Would it help the welfare system if people who were once on welfare and are now fully employed have to repay some of what they used? Just the same as child support does..state issued wage withholding order? Why it is that just men have to repay the welfare through child support? Why is it that those who have worked have to pay for the welfare benefits of others? If a single mother becomes pregnant and knew she didn't have a job or any insurance, shouldn't she be made to seek employment and help repay the welfare that she needed?
209916
Welfare recipients that get off welfare and get employed do repay what they used - they pay taxes.\n\nWelfare benefits generally are a pittance - in Indiana, TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) generally is not enough to pay bills - many people have to find other help in addition to TANF to pay any outstanding bills while they try and get employed.\n\nSince the 90's, when welfare reform was passed, all states require that TANF recipients attempt to find work or complete eduction that will help them find work. They may only receive TANF for a limited amount of time.\n\nGenerally, people that abuse the system will go for other programs - typically Food Stamps and SSI (Supplimental Security Income - often referred to as disability). Even still, most people who are on Food Stamps or SSI desperately need it - many SSI recipients truly cannot work, and many Food Stamp recipients work at such low paying jobs that they cannot make ends meet.
545015
My family received welfare when I was a child, but my mother worked 7 days a week in a low paying job and had 4 children to support. My father was of no help. He was only court ordered to pay $65/month! Now, how is that going to help 4 children?\n\nAll four of us grew up to be very productive members of society--I have a Master's degree, my 2 sis have BA degrees and my brother is a HS grad. Each of us hold professional positions, and we all earn good livings. Despite what people think who do not know any better, many people on welfare only need it as a temporary life saver, and work very hard to be independent of it.\n\nAs far as the Iraq war goes, my old BF and cousin served, but they are the only people I know with any affiliation to this war. Most of the men in my family have been in the military, however.
492869
Actually I Knew a couple personally who divorced and had a little boy. After I think it was 1 year or a bit more the man moved back. For whatever reason they lived together (but they didn't remarry) They were quite content as things were. He was still paying his child support and had no problems with that. Nor did she. Too them they said it was like a bank account that he was responsible for and it was just for their daughter. So while he still payed the child support it was all going into this savings account that just had his wife and daughters name on it. Sometimes they used the money for birthdays or doctor's bills. But he said it was helping him focus on the fact that those child support payments were going directly to that account and in essence that account would be used for her colleage education.  So they just lived with that arrangement. But it was their choice and they made it work. (It's been 7 years and they are still doing the same thing).
645035
More people will milk the system...I have generations of welfare recipients...I think job opportunity and economic equality is more reasonable....but when do governments reason....lol
525691
There is nothing wrong with welfare perse.  I think most peole agree that every once in a while people need help.  The problem comes in when the "hand up" becomes a "hand out."  So long as it exists, the welfare system will be abused and gamed by the savvy and the needy will suffer from lower benefits creating a reliance on the system because they can't afford to get off the system.  The problem is that the entire system is flawed.  If the objective is to get people off welfare and into the work force, when are those recieving benefits "punished: when they try?  Here's an example:  Young girl, single mother has one child.  Monthy benefit = $613.  Rent = $420.  Utilities = $40.  She wants to go to college, earn a degree, find a job and get off the system - the whole point of welfare, right? Tution = $1,500.  Books = $300.  Daycare = $800.  Transportation = $20 buss pass.  Obviously the math tells you she can't afford it.  So she applies for a student loan or grant to pay tution, books and daycare.  What happens?  Benefits are cut off because she "earned" more than 1/3 or her benefits.  How does this motivate anyone to get off the system?  \n\nAnd for those of you who say, "Get a job and go to college when you can pay for it!"  Okay, we'll go there.  Monthly benefit = still $613.  Daycare = still $800.  The young mother can earn no more that $200 p/m (so as not to exceed the 1/3 rule) giving her $813 p/m in income.  Daycare = $800 ... $13 left for rent?  Again, where is the motivation to get off the system?  \n\nYes, I agree.  People shouldn't have children they can't afford to feed.  But if you have EVER had unprotected sex or had a mishap with a condom - well my friend, yoo too could be among the thouseands expecting a child you didn't paln and can't afford.  Yes abortion/adoption is always a choice and mant do go that rount.  But never say "That's what I'd do if it were me."  Because if you've never been pregnant, you have NO idea how you'd feel or what you would do ... Judge not ...\n\nTake it from a former 17 year old mother, who was on welfare, put herself through college, took lame low paying jobs and finally work my butt off to a 6 figure job!
