People receiving Gov't assistance are employees of the state....

A debate partner of mine and I where discussing our perceived problems in the United States and hit on the "Welfare State" topic. As we're talking along I come to the conclusion that people that receive government assistance whether State or Federal are technically "Employees" of said governmental body.

A person that receives assistance gets "paid" by the governmental body.
A person on total assistance doesn't file taxes because they had no income.
A person that doesn't file taxes is not required to participate in the ACA, there by getting Healthcare benefits.

This sounds like a normal private business employee to me (except for the not paying taxes part), so shouldn't people that are on government assistance and physically able be held to the same standards I am?

I'm expected to WORK for my money. So shouldn't people on government assistance be required to work for the governing body; picking up trash, raking leaves, whatever labor is needed?
I'm required to participate in random drug screenings, where if I fail that is grounds for termination. Shouldn't they be required to pass a drug screening to receive benefits?

Like my debate partner.....if you disagree why?

 

It’s certainly not exactly like employment since there are obviously lots of practical and principled differences between the two concepts. You’re also flawed in your underlying assertion that because one thing is similar to another, they must be made to behave in exactly the same way.

It’s perfectly possible to make rational arguments for requiring some form of community work or drug testing, at least in relation to some benefits, but you’ve not presented any of them here.

 

Please explain though. They get paid for living and health....I get paid for living and health, but I provide labor to my employer. While I understand that it is not an exact comparison it is "close enough for government work" as the saying goes.

You also indicate that "I'm flawed in my assertion", but you don't explain why. Why shouldn't the expectations for one be the same for the other? My assertion is that they should be treated just like any employee would.

What kind of "rational" arguments are you looking for. My assertion that I work for an entity providing some form of labor and get paid for it and they get paid by the government and are not required to provide any kind of labor for it pretty much sums it up.

 

A good number of people your talking about are disabled and often ,like myself, deemed unemployable or able to do many daily productive activities so expecting such people to work seems impractical to consider.

 

Please re-read my OP.....never mind I'll quote it here....."people that are on government assistance and physically able".....

I understand with what you're saying and agree, if you can't....you can't, but many can and I feel should.

Seeing that I understand your point do you feel the physically able should work?

 

There's disabled and there's people who don't want to work

Nearly 40% of people in the United States ages 16 to 24 say that they don’t want a job, accounting for a sizable portion of the 92 million Americans who are currently outside the labor force, according to a new analysis of labor statistics.

About 10% of Americans aged 20 to 24 and 19% of those aged 16 to 19 are considered unemployed, which means they are actively seeking work.

According to Pew Research Center analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 39.4% of men and women aged 16 to 24 are outside the labor force over the first 10 months of 2014. That’s up from 29.5% in 2000, the steepest rise of any age group and one that pre-dates the recent financial crisis.

 

Want to eliminate the welfare state? Ensure every citizen is paid a living wage according to the cost of living in each county in the country. Working for a living is the best jobs program, but, people need to be paid enough to live.

 

Are you demanding that kids aged 16-19 work for your economy to be optimal? Most kids go to school or work part time.

 

I don't see how they are technically employees of the state. They're unemployed. This idea of yours would basically make it a job. But the point is to provide money for people who can't or don't work. Of course, the not wanting to work and living on other people's tax money, lowering the economy of the country is a common problem of welfare states and probably gets worse as the "welfare" gets better.

What you're suggesting is that a person capable of working can't have an excuse not to work, and in order to get money they need to work. So there should be no such benefits to people who can't prove they are incapable. But there are holes in these systems. I've been in one of them. That is to say, I was incapable of working and still I had no "status" under which I could have been officially put; officially taken I was capable of working. So according to your new system, I would have been denied the money and a place to live for the while.

I guess the problem isn't the comparison, a lot of people feel that way, but in that there really isn't a good alternative to it.

 

Anyone who is capable physically and mentally of working but refuses to should just be considered "other than citizen" and lose some citizenship rights. Most importantly, the right to vote.

 

Aged 16 to 24? Sounds more like there are more young people staying in school, at least according to National Center for educational statistics.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

 

Brilliant plan, produce an large underclass of people stripped of their right to representation. Sounds like fabulous idea. Of course feudalism would work just as well.

 

If the government were to require labor in exchange for basic income (welfare) it would intact be condoning communism for whatever citizenry that wished to live as such, which would undermine our capitalistic society, and that will never happen.

 

Nobody gets paid for "living and health". In principle, Government support is paid to different people for different reasons but it generally boils down to them not having enough to live on and/or having specific needs that carry additional costs (disability, children etc.). The idea is that the cost of supporting them (often short-term) is less than the costs to society of their living in abject poverty. These days, many of those people are working, just not in very well paid full-time jobs. This isn't always how it works in practice of course, but yours is an argument of principle, not practice.

Why should they. Your assumption is that any two things that are similar should automatically be treated the same but it isn't apparent why that should be assumed. You either need to support the assumption or support the conclusion in this specific case.

So hourly pay, health insurance, holidays, sick pay, promotions, taxes... all sorts of things about employment are fundamentally different to government assistance. The actual labour is just one of them.

What kind of "rational" arguments are you looking for. My assertion that I work for an entity providing some form of labor and get paid for it and they get paid by the government and are not required to provide any kind of labor for it pretty much sums it up.[/QUOTE]

 

No argument from me on your point, but they are getting the money now......for free, so getting a little back for it I think is reasonable.

 

You've basically nailed it.

Many people like a fluid, will take the path of least resistance. For those that DON'T want to work this would be some incentive to find a real job and potentially make livable wages.

 

People getting a PPACA subsidy are on government assistance whether they have a job or not. So how many leaves do you think we have that need raking exactly? I say we start at the top and work our way toward the poorest when we are handing out rakes.

 

I believe the statistics cleary delineates 16-24...

I'm not "demanding" anything, merely making an observation of a generation wherein a sizeable minority have no desire to work.

It certainly explains the popularity of Sen. Sanders among younger people The man basically promotes free stuff.

 

Young people have a "fantasy gap" between their desire for wealth and their willingness to work hard to achieve it.

It explains the embrace of socialism and the rejection of personal responsibility.

 

If you want representation, get a job. Contribute.

 

It is meaningless then. Kids usually have no desire to work at that age. So what?

 

One example, surely I don't have to list every possible thing that a municipality could have a citizen do.

Currently they work or have worked for their money so they are not the issue, from getting free money.

 

I disagree completely. Someone with a household income of $97,000.00 shouldn't be getting (*)(*)(*)(*) for their health insurance subsidy, especially when so many poor people and working poor have been left out completely.

 

Nearly 6 million young Americans don’t work or go to school

source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/nearly-6-million-young-americans-dont-work-or-go-to-school

That's a larger demographic than many countries and since they aren't looking for work they don't show up on the unemployment statistics.

6 million 16-24 year olds ...essentially idle.

 

I agree, I would rather see a system where people in need weather it be welfare, unemployment, etc. contribute to the greater good by working the menial jobs the government has available, welfare at minimum wage, unemployment at the rate of last employment (someone who previously made 30/hr. Receiving an unemployment check of 300 would be required to work 10 hours.