[Adapted from a Facebook note I wrote]
I’ve noticed lately that a lot of my Facebook friends have been praising the recently-passed Florida law that requires people seeking welfare to first submit to a drug test. I think they’re wrong, and I wanted to summarize just why, using some points made (by me and a few others) on various discussion threads on the topic.
First and foremost, there’s the privacy/rights issue. The constitution prohibits the government from engaging in “unreasonable” searches. If unconditionally requiring an entire class of people to subject themselves to a test doesn’t constitute an unreasonable search, I’m not sure I know what does.
In this country, we’re supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Florida law presumes that everyone in need of assistance is guilty, and requires them to prove their innocence. I’m frankly stunned that so many people are okay with that. What would the reaction be if Florida had required drug testing as a condition of renewing your driver’s license? I suspect it would be outrage, and rightly so. But since there are public safety issues involved with driving on public roads, you could actually make a better case for the state’s interest in making sure drug users are barred from getting driver’s licenses than you can for barring them from receiving public assistance.
The way I see it, if you want to deny assistance to people caught with drugs, fine. If you want to require people with a documented history of drug abuse to take drug tests as a condition of their receiving assistance, that’s fine too. But requiring it unconditionally, irrespective of past history? Sorry, that’s a bridge too far. Being poor and in need of assistance is not a crime, nor should it be. Treating all of the poor like criminals as a condition of giving them assistance is simply not acceptable.
The other concern here is the practical one. What exactly is this law supposed to accomplish? It certainly can’t be about saving money, as the agencies responsible for enforcing the rules estimate that the cost of testing and enforcement will outweigh any savings that might be gained from denying assistance to those who would otherwise get it in the absence of the law. And if you think cutting drug users off from public assistance will stop them from being drug users, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. So what, then, is its purpose? What’s the greater good that it’s going to serve? To borrow an expression from SayUncle, it’s what Florida is doing instead of something.
Here’s where the cynic in me comes out. I think what drives a lot of people’s support for this is the sense that there’s something wrong with being on or needing welfare. I mean, they perceive it as morally and ethically wrong, rather than just being unfortunate and less-than-ideal. And because it’s “wrong,” it’s okay to treat the people who are doing it like minor criminals. In fact, I bet a lot of Florida law supporters who read this had an immediate reaction along the lines of “that’s different!” when I brought up the driver’s license example. Why is it different? Because there’s nothing wrong with getting a driver’s license! The implication, of course, is that there is something wrong with being on welfare.
Discuss.
Judd
Kevin
Kevin T. Keith
leanleft
tgirsch
It should go without saying that I agree, TG. It’s racism and classism. Why would people protest about taking drug tests to renew driving privileges (a precise analogy I’ve made before, but not here)? Because everybody has to do it – me, included.
I mean, a related question would be why is ok for Staples to drug some teenager before hiring him/her, but nobody presumes Lockheed Martin should drug test a candidate for CFO before hiring him (notice I didn’t add the “/her” here because politically correct writing takes a backseat to the reality that women don’t actually get hired for these kinds of jobs)?
I guess, here might be the counterpoint, if we don’t prevent places like Staples from drug testing their potential employees, why should we prevent assistance programs from testing. Basically, if you’re poor, uneducated and likely brown, you have to get drug tested to gain benefits associated with employment, so why shouldn’t you have to get drug tested to gain benefits associated with un/underemployment? Of course, the problem with this argument is that is assumes that it’s okay for Staples to assume you’re guilty.until proven innocent.
Not to derail the thread here, but something to think about in light of how the average American perceives the American poor – as ardent a proponent of living wages, unions, etc. as I am, the dwindling American middle class will be phased out as the natural order of things as globalization continues and emerging economies really pick up. Technology dictates that it is easier to establish companies, manage them, and work for them remotely, and that more human jobs will be performed by machine. Americans who have to work with their hands vs. their brains will not be able to support themselves and a family in the future, in the macro picture – regardless of unions, etc. Our economy is going to have to either a)remove all kinds of protections and force Americans to compete with Indians for wages the Indians would accept, or b)figure out other ways to use the non-elite brains. This means that it would be wise for those who really harshly judge the poor to start understanding these concepts through the prism of geopolitics and macroeconomics as opposed to Puritanical morality and Horatio Alger myths, because this group you so vigorously deride is one to which you and/or your children may belong in a generation or two. The real question isn’t about individuals though, it’s about how this change is going to fundamentally alter the understandings of poverty and unemployment on a societal level.
…Just more reason that we need to dumping resources into finding out what it actually is that people who play video games are actually getting so good at. As I heard somebody mention in a TED talk recently we may be sitting on a goldmine of human resource of skills our culture has acquired from gaming, if we can only figure out what those skills are.
