sidney...and this...
Gaming the Welfare System: Poor by Choice
talk.baltimoresun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gaming the system means using the rules, policies and procedures of a system against itself for purposes outside what these rules were intended for. This often means using systems for personal gain that were intended to serve an organization's interests. According to James Rieley, structures in organisations (both explicit and implicit policies and procedures, stated goals, and mental models) drive behaviours that are detrimental to long-term organisational success."
If a person wants to game the welfare system, it is a whole lot easier if they have little or no income or wealth.
The less you have, the more you get.
There is a strong incentive for gamers to be poor, or at least appear poor.
The hard core gamer will have income that is not reported, but that is not necessary.
With a little creativity, a person can tell the eligibility man the truth (or nearly so), and get lots of free stuff.
Most welfare programs do not require the custodial parent to file for child support against the absent parent. The custodial parent is free to get benefits from the absent parent, that are not countable for eligibility. What we might compare to non-taxable in come.
Many applicants withdraw application for programs that require filing for child support, and not without reason. I’m not talking about claiming ‘good cause’, as there are mechanisms for that.
Grandparents take in their grandchildren, and qualify for extra benefits, and they are not required to file against the parent. Aunts and uncles can do the same thing.
Having children is a ‘get it for free’ ploy, and children are often used as cash cows not only by the actual parents, but by relatives as well.
Currently there is very little penalty for people who refuse or voluntarily terminate employment.
I can understand that in bad times finding work may be hard, but it seems to me that once work has been found, it is reasonable to expect a person to be inconvenienced in order to retain employment.
Two parents can both quit their jobs to take care of their only child, and benefits are increased.
It seems that for poor people, it is unreasonable to expect one parent or the other to provide child care, while the other works.
Many programs do not count against other benefits.
For example: Two families both get food stamps, everything is the same, EXCEPT, one gets free housing, the other pays $500/mo rent. Food Stamps and medical assistance benefits will be the same, the free renter loses nothing, the family that pays $500/mo rent gains nothing.
Great gaming opportunity.
People who have no visible means of support, can live with other family members (often parents) or friends, who provide all of their needs, EXCEPT food, which is expected to be furnished by the taxpayers.
Zero income food stamps ($200 for one person) for years, repeat, years. And no one expects their enablers to have any responsibility.
I say, let the head of household apply for benefits, and include the freeloader to get food for him/her.
There are many ways to game the welfare system, but these three are at the top of my list for easy fixes.
1) Require filing for child support a requirement for all social service programs (with mmechinisms for ‘good cause’ due to abuse/threats, and then punish the abuser.
2) Have reasonable requirements for seeking and retaining employment. Lose of benefits who do not comply. In times past this was strictly enforced. Now, for some reason, retaining employment is less important. I don’t get it.
3)If others provide your soap, toilet paper, bad habit needs, transportation, bedding, roof, heat, let them provide your food, or apply for benefits for the complete household. In times past this was common and strictly enforced.
~ ~ ~
Many people are perfectly comfortable being poor.
They have not bought any clothing at a store in years. Handouts, and yard sales do just fine.
They have not paid for any cleaining supplies (read: shampoo, soap, toilet paper) in many years.
They have not paid any rent for years.
They have not worked for hire in many years. Truthfully, most of them have hired themseves out for cash under the table, and probably earn $100 or more every month, they just don't tell social services. Yes, it's fraud, but mearly impossible to prove.
A very large percentage of the caseload for social srvices have per capita income of less than $500/mo, $6000/year, $24k for a family of 4.
And they have determined that they are comfortable enough, so that work is not necessary.
They made that decision, not me.
When I say they are comfortable, that in no way implies I would be comfortable. Maybe that's why I work.
If they are not comfortable, let them flip burgers.
There is certainly less honorable employment.
~ ~ ~
On the social service roles are people who have no education, but seem to always find work. They can't keep a job long, but they are not long without a job.
And then there are the ones who have been looking for years, and years, and they just cannot find work (and we do mention fast food. . .still no jobs available). |
