Stifling a scam

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | February 2, 2013 | Editorial

[supercat]

The fundamental problem with welfare isn’t fraud, but rather the fact that it there’s a major discontinuity between being “poor enough” to qualify for welfare and earning enough to work one’s way up. I would much rather have a system which phased out benefits more gradually even if it meant that in the short term more people were receiving some assistance, because I strongly believe that increasing the marginal benefit of working, and reducing the portion of that marginal benefit that must be paid by employers, will greatly reduce unemployment, and because I believe that such a system would result in people gradually working their way up the ladder.

Basically, as I see it, the system seems to be run with the philosophy that those who can’t perform enough productive work to support themselves should be paid enough to live on, without having to do anything. I would much rather take the view that someone who can perform enough productive work to earn half of what it takes to survive should be given somewhat more than half of what it takes to survive, so that they’ll end up with more than if they didn’t work at all. Even if they don’t yet have the skills or work record to earn enough to survive by themselves, taking a job which pays them something will help get them there.