“I mean, a related question would be why is ok for Staples to drug some teenager before hiring him/her, but nobody presumes Lockheed Martin should drug test a candidate for CFO before hiring him … if we don’t prevent places like Staples from drug testing their potential employees, why should we prevent assistance programs from testing”
In both of the first two cases, they’re in the private sector, so they can do whatever the hell they want. Not saying that’s right or wrong, but it’s definitely different when it’s the government requiring such things. The constitution prohibits the government from unreasonable searches, but is silent on what private entities can and cannot do. Again, I’m not saying that’s how it ought to be, but that much is black-letter law.
As legit as it is, I don’t think the people who support the gov’t drug testing program give a whole lot of credence to that distinction, when they talk about whether it is “right.” So, I’ll ignore it when I talk about it being “wrong.” Something isn’t wrong or right becase a gov’t vs. a private corporation does it. IMO, it’s wrong in all cases. There may be different legal standards governing the two entities, and therefore one could argue that it could stand up as legal for one entitity but illegal for the other, but that’s a different matter than whether it is right or wrong. Regardless of the legal standing of mandatory drug testing as a precondition of working at Staples or receiving welfare, I think it is wrong.
…I mean, drug possession (a precondition of drug use) is a crime, but really they’re treating it as a moral issue, so why stop there? There are lots of things that fall into the small crime but essentially moral issue Venn Diagram – why not check to see if prospective recipeints of benefits or job pirate music?
tgirsch wrote;
“If unconditionally requiring an entire class of people to subject themselves to a test doesn’t constitute an unreasonable search, I’m not sure I know what does”
BUT, it’s okay for the other people to be “unconditionally” and forceably required to hand out tons of money that DOES support drug abuse through Welfare from their paychecks?
Sorry, double standard. You are saying it’s OK to REQUIRE people to pay for the “so-called” disadvantaged WITHOUT installing any mechanism to ENSURE that it DOES go to the disadvantaged and ONLY the disadvantaged.
You are either naive or, like taking advantage of other people or, have family who are illegal drug users also on Welfare who think there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of other people who happen to work or, work in the Welfare system and are afraid funding will be cut.
But maybe you’re just an illegal drug user who sees this a some phantom “slippery slope”?
Either way you are hostile to those who work hard and don’t look for handouts as you think they be forced to give their money without asking questions.
Entirely criminal point of view.
I fully agree with EVERYONE having to drug test to gain welfare benefits. I had to pass a drug test in order to get a job where my taxes go to that welfare system to support people who would rather be stoned then work and contribute to society. Those who are complaining are either on drugs themselves or has a family member that is on welfare that they do not wish to take care of once they get caught and kicked off of the system……and I think once you fail the test….your off of it forever, in every state so people cant move to another state to get those benefits…..
I only see this law affecting marijuana smokers. Marijuana can take up to a month to get out of your system. Therefore, if someone smokes “ONE” harmless joint, they may not pass the test. BUT, the folks who do meth, crack, coke, or take pil…ls not prescribed to them, etc. can abuse for three weeks out of the month and STILL PASS, and receive their benefits to go out and purchase more drugs. Which defeats the purpose. It doesn’t crack down on the REAL abusers. I’ve seen this exact process happen with people on probation. They know that for three weeks they can party and on the last week “clean out.” And that will be what happens. Unless, of course, they make recipients take a test weekly. But that, too, will cost YOUR tax dollars. Either way you are going to have to pay. And I seriously doubt your taxes will go down. The HARD drug users will still benefit.
Its not a crime to be needy, and IM sure the NEEDY have no problem getting drug tested! But, the majority on welfare are not needy they are lazy! IF I have to be drug tested to work, why shouldnt they have to to receive free money! The truly needy, this will not effect at all, most of the ones that dont agree with it, probably shouldnt be on welfare in the first place! And while we are at it drug testing for licenses would be a grand idea too, however they would drive anyway! With the welfare if denied simply they cant receive it, Im sure crime rates will go up, because those in need of drugs will do what they have to to get them! So im not sure why all the contraversy! Its a good thing!
*COUGH* DUMBASS LIBTARD!
It would be SUCH A SHAME for the biggest illegal racist in this country, Oboohoo (your muslim messiah) to have his vote buying scheme back fire by having his unwilling to work minions miss out on their anti America ‘paychecks!’
Why should I work my butt off 6 days a week,When some bum can sit on his butt all day and do drugs and collect a welfare check…If you have money for drugs you shouldnt get welfare.I am a nurse and I have to take drug test.I dont mind one bit..
