I'm intrigued by a new series of welfare restrictions in Romania.
Under the regulations introduced by the Department for Work and Pensions, any person claiming any sort of social benefit will be excluded if they declare that they own jewellery, or have more than 100 grams of precious metal, works of art, porcelain or crystal objects, fur coats or designer products.
But officials are relying on people to volunteer the information about what they have at home, meaning few are being excluded for their art collections - but in contrast gypsies who turn up with their traditional gold jewellery are being turned down.
Gypsy groups say the law is discriminatory as the gold jewellery is often handed down through the generations and is also a cultural and status symbol that they would not sell, it should be worn with pride and not hidden away.
The tough new laws also ban anyone who wants benefits from getting a payment if they are not a registered taxpayer, again ruling out many gypsies who are discriminated against in the job market and are often forced to earn income from illegal casual jobs or begging - neither of which is taxable.
There's more at the link.
I accept there are historical grounds for suspicion by Romania's gypsy population; but the basic concept of these regulations is sound, I think. If you own valuable assets, why should you be supported at taxpayer expense? Sell the assets, and use the money to support yourself! Same thing with registering as a taxpayer. If you want benefits from the state, you need to prove that you're willing to support the state with your taxes when your situation improves.
What say you, readers? Are these new regulations something that might improve the welfare system here in the USA as well? Or are they too draconian?
Peter
23 comments:
Roma Gypos are infesting Ireland. They bring prostitution, begging, stealing of semipprecious metals...Brass, copper and bronze and pickpockets (Dublin visitors beware!) to a land where the semi-innocent populace are ripe targets.
Make no mistake, the Roma gypos along with their Irish cousins (Travellers) are a serious blight on the land and the honest cirizens of the country.
Toejam
I disagree. I think your premise is wrong.
The first paragraph has the deal breaker in it under "...claiming any sort of social benefit..."
What if you just lost your job? Before you can collect unemployment you must first sell off anything of value before you can collect.
Would you be willing to do that to yourself and to your family?
irontomflint
@irontomflint: Yes, that's basically the point. If you own assets of value (we're not talking about the roof over your head, after all: the assets are specifically noted to include artworks, jewelry, furs, etc. - all luxury items), why shouldn't you be expected to sell them and use the proceeds for your living expenses? Why should the taxpayer be burdened with your expenses when you have such assets available to pay for them?
If I were to fall into such a situation (as I have in the past), I'd expect to sell (and, in the past, I have sold) my more valuable possessions to pay my bills and keep food on the table. I see nothing wrong or strange in that. Do you?
If you're living in a country, where pure capitalism reigns, and you lose your job. Well you'll sell your valuables to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. If there are religious institutions that provide charity, you can always apply to them. But I think these charitable institutions would only be accepting widows with children. Men that are capable of working, need not apply for charity, they'd be told GO GET A JOB!
Actually, if you "just lost your job", and have gold, artwork, etc that you dont want to sell, you could most likely get a loan by putting it up as security for a loan.
What you shouldn't be able to do is take money from the guy next door, because "he still has a job".
I'm scandinavian, work long hours with a job that is well paid for this country, and I am sick and tired of watching people that havent worked in years live in nicer house than I do, drive nicer cars, go on vacation abroad and have lots of free time to do what they think is more fun than working.
All the time collecting benefits that they "have a right to" because they "lost their job", and demand that taxes be raised on everyone working so they dont loose their benefits.
Why should I pay for your expenses when you clearly have the means to do so yourself?
I have a relative that went through some really tough times and turned to assistance from the government.
Being honest, they answered the questions truthfully, which led to the denial of any help.
I'm thinking the majority of the people that receive public funds do so by deception. Maybe I'm wrong, but considering the vehicles I see parked in the Section 8 housing projects, I doubt I am.
I say it's wrong to take money by force from one man to give it to another, no matter how much the other "deserves" it.