112699
Many states have adopted laws that allow the court to consider ability to earn rather than actually earnings in determining support.  You should consult a family law attorney in your state, but some courts can penalize parents who are deliberately unemployed to avoid paying support.
332189
Probably the single most item causing the downfall of our society.  We have, through our liberal lawmakers such as Hiliary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and others, created conditions where people find it not only easier to not work but also find it is finicially advantageous to stay unemployed.  In many cases the compensation from low skill jobs is less than the welfare benefits. Another aspect is that we encourage the birth of iligimate children as a way to increase ones welfare benefits. Free medical care, at the cost of those who work and pay into social security, for illegals and welfare recepients is bankrupting our social security system. The original conception of welfare/unemployment and other social programs for those unfortunates in need was good.  However, our liberal lawmakers have ammended and expanded these programs to the point that we now have 2nd and even 3rd generations on welfare and actually believe that they have the right to live the "Amerian" dream while never contributing anything except more illigimate children, drugs, crime and general choas.  How do we correct this situation?  Simple we must adopt the Singapore system of, "If you don"t work, you don't eat."  Having said that, I too realize that we do have some people who, through no fault of their own, fall on hard times and need help.  Being a compasionate society we must help those whom actually need "temporary" relief.  However, we should have time constraints and require every single able bodied person to perform public service in proportion to the amount of welfare they recieve.  Cleaning public buildings, streets, roadways parks and etc. are good examples of types of public services they could perform.  Why not let them work for the employers that claim they can not get American workers and got to the illegals.  After all many business, which I will not mention by name here because of the possibility of law suits, activitally recruit illegals under the guise that they can not find American workers who are willing to work for low wages.  These business include farmers, construction companies, restaurants, home care agencies, and yes some very large retailers. #1 we should not allow several different versions of the minimum wge. As an example: people in the food and beverage sectors have a minimum wage which is roughly three times below that required to be paid in the construction industry.  Why not institute a system where people on welfare can work for these industries and we could supplement their wages and bring them up to the level of what they are receiving on unemployment.  I do not like subsidizing these business which practice this type of horrendous treatment of human beings but maybe it would give some of the welfare recipients and incitative to find higher paying ligimate jobs.  I am sure that it would be less costly to the working american and will start them on the way to contributing instead of just taking.  Yes! I am also talking about "some" but I am afraid that "some" are the majority of welfare reciepients.
479233
Kinda hard to answer...welfare in Canada?  US?  UK?  Germany?\nItaly?.....????\n\nOk...in the US many states have enacted a 2 year maximum benefits policy and after that the person has to work on some sort of community improvement program...I agree with this as long as affordable child care is available.  Also, some states have welfare rules set very low...if you work at mcdonalds, you don't qualify, even if the cost of living is so high in the area that you have to live in a tent at a KOA or national park (ie. Georgia or the Sun Valley area of Idaho)...this is getting too extreme.  The question is...is it worth it to society to pay a little to single parents working at underpaid jobs and have kids taken properly cared of, or let them go as they will and have latchkey kids running wild and ending up in prison later.  I think that the welfare system in MOST of the US is too stringent and more money should be allocated for it...if we can afford a trillion dollars for Iraq, we can afford a hundred million more for struggling and working single parents.
256441
Oh, yes m'am. He *is* still liable to pay back support. In fact, you have until the tenth anniversary of the date the child/ren graduates from high school to begin the initial process of trying to collect. This is a little known fact that every Texas mother should read.