Obviously those of you who are not in favor of this law, have not personally been involved with mothers who constantly have babies because the more babies they have, the more food stamps they have, the lower their housing cost, the more likely they will get school paid in full (if they even care to go that route…) What’s pathetic (FOR THE POSITIVE DRUG TEST INDIVIDUALS), is the fact that these oh-so-needy people will apply for benefits, but always have money to spare for drugs/alcohol…. hmmmm! I’m completely in favor, I work full time and pay a butt load of taxes, seeing these unemployed mothers/fathers out partying without a stress in the world because the state and federal government keeps them above water, completely pisses me off
I’m drug free and work but still have my personal financial struggles, yet, I get approved for zero assistance… nice! The only sad part about this is if it is a case that involves children, they are the ones that ultimately have to pay.
Presumably welfare is a temporary need – not a lifelong entitlement- something to keep a family afloat until the adults in the household are able to find employment. Since most employers do drug testing prior to employment…. whether morally wrong or not- it’s a fact of life- if you wan’t a decent paying job- you submit to the testing and support your family. Either you want a job or not- if you want one you do what it takes – if you don’t want one- I don’t want to work to support you. I am not presuming that you are an addict – anymore than I don’t feel that my employer felt I was one when I went through testing.
My question to all of you who thinks its an invasion of privacy is then why do most employers get away with doing it, INCLUDING the military and USPS! Both of which are not in the private sector. I am all for drug testing anyone who is looking to be employed by the welfare system!
are you kidding me?? i have to get drug tested to get a job but people who get free money paid for by you and i dont? yes there are people who do spend that money on necessities but theres also a large amount who spend it on drugs. welfare is supposed to help people enhance there lives not buy drugs to make there shitty lives go away for the time being
The induividual who wrote this is a RA-TARD! and so are the individual’s who resposonded in agreence. The law being passed is not to punish those in need of public assistance, nor is it inteneded to stereo type those in need as drug abusers.
“tgirsch” (writer of the article to which I am responding) stated that:
“If you want to require people with a documented history of drug abuse to take drug tests as a condition of their receiving assistance, that’s fine too. But requiring it unconditionally, irrespective of past history? Sorry, that’s a bridge too far. Being poor and in need of assistance is not a crime, nor should it be. Treating all of the poor like criminals as a condition of giving them assistance is simply not acceptable.”
Well listen here YOU [tgirsch], when an individual applies for a job, whether is its at a fast food restaurant or a high corporate posistion, one of the requirements is to take a drug test. This does not mean that the hiring company is being “irrespective of past history” nor are they automatically accusing the indivdual of being guilty of drug abuse. They are simply making sure that the time and money they are about to invest into hiring that person, is going to be a good investment.
The intent of the law is basically to make certain that those seeking benefits are individuals who deserve a helping hand. It is to be sure that programs like TANF and Food Stamps are actually being used for needs such as food and rent, not aiding in the use of drug abuse. I come from a ghetto and I have seen those not so fortunate not only abuse drugs, but abuse the system as well. They use TANF money to purchase heroine and sell their EBT cards, with say a credit to purchase about $250 worth the food, for $50 bucks, just so they can go and score their next fix. I have seen HUD and Section 8 recipients get thier rents lowered as much as 45%, and instead of using the unit as a ligitimate home, they sell drugs out of it or turn them into establishments sex traffic. Insteading of using goverment programs for what they are intended, they are simply taking advantage of public assistance. To most drug abusers it’s a “free ride” and Florida is ready to pull the brakes on that bus. Hats off to you Florida, I hope the rest of America will soon follow.
Angelic Round
The question is whether recipeints are spending their money on raising their children, which the welfare benefits are for, or are they spending their benefits on drugs. Many people are required to submit to drug screenings before being hired as well as periodic screenings when employed by a drug-free work place. I would absolutely conceed to taking a drug test for a driver’s license, as long as everyone had to do it. I don’t think any certain person, because of appearance for instance, should have to take a drug test while the next person, just because he doesn’t have the “look” of an addict doesn’t have to. If people who are working and paying into the welfare system are required to be screened for drugs, why not those who are receiving the benefits of their labor?
Only those who have children can receive welfare (TANF) benefits…so are we saying the potential safety of the children doesn’t matter? If so, then why do we even have a Child Welfare System? If we are going to condone the use of drugs (which, in essence, we are doing here by saying it is unconstitutional for mandatory screenings on all welfare recipients… but who cares about private sector because they do what they want), then why employ Social Workers? We screen newborns to check for pos-tox. If they are, the child is removed from the mother until she undergoes treatment and tests clean. Why should we stop at newborns? Why does a 10 year old have to suffer just because his mom was clean at the time of his birth? The parenting skills and reasoning abilities of a user are not exactly top-notch.
If we can screen (just as many employers do) we may be able to stop some of the child abuse and neglect cases…thereby offsetting the price of the screening with a decrease in foster care monies and child placements.
Why not be proactive instead of reactive? Just a thought!
“Not saying that’s right or wrong, but it’s definitely different when it’s the government requiring such things. The constitution prohibits the government from unreasonable searches, but is silent on what private entities can and cannot do.”
