Do people on constant welfare/benefits contribute to society ?

[Rukentuts]

I meant it in the sense that there is a perception that having a disability means you are unable to work. This is especially more pronounced recently.

So people with major depressive disorder or autism, for example?

Some of the greatest scientists in our past generations have had some sort of handicap.

A handicap is only a handicap if it impedes your life. In terms of mental disorders they tend to be the exceptions, not the rule.

However these days claiming to have a disability means you have a guaranteed income stream from the welfare department. So there is no incentive to even try to be productive.

You might as well just hang up a sign at this point saying "All those buggers and their mental disorder diagnoses are takin' ma monay!"; because that's the political dog-whistle you are responding to.

[Daelak]

The wealthy especially in the US are mostly self made and are wealthy because of their entrepreneurial spirit, innovation and have contributed to society in some way or the other.
My question is what do the people on eternal welfare contribute to society ? If they do not contribute , then should they have a say in how it runs ?

Because there was a time less than a 100 years ago where the government, and even society as whole, took the same opinion you have on the weakest and poorest of our society, and because of that we lived with death on the streets, high infant mortality, and a shitty quality of life.

It is a social contract between you and your countrymen, we have decided to take care of the poorest and weakest because we value human existence.

[Immorality]

Freeloaders do not contribute to the progression of society at all. If we would take even 1% of the money spent on these people the sheer amount of research and technology that would result would be immense. Instead, we send our money to them domestically or over to Africa, etc. "You had 14 kids with 10 of them contracting HIV from you in your shack outside of Kenya? Take some of our money and keep it up, you are helping the gene pool greatly!"

[BananaHandsB]

Freeloaders do not contribute to the progression of society at all. If we would take even 1% of the money spent on these people the sheer amount of research and technology that would result would be immense. Instead, we send our money to them domestically or over to Africa, etc. "You had 14 kids with 10 of them contracting HIV from you in your shack outside of Kenya? Take some of our money and keep it up, you are helping the gene pool greatly!"

If we took a small percent of the tax returns from major corporations utilizing loopholes to prevent tax payments we could damn near curb the defecit. But no, no, you're right, we want our votes in the hands of people who care more about personal wealth than the state of this country, end /saracasm. I think the wealthy have enough power. Being poor doesn't make you any less American, it fact in makes you part of the majority.

Do yourself a favor and lookup plutocracy, and read about how much of a joke it is in the eyes of anyone with legitimate political knowledge, because that's where this line of reasoning leads. You want to live in a world of corporate monopolies with a small percent living a glamorous lifestyle, and the poor are oppressed and forgotten? That's not the country I want to live in, but keep advocating this type of shit and one day we might make it there. There's a reason everyone was given the right to vote in the country, even though the constitution was written by a bunch of rich white men, because even they knew concentrating too much power in one sect is not a safe way to run a society.

Read about wealth inequity as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_..._United_States. Look at that graph and tell me how it makes sense to pull from that tiny sliver (bottom 40% of the population) to try and pay off our defecit, or as you stated for "research and technology". They don't have the money to give up. There's no room to take anything. We could take the sum of the entire bottom 40% of the populations wealth away from the top 1% and it wouldn't even be noticeable. The logic that taking more money from that tiny sliver can solve all our problems just displays supreme ignorance of the actual facts and numbers and dependency on the mainstream media, who....o my....happen to be large corporations, who of course want you put more power in them and less in the poor so they can keep their tax breaks and huge profits. The media corporations belong in the 1%, and despite how much I wish they honored their philosophical duty of providing just the facts, that is not their primary motivation; they are corporations motivated by profit, and in the end profit is what matters most to them, it's how they stay in business so of course they're going to sway opinion away from taxing the 1%, and unfortunately put in the helpless 40% majority controlling only .4% of the wealth. And if you're in that 40% of America and you think you're making a contribution significantly more than someone one welfare, look at that graph and think again. You may be doing a liiiiiitttlllee more, but you're impact is literally still almost nothing compared to the 1% that really run America, who I really don't think need more power, as they have proved it is used almost entirely for personal gain.

[dejaa]

Everyone contributes to society in some way, some more than others I will grant. So, where do we put the cut off point for contributing enough to society in order to be entitled to a vote? Working? Actually paying taxes? Making how much money? Owning property? Finished high school? College degree? Post-graduate studies? Once you cross that slippery slope of exclusion it is very easy to keep justifying that the next group on the bottom ought to be voted off the island of sovereign franchise.

[Venant]

Do people on welfare contribute to society

You raise the concept of society, but what do you mean by 'society'? Do you believe that the purpose of a society is to circulate fiat currency which has no real value aside from the value placed on it by said society? Say there was some remote culture where sea shells were used as currency, would you say that we should all go to the beach and stockpile sea shells?