Let charity be the business of individuals and their voluntary associations.
I have a great sentimental attachment to several pieces of jewelry that have been given to me over the years. If I'm starving, well, I'll still have the memories of the pieces and of the people who gave them to me. Ditto an antique fur hat and muff and several airplane prints.
Interesting that the Rom have turned what was once a form of portable (and convertible) wealth into a cultural artifact that can't be disposed of even when in need.
LittleRed1
I think it's absolutely brilliant. A stroke of genius!
Andrew
Not a bad idea. The devil, of course, is in the details - how to detect and enforce those types of covenants. Like Jess said, I'm not convinced that everyone would be as truthful as his relative.
My particular hot-button is people receiving welfare or food stamps that have cell phones, cable TV, big screen HD TVs, and the like. The social safety net should keep a roof over someone's head and basic food on the table, but not enable them to afford luxuries. (@Erik +1)
Regardless of the exact "how," we simply have got to get entitlement programs under control before the U.S. ends up lie the PIIGS.
And while I'm at it, let's change the name. "Entitlement" program my rosy red ass - they're not "entitled" to anything. It's welfare, plain and simple.
See what you started, Peter... :-)
In reply to Peter;
My reasoning is based on the way the tax loopholes are in America.
Why should I have to sell my belongings before I could get my unemployment benefits?
The Government allows corporations to declare bankruptcy and stay open, so they don't have to sell off their assets to get Federal aid, why do we?
Furthermore, why do the businesses get to take fuel expenses as a deduction when we can't? Why are we subsidizing businesses? Can't they pay their way?
And why are we allowing people who give their money away to then deduct it? If they want to give their money away that is up to them but why should we subsidize their generosity?
So do you see how many hurdles there are before us? Just think, congressman John Kerry paid NO Federal income tax last year, how about you?
@irontomflint: You're bringing up many different issues and throwing them all in the same pot.
1)Why should I have to sell my belongings before I could get my unemployment benefits?
Because some of those belongings are worth serious money (big screen tv, cell phones, etc) and indicate that you have money available to spend on things that are luxury items, not necessities. Before you should be eligible for .gov assistance, you should have to show that you have met the criteria of not having money to spend on luxury items. And if you have already spent money obtaining luxury items, then you have "money", just not cash. So, convert it back to cash, pay down debts, and buy necessities. Or seek help from some other place than the .gov.
2)The Government allows corporations to declare bankruptcy and stay open, so they don't have to sell off their assets to get Federal aid, why do we?
Actually, in some cases they do have to sell off their assets, or risk having a declared bankruptcy refused, and their assets forfeited and seized and auctioned to pay their debts. Also, keep in mind that businesses employ other people, allowing them to pay taxes, and for the business to pay taxes. The .gov has a legitimate dog in the fight to keep a business in business, as it keeps people employed and paying money to the .gov. Also, bankruptcy is not a cure-all, and often hurts a business more than you can imagine, but it is preferable to shutting the doors altogether.
3)Furthermore, why do the businesses get to take fuel expenses as a deduction when we can't?
It depends upon the job you have. Some jobs require driving, and can claim fuel, tolls, mileage, wear and tear/maintenance costs, etc. Not every company gets to declare fuel as a tax deduction.
4)Why are we subsidizing businesses? Can't they pay their way?
As I said before, businesses employ people. Those people pay taxes. The company also pays taxes (both in payroll taxes, FICA, Medicaid/Medicare, SS, etc and in corporate taxes on profits). Those businesses are likely supported by other businesses, and support other businesses (they have to buy toilet paper, and office supplies etc), so when businesses fail, it hurts all around. The more businesses there are, the better for the economy. The better the economy, the more money exchanging hands, and more taxes being collected.
That said, sometimes a business is that bad, or simply is offering products that are substandard, or simply not what the people want. And those businesses can and will fail. Solyndra for example.