The Government already requires regular random drug testing for a person to maintain his/her CDL license along with other licenses, and these tests are at that person’s expense. So it’s ok for the Government to require a working person to prove their innocence and submit to a drug test, but not ok for that same requirement for someone to receive financial assistance? To me this drug testing is a very good thing, and I hope to see more states adopt this.
I disagree with the comment about it being an “unreasonable search.” This is not a search that they are unfairly being subjected too, this is them asking for government assistance. They are getting free money from the government in an age where our economy is at a breaking point. I completely agree with adding extra measures to this to ensure our taxpayer dollars go to people who actually need the money for food, clothes, etc. And not because they are a lazy hazy brain that does not want to work. It’s not racism or classism, because it has nothing to do with not wanting to help the poor. It’s an extra measure to make sure the people who really need it are getting help.
The search is about taking samples from your own body. A person in this country has the right to his/her body and all it’s contents. It’s a violation of a persons most basic right of their body.
It is not a violation of a person’s most basic right. It is within their rights to apply for benefits. They also have the ultimate decision to exercise their rights and not subject “their body” to that violation, should they so choose.
Very mature to delete my comment just because it differs from your point of view.
OK FIRST OF ALL,,, WHEN YOU SEE WELFARE RECIPIENTS DRIVING AROUND IN A BRAND NEW MERCEDES BENZ SOMETHING IS WRONG,, WHEN YOU SEE PEOPLE WHO DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS AND THEY RECEIVE WELFARE SOMETHING IS WRONG,, WHEN YOU SEE DRUG ADDICTS BUYING CIGARETTES OR BOOZE WITH WELFARE SOMETHING IS WRONG, I STRONGLY AGREE IF YOU WANT OR NEED THE HELP GIVEN BY WELFARE THEN YOU SHOULD INDEED BE ABLE TO PASS A DRUG TEST,, HERE ARE REASONS WHY
1 YOU NEED TO PASS A DRUG TEST FOR A JOB,,, WHY NOT WELFARE GOVERNMENT A.K.A. OTHER TAX PAYERS MONEY
2 IF YOU NEED THE WELFARE HELP THAT’S FINE BUT IF YOU CAN BUY YOUR DRUGS OR YOUR ALCOHOL THEN YOU MUST NOT NEED IT TOO BAD
3 THIS IS AMERICA IF YOU CAN NOT SPEAK ENGLISH YOU DON’T GET AMERICAN TAXPAYERS HARD EARNED MONEY TO HELP YOU,, IN OTHER WORDS GO HOME
4 IF YOU CAN AFFORD A BRAND NEW BENZ YOU DON’T NEED WELFARE AND IF YOU GET WELFARE HOW DID YOU BUY THE BENZ YOU DONT NEED WELFARE YOU NEED PRISON
5 HAVE A HEART WELFARE IS FOR PEOPLE WHO TRULY NEED IT BECAUSE THEY ARE BARELY MAKING ENDS MEET LETS NOT ABUSE IT!!!!!!!
LETS FACE IT IF YOU NEED TO PASS A DRUG TEST FOR A JOB THEN IS THAT NOT AS YOU POSTED AN INVASION OF PRIVACY GIVEN BY YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT???????????
EVERY STATE SHOULD REQUIRE A DRUG TEST FOR ANY<<<<< GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE I AGREE WITH IT 150%
Wow, Tgirsch: did you go out wearing a “KICK ME [Online (If You're a Right-Wing Jackass)]” sign?
Anyway, apologies to all our highly select and coherent commenting cohort above. For some reason all your comments got flagged as spam. Can’t imagine why. But here you are.
KTK: No shit, hey? When I get back to a real computer, responding to all that idiotic blather is going to take some time….
I find it interesting that you’re assumed to be on drugs if you express a bare minimum of support for the Fourth Amendment. (Note that unlike using taxes to pay for welfare, arbitrary searches are actually mentioned in and prohibitted by the Constitution.)
The question is simple. The answer is also, but many lawmakers get it wrong. Bill Clinton was the first… Is it a right or a privilege? Home ownership is a privilege Mr. President! You must be able to pay for it… look at how that turned out for us. Driving a car is a privilege. Not a neccesiity of life, there are conditions, there are other means of travel.. i.e… Walk. Gaining employment at a company that has drug testing as a rule, is a privilege. You don’t have to work there! Public assistance to meet the basics of human life in this country is a right! There are far better ways to deal with drug issues that don’t violate the rights of those good citizens that just need a little help. Someone much wiser than I said ” you can judge a society by how well they care for the poor, elderly, and those in need.”
Please learn the difference between rights and privileges! While your at it, learn the difference between want and need! Once you do, this legislation will be exposed for what it is.
After that, get a heart… help those who are in need. You will be better for it, and our soceity will benefit.
