The world's major religions share many important teachings, the most important of which is that we should give to the poor. Jesus, Buddha. Zoroastra and Ghandi all advocated living a simple life with few physical possessions and giving all that one did not need for survival to others. None of them required that we first evaluate the merit or virtue of the recipient. None of the scriptures say that we should give to the poor, but only if they are able to first demonstrate that they are really working hard to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
In the US, we responded to these commandments by establishing a social safety net in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP (Food Stamps), Public Housing & Section 8 rental assistance, unemployment and TANF (welfare). We created these programs to support the needy because we consider ourselves to be a moral society that does not want to see our brethren suffer and die in a land of plenty and excess.
The problem is that these systems, as currently designed, disincentivize work and increased wages. This only feeds the public perception that the poor are lazy and undeserving of our assistance. In truth, there are very few people who desire to subsist only on handouts from the government. This is not a pleasant way to live. But, the programs are designed by people who have never had to use them, by bureaucrats who fail to see how one program interacts with another.
The poor, especially the working poor, must always work to keep their earnings below the levels set by the various programs they collect so that their benefits will continue, so that they do not work themselves further into poverty. If a person is physically disabled and in desperate need of Medicaid coverage, he must apply for Social Security Disability and, once receiving that benefit, must keep his earnings less than about $500 a month. Failure to do so could mean a complete loss of lifesaving medical care. But, what if this person wants to work, at a desk, using a brain that is not so disabled? Our system doesn't allow for that, and that is a travesty.
A working single mother offered a $.50 raise by her employer must be cognizant of the fact that her raise is going to increase her bring-home pay by less than $75.00 per month, but could result in a combined reduction of more than $100 a month in her non-cash benefits. So, she is likely to refuse a raise and remain on government programs so that she doesn't have to figure out how to make dinner with $25.00 less in groceries. This is not her fault. This is an institutional failure, a failure of the programs' designers to see how the programs are utilized in the real world.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is one of the most targeted and beneficial of our safety net programs. It is so unfortunate that NC's state legislature decided to do away with this program this year instead of finding a way for it to function in a more useful manner. It is unfortunate that our national leaders decided years ago to do away with the Advanced Earned Income Credit which allowed a wage-earner to choose to receive the tax refund incrementally over the course of the year. This again represents a failure on the part of our leadership to recognize what makes a difference for people in the real world or the way one program affects another. Currently, families can receive as much as $7,000 in EITC tax refund. This money, when added to an annual salary of $20,000 could mean a substantial increase in the family's quality of life, except that it is given in one lump sum instead of distributed over the course of the year. Not only does this fail to account for the gigantic exercise in self control you are asking of a person who has struggled for a year to make ends meet, choosing to buy bread and milk instead of paying an electric bill, who now has 4-5 months worth of take-home pay sitting in a bank account, but it also fails to account for the fact that having such a large sum of money in the bank is likely going to mean that he is suddenly disqualified from receiving any other public benefits until the money is spent. He is forced to spend this money on large purchases in a short time which does not overall increase his family's quality of life for the coming year. Again, this is not his fault, it is a failure of the system.
It doesn't have to be this way. The system could be fixed. We could take a moment and put some real thought into the design of our safety net. We could have a conversation about what we expect our safety net to provide for people. What is its purpose? What are we trying to accomplish? We could find a way to incentivize work and stop penalizing people for earning a higher wage. We could find a way to wean people off of the safety net programs without decreasing their quality of life in the process. We could streamline the administration of programs so that there is less paperwork and more person-to-person social work. We could pay a social worker to give a family the resources that will lift them out of poverty. We could help them to find those elusive bootstraps.
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." I John 3:17-18 (Christianity)
The problem is that these systems, as currently designed, disincentivize work and increased wages. This only feeds the public perception that the poor are lazy and undeserving of our assistance. In truth, there are very few people who desire to subsist only on handouts from the government. This is not a pleasant way to live. But, the programs are designed by people who have never had to use them, by bureaucrats who fail to see how one program interacts with another.
The poor, especially the working poor, must always work to keep their earnings below the levels set by the various programs they collect so that their benefits will continue, so that they do not work themselves further into poverty. If a person is physically disabled and in desperate need of Medicaid coverage, he must apply for Social Security Disability and, once receiving that benefit, must keep his earnings less than about $500 a month. Failure to do so could mean a complete loss of lifesaving medical care. But, what if this person wants to work, at a desk, using a brain that is not so disabled? Our system doesn't allow for that, and that is a travesty.
A working single mother offered a $.50 raise by her employer must be cognizant of the fact that her raise is going to increase her bring-home pay by less than $75.00 per month, but could result in a combined reduction of more than $100 a month in her non-cash benefits. So, she is likely to refuse a raise and remain on government programs so that she doesn't have to figure out how to make dinner with $25.00 less in groceries. This is not her fault. This is an institutional failure, a failure of the programs' designers to see how the programs are utilized in the real world.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is one of the most targeted and beneficial of our safety net programs. It is so unfortunate that NC's state legislature decided to do away with this program this year instead of finding a way for it to function in a more useful manner. It is unfortunate that our national leaders decided years ago to do away with the Advanced Earned Income Credit which allowed a wage-earner to choose to receive the tax refund incrementally over the course of the year. This again represents a failure on the part of our leadership to recognize what makes a difference for people in the real world or the way one program affects another. Currently, families can receive as much as $7,000 in EITC tax refund. This money, when added to an annual salary of $20,000 could mean a substantial increase in the family's quality of life, except that it is given in one lump sum instead of distributed over the course of the year. Not only does this fail to account for the gigantic exercise in self control you are asking of a person who has struggled for a year to make ends meet, choosing to buy bread and milk instead of paying an electric bill, who now has 4-5 months worth of take-home pay sitting in a bank account, but it also fails to account for the fact that having such a large sum of money in the bank is likely going to mean that he is suddenly disqualified from receiving any other public benefits until the money is spent. He is forced to spend this money on large purchases in a short time which does not overall increase his family's quality of life for the coming year. Again, this is not his fault, it is a failure of the system.
It doesn't have to be this way. The system could be fixed. We could take a moment and put some real thought into the design of our safety net. We could have a conversation about what we expect our safety net to provide for people. What is its purpose? What are we trying to accomplish? We could find a way to incentivize work and stop penalizing people for earning a higher wage. We could find a way to wean people off of the safety net programs without decreasing their quality of life in the process. We could streamline the administration of programs so that there is less paperwork and more person-to-person social work. We could pay a social worker to give a family the resources that will lift them out of poverty. We could help them to find those elusive bootstraps.
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." I John 3:17-18 (Christianity)
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11 (Judaism)
"Do you know who really rejects the faith? That is the one who mistreats the orphans. And does not advocate the feeding of the poor." Quran 107:1-7 (Islam)
"One may amass wealth with hundreds of hands but one should also distribute it with thousands of hands. If someone keeps all that he accumulates for himself and does not give it to others the hoarded wealth will eventually prove to be the cause of ruin." Atharva Veda 3: 24-25 (Hinduism)
"Possessions are ephemeral and essenceless
Know this and give them generously to monks,
To brahmins, to the poor, and to your friends:
Beyond there is no greater friend than gift." Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron, from 'How to Free Your Mind: Tara the Liberator' (Buddhismn)
Know this and give them generously to monks,
To brahmins, to the poor, and to your friends:
Beyond there is no greater friend than gift." Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron, from 'How to Free Your Mind: Tara the Liberator' (Buddhismn)
Please send this to journalists, politicians, clergy, and anyone who has the ear of the people. You are my hero!
ReplyDelete