[GreatOak]

If it were up to me, there wouldn't even be talk of tax increases on individual incomes until the loopholes were shut down for corporations. You know it's fucked up and insulting when they want to raise peoples' income taxes when corporations like GE pay negative affective tax rates. We should end that abuse before we talk about collectively taking more individuals' money because we think they don't need it.

[Theodon]

I take £53 a week to be a full time carer. If I didn't do that job then the state would be obligated to provide the funding to put the person I care for in to a care home. The care homes can charge upwards of £500-600 a week, on average.

[Deleted]

Actual abuse of benefits rarely happens. I've been on disability benefits since I finished school because of mental problems, which gives me the equivalent to about 920$ / month, have been months where I haven't had enough money to buy food when I was living on my own and either had to borrow money from friends which would set me back in money next month or to starve towards the end of the month. The plan is for me to get into working in the future, not just stay on benefits - when I gotten well enough to work. I'd rather be able to work and have a job and earn my own money than to rely on disability benefits.

If one would not be considered eligible to vote - if one was seen as being below the others in regards to be able to vote, what do you think happens?

[holyunholy]

Because there was a time less than a 100 years ago where the government, and even society as whole, took the same opinion you have on the weakest and poorest of our society, and because of that we lived with death on the streets, high infant mortality, and a shitty quality of life.

It is a social contract between you and your countrymen, we have decided to take care of the poorest and weakest because we value human existence.

In a contract people have rights and responsibilities. Simply taking advantages of all the rights without fulfilling any of the responsibilities means you have broken your part of the contract. Implicit in your assumption is the fact that the poorest and weakest are helpless. That is not generally the case. It is a question of incentive and what mode of lifestyle you choose.

[Deleted]

In a contract people have rights and responsibilities. Simply taking advantages of all the rights without fulfilling any of the responsibilities means you have broken your part of the contract. Implicit in your assumption is the fact that the poorest and weakest are helpless. That is not generally the case. It is a question of incentive and what mode of lifestyle you choose.

What incentive is there to become a "part of society" again and join the others in working if you're on disability benefits while going through rehabilitation if you're not seen as a worthy member of said society? If they don't want me, why would I want to join them? If you see my point.

[Rukentuts]

It is a question of incentive and what mode of lifestyle you choose.

Let me reiterate.

Yes. All those disabled and elderly chose to be that way. I'm sure they appreciate the sentiment.

[Lochton]

People on welfare and so called disability benefits take in more than they give back to society. Even if they are capable of some sort of work, they prefer to not work and live at the expense of taxpayers. Someone I knew on benefits spent most of his time at the horse tracks betting his allowance.
The welfare state and its abuse is extremely unfair to those who work and try to actually contribute to society. So if "welfarists" do not contribute to society should they have a say in how it runs ?

Damn Typos !

Do people on welfare contribute to society:

Option 1 Yes and they should be allowed to vote
Option 2 Yes and they should NOT be allowed to vote till they work
Option 3 No but they should be allowed to vote
Option 4 No and they should not be allowed to vote

I should ram my foot up your rear for saying the phrase I marked with bold. I am currently unable to hold what is said to be a full time job, not even part time. I didn't select this, I am not on benefits to leach on a community. I have 3 days a week where I work 2-3 hours, all of them as a volunteering member. There's no pay. I cook for a social center for mentally ill (this doesn't mean you are bound to be dire insane), I work another day at same place as an office clerk. The third day I work by doing some technician and service job, fixing peoples computers and setting up computers for people to use (i.e. at a library, school and so on).

It's not enough hours to be considered a paying job, it'll actually cost more money having me on a payment than finding a part time. And even if you are a person on welfare, you are actually paying tax on said as well. (Atleast where I live, dunno over the seas). And yes, if you live in the country, you should be allowed to vote. No matter what. Only time I would sign the paper saying that people aren't allowed to complain, is when they don't vote.

But you sir, should know. Many people on welfare doesn't always chose so. (Again, can't speak for all countries). I grow insane just by sitting home, that is why I'm out as a volunteer, to have a feeling that I actually earn something though I don't. Don't come say that people on welfare doesn't wish to do anything but suck from the tax payers.

[holyunholy]

What incentive is there to become a "part of society" again and join the others in working if you're on disability benefits while going through rehabilitation if you're not seen as a worthy member of said society? If they don't want me, why would I want to join them? If you see my point.

In this case the person going through rehabilitation has an intention to work again in the future and be a productive member of society. Temporary unemployment is a fact of the business cycle.The question I am asking is not about welfare or disability per se, but about the section of society who are on eternal welfare and benefits. I simply do not see how they contribute to society.