But let's not confuse the issue of corporate welfare with bankruptcy. They are not the same. Bankruptcy can be a legitimate step in reorganizing your financial house, whereas corporate welfare is .gov assistance to continue possible bad business practices. In either case, the .gov ought to be doing it as little as possible, but they do have a reason for doing both. Maybe not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless. Both can be helpful, both can be abused. I don't think any of us would argue that we'd like to see the abuse completely stamped out.
continued below
part2
5)And why are we allowing people who give their money away to then deduct it? If they want to give their money away that is up to them but why should we subsidize their generosity?
Because we as a nation want people to give money to charities, enabling those charities to do good things that the .gov should not be doing, but might want to happen. People need assistance from time to time. They might need financial assistance, or food, or less expensive (but slightly used) clothes. Charities that do those things need people to be generous and donate. .Gov wants people to donate so that those charities can assist people (and thereby getting people back on their feet, and earning money and paying taxes). .Gov can get people to donate money by allowing them to take deductions on their taxes. Basically, taxes are increased on things we want less of, and reduced (or deductions are allowed) for things of which we want more.
6)Just think, congressman John Kerry paid NO Federal income tax last year, how about you?
I don't know what John Kerry paid in taxes, do you? I also don't know how his personal wealth and earnings (or losses) would affect his tax liability in connection with his salary as a member of Congress.
While I have my dislike of the man for his political affiliation and decisions, I don't think his perceived ability to escape federal income tax is in any way relevant. If his income is such that he earns x amount, but he loses money elsewhere (on business ventures, or has losses in property value, etc) then the tax code makes those allowances, and he'd be a fool not to take them. Do you not take every deduction you can on your taxes? Are you some kind of martyr that you purposefully pay more than you should or more than you owe on your taxes? Why should he?
Don't take this to mean that I think our current tax code (at fifty kabillion pages long) is fair or perfect. Just the opposite, I would like to see a better tax system, one where you are taxed entirely on consumption, with deductions (or rebates) for those under certain income/wealth levels. If you earn 50K a year, you actually take in 50K. If you spend 40K, then you paid taxes (because you bought stuff). If you earned less than the "poverty" level, then you would get some or most (or all) of it back in rebate.
Only your state should have the legal authority to tax your income.
WOW! Just...wow.
It is amazing how people will decide to stop individuals from receiving Government help, but will do whatever it takes to justify giving our tax dollars to corporate welfare.
I'm a tool&die maker. I have approx. 10K invested in the tools I need for my trade. But your saying that I have to sell them before I can get unemployment, rendering me unable to find another job because I no longer have the required tools to do the work. The same would apply to carpenters, plumbers, etc..
Now tell me this; how much did General Motors sell before the Government went and bailed them out, with our tax dollars?
Now, look at Honda, investing in another manufacturing plant in Ohio because they make quality products. How many new plant openings has G.M. created with the bailout money?
Oh, yeah,
Again I say; If you want to give your money away that is fine and dandy. Why should you be subsidized with a tax write off for giving to what you consider the greatest thing since sliced bread? Yet while many others that object to your choice do not? They are denied any write off and are in fact subsidizing your donation to things that they may find morally wrong.
You are correct when you said that we are a nation of givers, we Americans are among the biggest givers in the world, but why should we be treated better better than those who choose not to or cannot give to these charities? What if I choose to give to a charity that the Government doesn't condone? Why then would I be denied the right to deduct? Did I not give my money away?
You justify that by saying THE GOVERNMENT wants it done, but can't spend the money, so instead it will repay you by letting you have a write off for being a Good Joe? But only to charities it finds acceptable?
Do you see the problems I'm trying to bring up? I don't like welfare cheats and I don't like tax cheats. But before we can do anything about them we need to make major changes in our tax codes, corporate law and make meaningful welfare reform.