551315
The Inland Revenue did this to me too when i reapplied for my tax credits in April of this year. They said i had earned £2,500 more than i had declared, and through this i owed them the money and they have stopped my credits until April of next year. I too am a single parent, they tell us to go back to work and we will benefit but we dont at all. What we earn we end up paying back out. I used to get help with my rent when i first went back to work too,  now that has stopped and im to pay out the full amount of rent which is £98.00pwk. Personally i would be better off on the social, although i dont want to be part of the people that take money off the state to live on and receive handouts. I  wanted to do right by my family and earn my way through life. Good luck hun hope all goes well for you but its a crap system dont you think. xx
87954
You're so right about other people being paid to take care of your kids, but not you.\n\nWhat's happened is that the work that was traditionally done by women has continued to be undervalued.  That doesn't mean that feminism has failed or is to be blamed, it just means that more progress needs to be made.  Men and women both need to have choices about how to spend their time and how to care for their families, and those choices need to be recognized as having equal worth.  \n\nMany European countries offer a stipend to families just for having children--it's not an income dependent welfare program, it's just some help out.  I believe that caregivers should also be given credit in the Social Security system, because many women have nothing for retirement if they have spent any time caring for children or other family members.  Maternity and family leave should be paid and extend beyond six weeks.  \n\nBut somebody would have to pay for all these programs.  So don't blame feminists, blame the folks who won't pay taxes, who don't believe in government programs, or who won't pay decent prices for goods so that employers can pay a living wage to their employees.
523326
There is a loop hole in the Benefit Law which will allow the family income support while his partner is pregnant and then after the birth he will have to claim job seekers. But the wife's/partner's doctor will have to say he  needs to be with her while she is pregnant. As an ex benefits officer, I used to think, why not work like the rest of us, if both of the couple are well.\nThey would also be entitled to housing benefit and community charge.\nIf he is going to stay at home I hope his partner will go to work and support the family!\nPeople who do not work just because they are lazy need to be ashamed that they are taking tax payers money for sitting on their ar5e!\nOnce the baby is born they are entitled to child benefit and child tax credit  he will have to call 0800 882200 or 0845 3003938 (If your brother already has a child with his wife/partner, once the new baby comes along it will be a change of circumstances and he will need to call 0845 3003900) whether he is working or not!\nIf he considers himself to be on low wages he can also claim help with health costs which pays for dentist and prescreptions for himself and the whole family, he will need a form called a HC1 he can obtain this by calling 0845 8501166.\nWhile he is also working he can claim working tax credit call 0845 3003900.\nHope this helps
661614
No the father should not be forced to pay child support if he is unwilling to have the child.  What people miss is that under the current system the mother has all the power to decide.  The only time the father has any responsibility is if the mother wants money.  If she wants to get an abortion nobody cares what the father has to say.  I thought it took 2 people to create life.  I guess it only takes one to end it.  Huh
668730
First of all, you ONLY get EIC if you are under a certain income limit. If you are over it, you don't get it. :)\n\nSecondly, why should the non-custodial parent not have to contribute financially? \n\nIt makes no difference if the custodial parent can support the child without support. However, there is a matter of principle here.\nIf you bring a child into this world, you have a moral duty to protect and provide for that child. If you choose so not to protect it, then you should at least provide, or assist in providing.\n\nLet me ask you, are you a single parent that does not receive support from the other parent?\n\nIf people can sue a total stranger for having a fender bender, why on earth is it such an issue to sue the other parent for support.
646748
No, I don't know aniy. A lot of people were kicked off welfare a few years ago. Are they getting back on?
460285
People of society can help those who are in situations where the person has ended up with more children than they can afford (for whatever reason).  Churches and private organizations have been doing this for years in an effort to help the children grow to become responsible members of society. \n\nIt is unfair that one can turn to the government and the government forces its citizens to help support people who have ended up in these situations. It's a matter of choices of how to help and where you can do the most good. Government seems to want your money without consideration of time or talent. Where as private organizations ask for money but are more than willing to also accept your time and talents to help out.\n\nWe short change ourselves in this area all the time. I really wish people would see the benefits of real charity and not in thinking that throwing money at it through taxes is going to be good enough. It just isn't good enough.
75753
Yep, but it will never happen until people stop getting a check because of their own poor life choices. Unfortunately all of societies parasites can vote, and since they don't have jobs, they have all the time they need  to make it to the voting booths. So, until society starts making welfare recipients feel like the failures they are again, expect higher taxes.