some decent old-fashioned apartment buildings. As someone in the young semi-professional group, I know around here it’s luxury condo this and that. There’s not a lot for those of us who just want basic starter housing, not 3 bedrooms with high speed internet and premium cable and a heated pool.
 
Yeah. My husband was looking for a 2br starter home before we met. His realtor told him that 2br starter homes did not exist and that he was looking at 3, minimum.
 
Yeah I’m watching the tiny house craze with some amusement. I think most people don’t want to go that small, but a lot of younger people are losing interest in big houses. And I can tell you my generation doesn’t see houses as the same safe investment our parents did.
 
DarkLight said:
Yeah I’m watching the tiny house craze with some amusement. I think most people don’t want to go that small, but a lot of younger people are losing interest in big houses. And I can tell you my generation doesn’t see houses as the same safe investment our parents did.
Click to expand...
We got the smallest house we could buy, for about $40k under market value because the husband and wife were trying to stick it to each other. It’s like 1500 sqft. With the kids, its nice, but I could probably be in 1,200 sqft house and be totally happy.
 
To chime in or not to chime in to another social justice thread…
 
Horton said:
Once I realized I would be raising my three boys on my own I enrolled in school full time. I received my BS three years later, having worked part time and caring for 3 kids.
Click to expand...
You might be just a tad bit exceptional. Not sure that’s realistic for most single moms.
 
Socrates92 said:
Nice! Where? How recently?
Click to expand...
New England—where home values whacky. If you’re within 1.5 hours of Boston or NYC you’re paying through the nose.

Outside of that zone by about an hour, you’re paying pennies.

It stinks because we’re not that close to either but close enough that housing is impacted. The goofy thing is that we’re not here for the big city but the industries that were happy to find cheap(er) rent outside the city, paying way too much, turning everything into a cluster.

This was about 4 years ago
 
Yes I am! I was blessed with exceptional smarts and a strong willingness to work very hard.

I do know it’s not realistic for many single moms but it does mean single moms can accomplish more if they work at it. Our current welfare system does not promote self sufficiency.
 
I honestly think some of the suspicion of people cheating welfare doesn’t help here. In my experience, welfare really discouraged taking time to improve yourself. The mentality was very much more you should be grateful for any job at all, and if you had time to try to improve yourself you had time to go get another minimum wage job instead.
 
Then to clarify your perspective, the goal ought to be encouraging full employment, particularly among the disadvantaged and limiting welfare to exceptional circumstances (temporary help/crisis/emergency assistance and perhaps indefinite support for the disabled?)? Is that correct then?

Could you see yourself promoting workforce development initiatives such as apprenticeships and other career programs to help those in need?
 
RCIAGraduate said:
Is that correct then?

Could you see yourself promoting workforce development initiatives such as apprenticeships and other career programs to help those in need?
Click to expand...
I would say that’s fairly accurate. Yes on apprenticeships and career programs… (But not government sponsored/paid for). Already am doing that…personally and with the business where I work.
 
I think WIC has a program for Farmer’s Markets, could that work as a solution? In my mind, it would seem like a pretty program, supporting small and medium farms which in turn help feed poor families but it doesn’t always necessarily work out as ideally as one would like.

Do you see any other ideas, Cajun (sorry if I am making break your CAF "fast)? I also think affordable housing is an issue but I live in a high cost of living community, so it’s easy for me to be tiled in my views.
 
I think if you were going to do volunteering, it might help to see if there were positions that could translate into references and skills. I often see that as advice for young adults, or for mothers who intend to go back to work later. For example, if you volunteer at the front desk for a charity, that can give you references and skills to get a paying position later.
 
I want them doing real work, not volunteer stuff where nobody really cares if you are actually contributing.

They should have to verify they are holding down regular temp or part time work. Only actual work with an actual boss teaches actual skills.

I did temp work one time, bottling wine. Several of the workers had to verify their hours for benefits. All were capable of doing the work but 1-2 didn’t put in any effort and even stopped showing up.

They deserve to lose their benefits until they change their attitude and get their act together. The benefits are easily obtained/earned but they aren’t a ‘right’
 
They deserve to lose their benefits until they change their attitude and get their act together. The benefits are easily obtained/earned but they aren’t a ‘right’
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t we be careful about being too harsh on the poor and disadvantaged? It seems like it’s easy to bash them but don’t many go through difficult experiences which require more empathy and understanding. The poor are even vulnerable to more adverse forms of stress than their more fortunate counterparts?

It’s just, it seems like some political forces who come across as harsh on the poor and put all the impetus on them when many of the poor do seem to be what they can but do struggle with complex and underlying issue.

Pardon for going slight off-track and if I offended you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top