ODB’s limo ride to the WIC office on MTV aside (Wu Tang is for the babies!), you don’t actually see welfare recipients driving Benzes. Matter of fact, I’ll issue a challenge to any of these commenters here – if you can find me a welfare recipient pushing an S500, I’ll give you $100 EBT gift card.
But, seriously, even though I know all of these self-righteous, thinly-veiled racist odes to a delusional Horatio Alger ethos are as intellectually fit as Andy Rooney is virile and technoligcally adept, that’s not the point at all.
The whole idea about the freeloaders, living off the sweat all you night manager’s at the Burger King drive-thru comes down to 2 main points.
1. If you paint the lifestyle of a welfare recipient as so enjoyable – just chilling out and buying Benzes, and occassionally getting high (basically Lil Wayne, minus the responsibilities going to the studio and touring and shit), then why aren’t any of you guys quitting your job to hop on the welfare line? If the situation is so kushy and enviable, why aren’t any of you lames inclined to trade places? …Are you under the delusion that if I offered a welfare recipient my job, salary, home, and life, he/she would say turn it down? How many welfare recipients do you honestly think would reject that trade offer? Maybe 1 out of 100?
2. Some people abuse the system. So,the fuck what?. Some people abuse every system. So people shoplift, but we don’t shut down Target, or subject them to background check before passing through the sanctified doors of Foot Locker. People abuse every system, and the cost of abuse and fraud are built into every system. Efforts are made to minimize them, but it is widely recognized that the systems do more good than harm, so they exist.
If for every 50 kids that the tiny fraction of 1 percent of your tax dollars prevents from starving, you also help one welfare cheat buy a dime bag or herb or a pint of Night Train, is that reason to punish the needy. If a truly needy child’s mother smokes pot, is that reason to cut that child off from the potential benefits of his family receiving welfare?
Yes, I know that I have to pay a few cents more in taxes because some dudes on welfare smoke meth and cheat the system. I don’t care, and neither should you. I also have to pay a few cents more a Best Buy because some people steal, and a few more percentage points on my interest rates on my credit card because some people commit fraud and some people default on their debts. That’s how shit works. It is not acceptable to violate people’s Constitutional rights because you get your titties in a twist about the same fucking dynamic that happens in every walk of life, because this time it might be some brown people (in your mind, even though the majority of the welfare state is white – actually, the majority of the welfare state is corporate… so, actually, the majority of the welfare state is still white) happen to get over, and get to live it up on a couple of hundred bucks a month without a job.
As for your “at my job” whinings, please see Hawkeye’s post about the differences between rights and privileges. And, once again, feel free to quit your jobs and joins that ranks of rich and fabulous welfare recipients.
Typos aside, Best. Comment. Ever.
Thanks, TG. Given that it’s such a waste of my time, it is unfortunate, but I have had much practice delivering this argument.
…Oh, and feel free to edit the typos for me.
Excuse the random thread necromancy.
It just occurred to me that there have been several claims that drug testing is a prerequisite for employment. That’s simply not true in the general case. I’ve never been drug tested in my life[*], and I’ve been employed for a decade. There are certainly jobs that do require drug testing, but they don’t they tend to be jobs at which dangerous equipment is in use? Is this just a matter of middle- and upper-class privilege?
* Apparently, I’ve been suspected of drug use at two different jobs, but that was based solely on the belief that my behavior was aberrant. And in one case I only learnt of this suspicion years later, and was informed that the company had installed a policy of testing all new hires, but somehow failed to make any attempt to test me, despite them somehow thinking of me as a cause for this now policy. They weren’t a very competent company in most respects.
Your behavior aberrant? No way.
I’ve never been drug tested for a job either. When I was like 16, I was considering at CVS, and they made it clear that drug testing was their policy. I never had fail, um, I mean buy a bottle of Golden Seal, um, I mean, take the test, because I took a job at a local mom and pop hardware store instead. …But, yeah, for the GOOD jobs I’ve had in the past and currently, I’ve never had to take a drug test.
I’d definitely say it is a matter of middle/upper clas privilege. If you remove jobs that require you to work with dangerous equipment, or matters of direct life and death – you can certainly kill somebody less directly in a white collar job – I’d say that most of the jobs that drug test are primarily low-wage jobs largely performed by the young, old, and uneducated – like stocking tampons at CVS, for example.