"But your saying that I have to sell them before I can get unemployment, rendering me unable to find another job because I no longer have the required tools to do the work. The same would apply to carpenters, plumbers, etc"
Where did I say that? Those would not be considered LUXURY items. Your 70" flat screen (assuming you have one), however, would be.
Items that one uses for work (carpentry tools for a carpenter, plumbing tools for a plumber, a work truck for either) wouldn't fit into that category.
The idea (as I understand it) is to get those who have made consistently poor financial decisions that led to their being in need of assistance to see that they have hard choices that need to be made (sell off luxury items) in order to receive assistance. After all, if they get to keep making poor choices and they get to keep the luxury items and they get assistance, what's going happen? They'll be needing assistance again and again and again.
I'm not defending the bailouts, as I totally disagreed with them. (perhaps you missed the entire last paragraph of my first response)
I was merely illustrating the .gov's reasoning for doing them.
Personally, I'm against .gov welfare in principle, but I understand and even somewhat sympathize with their position. Letting GM fail means people put out of work, which in turn means no tax money from both the employer and the employee.
GM should never have taken the money, but the .gov should never have offered it in the first place.
"...Yet while many others that object to your choice do not? They are denied any write off and are in fact subsidizing your donation to things that they may find morally wrong."
Can you give a specific example? I am not aware of any specific situations where that happens, so please enlighten me.
"Do you see the problems I'm trying to bring up?"
Sort of, but there are literally thousands of legitimate charities and non-profits that one can donate money to, and all of them are tax deductible, so I am looking for a specific example of a charity/non-profit that you would think one should be able to donate to, that doesn't qualify for a tax deduction.
Giving your money away isn't the goal that the .gov is trying to achieve; giving your money to charities that help others is the goal.
Hello again! First off Shrimp, I'm gonna steal your “.gov” it's easier to type;)
I agree that using my work tools was a poor choice. Looking back it would be like selling ones college diploma. But my intention is basd in residual value in a product. If you consider the markup in jewery, audio/video and computer equipment you may see my point.
A prime example of poor financial decisions is that freaking “gold” buffalo coin that is always on TV. It's like $20 or whatever. When you figure its value out, the total amount of gold comes out to only 61 cents! Tweny bucks is 38.8 times the coins melt value. That means 35 pre-1982 copper pennies are worth more than the “gold” buffalo coin.
Remenber when Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros. Went belly up? Tens of thousands of people were employed by these companies. There were other investment firms that were just as bad or worse off, but .gov bailed them out and let bear Sterns and Lehmans fold because the ones they bailed out held the paper for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So much for saving jobs. (see the movie “Margin Call”)
If I give money to the NRA to be used to lobby Congress , I cannot deduct the amount from my taxes. If someone else gives money to the Catholic Church they can deduct the amount from their taxes. Been following the newas lately? The Catolic Church is in an uproar because .gov has a new law that says The Church must provide birth control to its employees. The Cardinals are in a tizzy because it is against the faith of The Church to do such a thing and they are letting any and all who will hear that they are NOT pleased. Now here is the rub; That means Catholic Church is lobbying so that they can be excluded from this. The person that gave the money to the Church is supporting the lobbying and can still deduct the amount from their taxes. But the money I gave to the NRA for the very same thing cannot be deducted. How is this fair?
Giving your money to .gov approved charities IS the ultimate goal of .gov! Again it will give you your money (taxes) back if you give to charities that .gov approves of. It rewards you by giving you money that you earned because you gave some of the money that you earned to charities that it wants you to support. But if you give your money to a homeless person, your on your own...
It's okay. I stole it from Tam, I think.
As to BSLehman, that was a raw deal form the get go. And cronyism is definitely the problem there.
The NRA isn't a charity, or a religion (except maybe to the anti-gun crowd, who probably would view it as such).
While I agree with most of what the NRA does and lobbies congress to pass, they are not a charity helping feed and clothe those in need. The Catholic church, and most if not all other religions do provide those kind of services through their charity works.