[Incredibale]

Lots of nonsense in this thread.

From an economic standpoint, they contribute more than wealthy that hoard.

Absolutely not. Where do you get this garbage from? And what do you mean by hoard? Saving money is hoarding when it's a rich guy doing it? I wasn't aware that saving money was supposed to have a stigma attached to it.

PS: The idea that welfare abuse is rampant is nothing more that political posturing.

P.S.S. You're full of shit. I worked with people on welfare, various benefits and disability for years. Most people who came into our office begging for help reeked of smoke, most of them had a fancy new-ish cell phone, HDTV, cable, you name it. They never had enough money to pay their subsidized utility bills but they sure were able to afford luxuries. Rare was the food stamp beneficiary who bought staple food items rather than Hungry Man dinners or junk food. And the Section 8 crap, hoo buddy.

Sorry bud, public benefits and welfare are chock full of abuse.

Because there was a time less than a 100 years ago where the government, and even society as whole, took the same opinion you have on the weakest and poorest of our society, and because of that we lived with death on the streets, high infant mortality, and a shitty quality of life.

I want some sort of evidence linking this stuff with the lack of welfare and benefits.

It is a social contract between you and your countrymen, we have decided to take care of the poorest and weakest because we value human existence.

I just checked the constitution and it says nothing about social contracts.

[Rukentuts]

I simply do not see how they contribute to society.

Their necessities, treatments, and support (caregivers) are all money that goes back into the economy.

[Immorality]

If we took a small percent of the tax returns from major corporations utilizing loopholes to prevent tax payments we could damn near curb the defecit. But no, no, you're right, we want our votes in the hands of people who care more about personal wealth than the state of this country, end /saracasm. I think the wealthy have enough power. Being poor doesn't make you any less American, it fact in makes you part of the majority.

Do yourself a favor and lookup plutocracy, and read about how much of a joke it is in the eyes of anyone with legitimate political knowledge, because that's where this line of reasoning leads. You want to live in a world of corporate monopolies with a small percent living a glamorous lifestyle, and the poor are oppressed and forgotten? That's not the country I want to live in, but keep advocating this type of shit and one day we might make it there. There's a reason everyone was given the right to vote in the country, even though the constitution was written by a bunch of rich white men, because even they knew concentrating too much power in one sect is not a safe way to run a society.

Read about wealth inequity as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_..._United_States. Look at that graph and tell me how it makes sense to pull from that tiny sliver (bottom 40% of the population) to try and pay off our defecit, or as you stated for "research and technology". They don't have the money to give up. There's no room to take anything. We could take the sum of the entire bottom 40% of the populations wealth away from the top 1% and it wouldn't even be noticeable. The logic that taking more money from that tiny sliver can solve all our problems just displays supreme ignorance of the actual facts and numbers and dependency on the mainstream media, who....o my....happen to be large corporations, who of course want you put more power in them and less in the poor so they can keep their tax breaks and huge profits. The media corporations belong in the 1%, and despite how much I wish they honored their philosophical duty of providing just the facts, that is not their primary motivation; they are corporations motivated by profit, and in the end profit is what matters most to them, it's how they stay in business so of course they're going to sway opinion away from taxing the 1%, and unfortunately put in the helpless 40% majority controlling only .4% of the wealth. And if you're in that 40% of America and you think you're making a contribution significantly more than someone one welfare, look at that graph and think again. You may be doing a liiiiiitttlllee more, but you're impact is literally still almost nothing compared to the 1% that really run America, who I really don't think need more power, as they have proved it is used almost entirely for personal gain.

I have nothing against taking away money from the greedy cheating rich people either. Having billions sitting in some offshore account is not helping society either. The poor/stupid and the greedy rich are both chipping away at the species. We need to get rid of both.

[Djuntas]

Come on OP, have a heart.

Pretty sad people think this badly about people on welfare atm. Many of them are moochers, but have there reasons to.

[Ebb]

That's a pretty ignorant statement in my opinion. Just sayin'

Voting is the cornerstone of our society and should be easy. There's also this thing called the constitution, and has a couple amendments that would like a word with you.

Voting on welfare is a conflict of interests. Dispite this fact, the constitution does provide everyone the right to vote. What I find funny is taht everyone wants the constitution changed....but only if it lines up with their firmly wrought dogma.

[Rukentuts]

Absolutely not. Where do you get this garbage from? And what do you mean by hoard? Saving money is hoarding when it's a rich guy doing it? I wasn't aware that saving money was supposed to have a stigma attached to it.

The lower and middle classes contribute more. And this is just quintiles, if we merely isolated the super rich (2%) the difference would be even more pronounced. This "garbage" is called cold hard fact buddy.