digglahhh you wanna know why i don’t recieve any welfare? because im $110 over the income limit!! the funny thing is all my money goes to my family needs ie. rent, heat, electricity, food, car insurance… im not even qualified to recieve masshealth and now that it is LAW to have health insurance i get fined on my taxes… communism at its finest.. instead of protesting a great law why not protest something that ACTUALLY invades one of our civil rights… how are they going to make it a law that health insurance is required otherwise if your a taxpayer you get penalized???? and one more thing i know i dont use all your big fancy words to make it sound smarter but another reason a drug test shouldn’t be an issue for welfare recipients is and i may have already stated but if you can afford to buy your illegal substance then you can afford to buy food etc.. i have a feeling about you, your one of them liberal wanna sound smart thing your smarter then everyone else kind of guys that probably agree with raising our nations debt ceiling am i right? oh and idk who your comment was about but im no manager at a burger king restauraunt which thats another thing i can tell about you.. you must have some fancy job so your shit doesn’t stink am i right? exactly get out of your million dollar home come rough it out and see what i see, come on down to a welfare office in a local city where i live….. racist’s you say no i just see the truth that not only I see but hundreds of thousands of other american’s see but most are either too afraid to say or do something about it.. well im past the point i am going to start doing something about it… oh one last thing,, come to the projects around the corner from me ill bet you my bottom dollar which aint much youll find 2 2010 s500 benz’s in there and a 2009 bmw 745… all 3 of the ppl i know for a fact do not work, get housing paid, on welfare and getting food stamps so try again and tell me ppl don’t drive them cars on welfare cuz like i said i live in the city not in a million dollar home i see what politicians ignore and could give a damn less about!!!! obama campaign was about change right?? well… change… is coming… sooner then people think…
First, let’s start out where we agree. Screw Obama.
You dislike him because you think he’s a commie loon. That’s patently false, but I dislike him too, because in actuality and policy record, he’s a conservative Republican.
Secondly, I’ve spent more than my fair share of time in the projects. Since 1996, it’s probaby a fair bet to say I’ve spent more time in Queensbridge than Nas has. (Bonus points that means anything to you, but I’m hoping you’ll at least take me at my word). So, you can squash that limosine liberal assumption right there. I live in “the city” too, my dude. ..You repping “The Dot?”
Third, what is your comment about making $110 over the limit supposed to mean? Are we supposed to be sympathetic? Look, the same dynamic exists in every tax bracket, plently of people get “raises” only to their actual take-home pay increase. This happens when you are on the bubble, on the fringe of an income distinction. It sucks, but what exactly are we supposed to do about it. A child born on Sept 30 is going to be a year ahead of a kid born Oct 2 in the (NYC) school system. Somebody who makes $1 more than the minimum for a tax bracket might take home less than somebody who makes the most possible money from the bracket below. This is how arbitrary cut offs work – a line has to be drawn somewhere, and wherever you draw it, some people are going to make out for the better and others are going to get screwed.
Most likely, the cut off for assistance is too low (it is most places) and it should be revised to make you eligible for some benefits. …The thing is the wealthy class, the policymakers, and American Dream myth peddlers create policy and further culture that pits the working poor and against those on public assistance. As long as the 20th percentile is fighting with the 5th percentile, claiming the 5th percentile gets too much for too little, neither of you focus enough on the fact that the 95th percentile gets WAY too much for way too little. The truth is, “the state” most likely needs to be doing more for BOTH you AND the residents of the PJs around the corner. …It’s gonna cost more to house them in prison than it would to keep them out and turn them into contributing members of society who grow our economy, contribute to national revenue by paying taxes, etc.
That’s why I made the flippant Burger King manager statement. I’m not rollng in cash, but I make enough that I don’t feel economic tension and resentment toward those subsisting on public assistance. If you’re closer to the bubble, you’re more likely to feel that way – but you’re focusing your energy on the wrong thing. Public assistance is such a tiny fraction of our budget that welfare abuse is NOT a national economic issue of any significance. Don’t focus on why you have to work so much harder than the welfare recipeint to do only slightly better, focus on why the economic stagnation of both people like you and people like him is so systematically engrained. You’re identifying with the wrong people – you’re more like the guy in the projects than the dudes making the policies,and just as relevant to them.
Fourth, the healthcare system is absurd; I agree with you there too, actually. I think this is a horrible set up. I’m sure we’d differ immensely on what we’d do to fix it (you speak of civil rights; healthcare is considered a civil right in nearly every society in the world except ours), but you won’t find me defending the system. Our country pays twice as much per capita as the next highest spending country for healthcare, all to achieve what has determined by WHO to be the 37th best aggregate health outcomes – slightly worse than Costa Rica, and slightly better than Slovenia. You know what that is – that would be like if the New York Yankees increased their payroll by $100M and then went on to win 86 games every season! That’s our healthcare system, a $300M payroll non-playoff team.
Fifth, just dead the nonsense about if you can buy illegal substances then you can afford to buy food, etc. What other luxuries should disqualify somebody from being needy? How about owning a computer? What about if they’ve been to the movies in the past year? Going on a date? Are you automatically not needy if you have $1 of disposable income? That point doesn’t even make any sense.
Dude, I understand your frustration. I’m no holier than thou, rich kid who took an urban studies class in college and think I know what the poor need. I grew up in a working poor, single family household in a neighborhood the one and only Kool G Rap considered the cocaine capital of the city. Just about all my friends from my neighborhood growing up went to jail; almost none of them went to college. I just think you’re looking at the whole situation backwards.