The fact that they lobby congress for things they want is irrelevant.
I lobby congress for things I want.
I also help by donating food, clothing and other things to the poor. However, I am not a charity, so if anyone gives me money, they cannot claim tax deductions for that, just as if they gave money straight to a homeless guy at an intersection.
And I'm fine with that. Again, charity work is important. Charities help those in need of assistance. And they do it better than any .gov agency ever will. .Gov wants people to donate to those kinds of things, so it rewards people in the tax code for doing it.
That said, people will still donate to things they feel are important whether they get money back from the .gov or not, and charities will continue to help people in need whether they are a tax deductible charity or not.
Hiya! Back again!
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)
Well, there were no firearms in them days but His word is pretty impressive about the need to keep and bear arms...
We all lobby .gov for what we want or believe, even if only through voting.
As I said previously, we as Americans are among the most charitable people ever to walk this earth.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
-Inscription on the Staue of Liberty
I agree, giving to charities is a very important part of our National Identity as Americans. I just cannot in any way shape or form we should be rewarded through tax deductions. To lead you to a far better man than me that had made it abundantly clear why it is wrong for .gov to be involved in subsidizing charity look to
http://pointsouth.com/csanet/greatmen/crockett/crocket2.htm
in it Davy Crokett explains why it is wrong for .gov to be involved in charitable work.
I totally agree that .gov should not be doing or involved in charity. I believe that was what started all of this, in fact-- a .gov welfare program was instituting new restrictions on welfare. In essence, they were weaning people off of welfare, or at least they were making welfare a little harder to get by increasing the restrictions. That's a perfectly wise thing for any ".gov welfare" agency to be doing.
As to being rewarded through tax deductions, you do realize that the amount one is allowed to deduct is limited, and the amount that affects their tax liability (the amount they will owe, after all deductions are made) is generally a lot less than they gave.
An example: If you gave $1000 to a charity, and you are in the 25% tax bracket, your $1000 dollars only reduces your tax liability by $250, at most.
While the $250 off the tax bill is nice, it isn't a money maker, so to speak. The same thinking can be applied to child tax credits. While having a child can reduce your tax liability, it would be stupid to have a child just to get the tax credit, because the cost of getting that tax credit is far more than one would receive. And, again, the .gov has reasons to encourage this behavior, and so they do.
Under our current tax code (which I don't see going away anytime soon), I have no issues with it. I would, however, like to see our current tax code eliminated.
And I'm back!
I am glad we have found common ground in this discussion!
The tightening of the welfare-as-a-way-of-life purse strings is long overdue!
I don't begrudge people that need a helping hand, I've been in the unemployment lines twice in my life. The first time was in the very early Eighties. I was stuck on the dole for almost a year before finding work. The next time was just a few years ago when the company I worked for decided to shut down four of the plants (that I know of) under the corporate umbrella. Luckily I found a job PDQ and re-paid the unemployment office the one check they had sent.
But back to the tightening...as we agree it would be tremendous if .gov got out of the charity business. Imagine how much money is wasted through the failed programs that could be put to better use.
.gov needs to cut back the amount of taxes that it withholds from us. Not just welfare, but also unemployment and the freaking bailouts. After seeing how .gov wasted Social Security, the Federal Bank debacle, watching individual States running out of money because of the bloated infrastructure and cities falling into default only shows us that .gov has lost the forsight and will to be good stewards with our tax dollars.
If .gov makes it harder to receive assistance, it will save money because it will be eliminating the cheats.So now the only question is...will .gov lower our taxes because it has a surplus or add another bloated dead horse( TSA, BATF, FEMA ) to the payroll?
We will always have the poor, sick and home less. It has been that way since the beginning of time. It is up to us to help them even if it means helping them help themselves.
Real quick, I am listing an article in the LA Times that was just put up a couple days ago. Talk about timing, eh?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barry-religion-20120205,0,3487349.story
Post a Comment