Money For Nothing?
Recently I wrote a column that brought objections from some readers, which indicates the issue needs be more deeply dissected. What responsibilities should recipients of transfer payments have, if any, and what rights should they give up to those who pay?
In choosing to transfer money from one group of people to another, for whatever reason, all too often our liberal society has chosen to make no requirements on the recipients, while those who pay are, for all intents, placed in indentured servitude. Among these are recipients of Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment and Workman’s Compensation.
Generally, Social Security is a payment for being old. Even though the original law was sold as a quid-pro-quo type of deal, this has actually never been true. The first recipients had never paid into the program so their money was taken from those who were working. And there is no question about whether one chooses to ‘contribute’. It is not a voluntary situation, but one where the force of government is involved. Further, the idea that FICA taxes, the taxes which go to medicare, medicaid and social security, are not income taxes is a farce, sold to us by politicians, and accepted by any who wish to fool themselves with the belief that those who earn minimum wage pay no income taxes. The ‘contributions’/ taxes, go into the United States Treasury’s general fund to be dispensed according to the government’s whim.
Social Security payments come from the general fund, but the farce is far reaching and self interest causes many to accept it. But FICA taxes are taxes on current income of those who work, which is transferred to those who don’t. In return, those who work get nothing. Well why not? Should not the recipients have some responsibility? Certainly some are too old to pick up garbage along side the road, but there are thousands of things these people could be doing to return something to society for the money they receive from those who work.
The same is true of unemployment. At one time these recipients were required to look for work. They also had to go to the local unemployment office to apply for their benefits. This is no longer true. They do it all by computer. So those who work are paying good money to people who are adept at using computers to game the system.
Shouldn’t they have some requirement upon them by the payers of their benefits? Shouldn’t they have to do something to contribute to society? Picking up garbage along side the road would seem a reasonable request. Teaching assistants in schools might be too much to ask, but doing nothing is too much of a good thing for this payment. Further, for those good at gaming the system, getting paid unemployment while ‘contracting’ seems to be a common occurrence.
And then there is Workman’s Compensation. While not specifically a tax, it is none the less a payment to those who have some reason, usually associated with a job related disfunction, so they can no longer perform a particular job. It is an insurance program which takes from employers, according to the risk of personal injury the job entails, to pay those who have been injured. Yet the recipients aren’t necessarily unable to work, they just can’t do the job which they were injured on. So they’re supposed to get paid even though they can do some type of work? What a game. And there are, no doubt, plenty of injured who collect their checks from the insurance company while working ‘under the table’ for others. For some, it is another way to ride the system.
Saving the last for best we have welfare and medicaid. Here people down on their luck collect payments for doing nothing. They go to the hospital emergency room for any reason, running up the taxpayer’s bill, because they have no co-pay. What a deal. A check for existing and better medical care than many who have insurance. Certainly better than those who don’t have insurance but work.
The taxpayers pay. They must or the IRS will make them wish they had. So the taxpayer works and their money goes to benefit those who don’t. Where is the benefit to those who work? What requirement for participating in society do we have on those who receive? What do they contribute in return? Shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t those who receive do something for society besides get a check to spend? What if they procreate while collecting welfare? Is that just another responsibility for those who pay, but not for the recipient?
Why should those who work and pay taxes be held responsible for the benefits, the entitlements, of this large group of people, yet the recipients have no responsibility on their part?
This is the result of thinking that does not follow the process to the end. It is nice to imagine a program that helps those in need, but doesn’t pay attention to the results of those programs. One result is that combined, there are close to 70,000,000 people receiving transfer payments, checks for doing nothing, and that doesn’t include the politicians.
Transfer payments shouldn’t be a one-way street. Those who receive should have some responsibility to society. The opportunity to receive should come with caveats of behavior. But those in the entitlement class and their apologists will cry discrimination. Well there certainly is discrimination: those who pay for these people to do nothing have been reduced to slavery. They are slaves to a mindset that pays people to do nothing by taxing those who do. Those who work are being discriminated against by those who don’t – and the don’t works are winning.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=7211