Look, the same dynamic exists in every tax bracket, plently of people get “raises” only to [see] their actual take-home pay [de]crease. … Somebody who makes $1 more than the minimum for a tax bracket might take home less than somebody who makes the most possible money from the bracket below.
Sorry, digg, but this is flat wrong, and it perpetuates a common misunderstanding about how the income tax works. If you get a raise that pushes you into the next bracket, e.g., from the 15% bracket to the 25% bracket, then only the income in excess of that bracket marker gets taxed at the higher rate. For a single individual in 2010, that cutoff was $34,000. (Let’s forget about standard deductions, etc., and just talk about AGI, for simplicity.) So if you get a raise from $33,000 to $35,000, your take home pay does not go from $28,050 ($33K – 15%) to $26,250 ($35K – 25%). It actually goes from $28,468.75 ($33K – 10% of the first $8,375, – 15% of the rest) to $30,068.75 ($35K – 10% of the first $8,375, – 15% of the next $25,625 – 25% of the rest).
Now it’s possible (but exceedingly unlikely) that if someone has their withholding set up incorrectly, and they happen to be right on the boundary, and they don’t make a withholding adjustment, they could see their per-paycheck take-home pay go down. But that’s simply because they’re having too much withheld, and they’ll get that back at the end of the year. It’s where your tax refund comes from (if you get one).
As you can see, you’ve stumbled upon a pet peeve.
My bad, TG. (And, way to focus on the meat of my comment
).
In fact, I do remember you making a whole post mythbusting this idea a year or two ago. So, I’lll do what everybody on the internet claims they do, but few actually do – humbly admit I’m wrong and not offer excuses.
That said, the underlying point stands. When you divide people by groups, some people are going to get the maximum benefits of being included in such group (those who are at the high end of the group), and some are only going to get a minimal benefit of being part of that group (those on the low end).
Let’s say we’re talking about 2 groups, one for those making 30 – 40K and those making 40-50K, and the tax rate jumps when you cross groups (all this is made up). If you start by making 39K, you do not get the biggest benefit you can get – making more than 40K, but you do get to maximize the benefit of being in that tax bracket because you pay the lower rate on what is close to the highest figure on which one can pay that rate. If you then go up to 41K, you get the benefit of making 40K or more. At the same time, that extra grand is taxed at a higher marginal rate. …You’d benefit more if you made 49K – less because of anything to do with taxes, but more because you’d be making more money.
This is the same dynamic with being on welfare and being just off the bubble. The commenter’s greatest benefit is that he makes more than somebody who is eligible for welfare makes. The drawback is that he is then inelgible for certain services (but, why would he want them anyway – that’s communism!).
The other part of that argument I have a hard time getting has to do with the incentives for the just over the welfare bubble earner. To me, it comes down to the question of – are you an economist, or a moralist/ethicist?
Yes, it is a problem, on some level, if we look at a scenario where one person can work a 40 hour week and barely come out better off than somebody who doesn’t work and doesn’t care to. But, here’s where I ask the working poor my question. Are you and economist, or a moralist? Either way, the choice is relatively simple and non-contraversial.
If you’re an economist the question is whether the marginal value of the income above the welfare recipient worth your work? If the answer is yes, you’ve made a market decision. Go to work and STFU. If the answer is no, then quit being a sucker, quit your job, and start applying for welfare. You too are making a market decision – not one based on laziness or motivation, but one that you’ve determined to be beneficial by some rational calculus. If you think you can do better, overall life experiences considered, on welfare, then that’s what you should do. This is a purely rational argument and has nothing to do with being lazy or hardworking, but everything to do with being calculating, pragmatic, and market-based.
If welfare isn’t an option for you regardless of whether it would make economic sense because you feel some moral obligation to work if you can, even if it is against your best interest to do so, then the decision is also clear. You can also go to work and STFU. Also understand, that not everybody has the same moral calculus; some people skew far more toward the pragmatic side.
Other thing to consider – for some, those with young children perhaps, it may cost more to work than not to work, once you factor in child care expenses, etc. Hell, in NYC, assuming you can get healthcare otherwise, it’s probably not “worth” it for a mother of a daycare aged child to work if she makes less than 35-40K, unless she’s able to get childcare from a friend or family member at below “market rate.”
But, either way your decision is simple – and if your decision is about you – YOUR hyperrational calculus, or YOUR moral standards, then why get so wrapped up in what the next man does? …Now, I know you’ll say it’s because your taxes go to supporting that next man, but those kinds of programs are such a tiny percentage of the budget that you’re literally talking about a few dollars a year. That is to say, if hypothetically, the govt exempted people who make, say, less than 140% of “poverty line” wages from having to contribute to means-based service programs, and they did this 6 months ago without telling you, you probably wouldn’t have even noticed anything.
