safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 26, 2011 14:27:19 GMT -5
I'll just point out that the "female employee" is behaving rationally. People, particularly those living on the margin [regardless of whose fault it is] have to play with the cards they are dealt. My view is that government policy creates situations such as the one you describe, but I've never seen any success in getting any of these policies generally improved ~ although a little was done during the Clinton Administration at the urging of the Republican Congress and the Contract with America. About the best we can do [imho] is drag our feet as we are dragged down the Road to Serfdom.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 26, 2011 14:30:34 GMT -5
Gotta fix the system where welfare tapers off in a way that doesn't hurt the recipient. What good would it be for someone (usually working a low pay no benefit job) to work a few more hours and take a giant loss in assistance- it doesn't make economic sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 19:25:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 14:30:50 GMT -5
The earned income credit is supposed to help this issue.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 26, 2011 14:33:33 GMT -5
The system sucks, doesn't it.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Jul 26, 2011 14:34:31 GMT -5
It is a very hard situation for this lady if she recieves daycare assistance she may not be able to afford more hours given her daycare would be cut off probably not qualified for other assistance if working. she may have to choose to pay daycare to be able to work or feed and house her children. Before you flame this is a VERY real situation many woman are in..so honestly what would you do? If you don't know how expensive daycare and how little income before you do not qualify I suggest doing some research. So easy to judge when you do not wear the shoes or even know the details.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 19:25:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 14:34:59 GMT -5
The system sucks, doesn't it. Yes, but only because people suck.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 26, 2011 14:37:44 GMT -5
I would have SIL call the county DFACS office and advise the administrator of the situation.
I have an employee that refuses to work the amount of hours that are needed because if she goes over she looses her benefits, how would you have me deal with her, allow her to continue milking the system or fire her when she refuses to work what I have scheduled for her?
Place the ball in the appropriate court.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 26, 2011 15:02:42 GMT -5
Throwing the employee under the bus won't fix anything. The people running these programs can't do anything either- the same happens with disability benefits- people will work just enough hours to stay under sga- and they are allowed to do that. The law has to change.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 26, 2011 15:26:59 GMT -5
Throwing the employee under the bus won't fix anything. The people running these programs can't do anything either- the same happens with disability benefits- people will work just enough hours to stay under sga- and they are allowed to do that. The law has to change. Excuse, excuse, pardon, excuse.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 26, 2011 15:32:32 GMT -5
Many welfare programs need to be seriously reformed. You should never end up further behind by working more. No one can blame a person who doesn't want to earn an extra $10 if that extra $10 is going to cost them $100 or more. I know unemployment in my state as well as daycare assistance both have cutoffs that make it so a person working a little extra could easily not make any extra money or even lose money.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Jul 26, 2011 15:38:05 GMT -5
"Many welfare programs need to be seriously reformed. You should never end up further behind by working more. No one can blame a person who doesn't want to earn an extra $10 if that extra $10 is going to cost them $100 or more. I know unemployment in my state as well as daycare assistance both have cutoffs that make it so a person working a little extra could easily not make any extra money or even lose money."
I was in this situation while seperated for over a year. I was only getting childcare assistance and right on the edge of being over income limit any bonus at work for like $100 would have cost me about $1000 in lost daycare assistance. What would my choices be then not pay rent to keep working or ask to not recieve the bonus...again all those that obviously do not understand the hard choices people have to make what would you do?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 26, 2011 15:40:18 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 26, 2011 16:00:56 GMT -5
Why not set it up so that the welfare matches a percentage of what the employee makes? Then the employee with be encouraged to earn more. Would this work? Maybe not. This is similar to what EITC does. It actually increases up to a certain income, then decreases at a rate of something like for every $50 extra income, you lose $5 in EITC. There is never a point where you will come out behind by working more.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Jul 26, 2011 16:19:37 GMT -5
A similiar situation exists with Section 8 housing. If the tenant makes too much money, they have to pay to stay. If they don't make any money, then the gov pays all the rent.
Likewise, if they get married, they lose their certificate, etc.
These gov. programs have created an underclass. The get enough to live in poverty, too little to thrive, too much to strive to escape the poverty.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jul 26, 2011 16:27:38 GMT -5
Same thing with SSI. Work and make too much money, and your benefits are reduced.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 26, 2011 16:35:27 GMT -5
Why not set it up so that the welfare matches a percentage of what the employee makes? Then the employee with be encouraged to earn more. Would this work? Maybe not. This is similar to what EITC does. It actually increases up to a certain income, then decreases at a rate of something like for every $50 extra income, you lose $5 in EITC. There is never a point where you will come out behind by working more. ...I'd have to disagree here... if benefits reduce with increased income, then you "come out behind" by "working more" ...and I've met plenty of people who cap their work hours to maintain benefits, such as the lady described in the OP...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 26, 2011 16:41:21 GMT -5
This is similar to what EITC does. It actually increases up to a certain income, then decreases at a rate of something like for every $50 extra income, you lose $5 in EITC. There is never a point where you will come out behind by working more. I didn't know this. Yeah, whether or not you agree with the program at least it doesn't create incentive not to work. Whereas unemployment in my state doesn't provide much incentive at all to work. I believe you can earn $100/wk without reducing your unemployment, but after that for every $1 you earn your unemployment drops by $1. So if I take home $450/wk in unemployment, then I can work for an extra $100 & make my total income $550. However all work giving me an income between $100 - $550 will ultimately result in me having still only having $550 at the end of the week. Not much incentive to work beyond the $100 unless you can make significantly more than the $550. The daycare credits were even worse. At a certain income you lose eligibility in the program & your daycare costs could skyrocket well beyond what extra income you earned. In that situation you could easily come out behind by taking extra work. I remember a while back I went through all the numbers & realized that between the daycare subsidies, WIC, & EITC, I could actually earn 20K less & not come out behind where I am now. That last 20K each year essentially doesn't get me anywhere in life. They have since changed the eligibilty point & I would have to earn 30K less to be eligible for daycare help though. I felt really bad for people that fell in that gap who used to be eligible for the program & weren't under the changed guidelines - they could easily find their daycare costs increasing $900/month for 2 kids without any increase in income.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 26, 2011 16:43:15 GMT -5
This is similar to what EITC does. It actually increases up to a certain income, then decreases at a rate of something like for every $50 extra income, you lose $5 in EITC. There is never a point where you will come out behind by working more. ...I'd have to disagree here... if benefits reduce with increased income, then you "come out behind" by "working more" ...and I've met plenty of people who cap their work hours to maintain benefits, such as the lady described in the OP... I am only referring to EITC when I way you won't come out behind by working more. If I earn an extra $50 & lose $5 in EITC, then I am still $45 ahead. Many other programs do cause you to come out behind by working more - like the daycare subsidies in my state that I spoke of in the earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 26, 2011 16:48:06 GMT -5
...I'd have to disagree here... if benefits reduce with increased income, then you "come out behind" by "working more" ...and I've met plenty of people who cap their work hours to maintain benefits, such as the lady described in the OP... I am only referring to EITC when I way you won't come out behind by working more. If I earn an extra $50 & lose $5 in EITC, then I am still $45 ahead. Many other programs do cause you to come out behind by working more - like the daycare subsidies in my state that I spoke of in the earlier post. ...and I know people who stop working at the point that benefits begin to reduce... that extra $45 is no longer an incentive... the provided carrot far outshines the earned one... ...and yeah, I know...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 19:25:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 18:52:13 GMT -5
Lonewolf your SIL screwed up. She should have offered to pay the employee under the table. That's the "normal" thing to do around here.
|
|