At the end of the day, the issue isn’t how to further punish the needy, but how to make work actually pay. …It’s not that welfare doesn’t pay too much, but that your job doesn’t pay you enough! Unfortunately, for lower-wage labor, the trend is going to continue to swing starkly in the reverse direction as the rest of the world begins to catch up to our country, which has been doing nothing but resting on our laurels since before I was fucking born. So, if you like being on one side or the other in the have-nots vs have a tiny, tiny bit Royal Rumble, then grab your foam fingers because it’s gonna be a hell of a next 20 or 30 years!
Sorry, meant to note here:
This is the same dynamic with being on welfare and being just off the bubble. The commenter’s greatest benefit is that he makes more than somebody who is eligible for welfare makes.
He’s only marginally benefiting from being in the I make more than the dude on welfare groud, because he’s only making marginally more. Somebody who makes 140K per year is part of that same group, and he benefits from not being in the eligible for welfare group too, but a lot more so than the first guy does.
I had no issue with your overarching point, and probably should have said as much. I was only taking issue with the specific example you chose.
I didn’t think you did – I just felt it needed some clarification anyway.
Glad you brought this up though, here’s a question for you on a tengential topic —
So, you guys know that in addition to my day job, I have my baseball gigs. First off, I always elect to have the maximum amt of taxes witheld (I know it’s bad economics – I should be taking that money so I can invest it, etc. …but the last time I dabbled in commodities trading I would up in front of the Queens DA)
Anyway, it seems as if when taxes are witheld from my side gig pay, the govt is unaware of my regular job. So, when they take out taxes from that check, they do so at an absurdly low rate. My assumption has been that they prorate those earnings to an annual salary and withhold based on the tax rate for that income bracket. However, considering that job amounts to less than 10% of my total annual income, that’s clearly not the rate for which I should be taxed, and they’d know that if they were aware of my other, primary job when they witheld for job #2. …Now, it all usually works out pretty well because the fact that I withold extra at job #1 compensates, so I usually break almost clean even on the state and still wind up with a return from my Federal, but not at the level that it would be if the two witholdings were talking to another – because a chunk of my extra witholdings at job #1 goes to cover the undertaxing at job #2.
So,
1. Is what is happening in fact what I think it happening?
2. ThIs is probably my fault; right? Did I just not check a box somewhere on job #2′s W4 that tells the govt, hey, this is not all the money I make, so don’t tax me like this is my full income?
1. Yes
2. Sort of, but not really. There’s a more complicated W-4 worksheet on the back for if you have two or more jobs. That’s the one you need to fill out. If you filled it out correctly, it would give you a dollar amount to add to the extra withholding box that most people leave blank. I have to do this because my wife and I file jointly, and there’s a fairly substantial income gap between the two of us. Both of our jobs normally withhold as if they’re our ONLY job, so if we just stuck with the minimums/defaults, we’d end up owing a lot at the end of the year.
And you’re correct that you shouldn’t withhold the maximum, since you’re denying yourself that money and loaning it to the government for free. Ideally, you’d withhold the minimum you could legally get away with (which is the smaller of 90% of your actual tax owed at the end of the year, or 100% of what you paid last year) and put the difference into a savings account. When you owe at the end of the year (which you almost certainly will), you take it out of savings. Whatever’s left is your “refund.” But a lot of people don’t have the discipline for this, and interest rates on savings accounts are for shit anyway, so my recommendation for most people (including me) is to adjust your withholding so that your taxes owed / refund at the end of the year is as close to zero as possible. That worksheet on the back of the W-4 is actually surprisingly accurate.
See the Two Earners/Multiple Jobs Worksheet on Page 2.
Ah, gotcha.
It’s also not a matter of discipline for me – I’m disciplined enough to do that if I thought it was worth the effort. Rates on savings accounts are shit, so it’s not worth any extra effort to me. So, here “big govt” enjoy your interest free loan from Diggs, don’t spend it all to buy a welfare mom a Rolls Royce Phantom. (Hint for all you rappers, athletes, celebutantes, etc. Bentleys are to drive, Royces are to be driven in).
I also don’t really invest in the market – you know, being a commie and all, I’m pretty opposed to the whole global slot machine. So, the bigger problem is I just let me cash depreciate in value. …Though some of the vintage Nike collection would turn a decent ROI if I just trucked it down to a consignment shop.
What I’ve actually been thinking about doing is putting money aside and either figuring out how to invest in that European investment fund that just bets on soccer and tennis matches, or seeing if I have what it takes to be a professional sports bettor, starting with a pilot program with a bankroll of a couple Gs. Pro sports betting is my dream start up, in a way. I almost certainly would have tried it already if I had a mentor. …Gotta use my cold, data-driven, agnostic sports obsession for something, right?