In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Tyler Durden's picture

Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

Stunning? Just do it yourself.

Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.

The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.

And if that wasn't enough, here is one that will blow your mind:

If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

Ever wonder why Obama was so focused on health reform? It is so those who have no interest or ability in working, make as much as representatives of America's once exalted, and now merely endangered, middle class.

First of all, working one week a month, saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays. By working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.

Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. A typical Mississippi family coverage would cost around $12,000, adding deductibles and copays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That's a huge hit.

There is a reason why a full time worker may not be too excited to learn there is little to show for doing the "right thing."

The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than woring one week a month at minimu wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.

It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.

If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job.  In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.

This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were weilling to cheat. Even if you dodn't cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job. 

Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.

SSI pays $8,088 per year for each "disabled" family member. A person can be deemed "disabled" if thy are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.

If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.

Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day to make some sense out of this Mephistophelian tragicomedy known as living in the USA:

Most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.

Alas, on America's way to to communist welfare, it has long since surpassed such bastions of capitalism as China:

The welfare system in communist China is far stringier. Those people have to work to eat.

We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.

h/t Nolsgrad

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
RKDS's picture

The marketplace is only shrinking because the something-for-nothing crowd at the top has exported money (in the form of jobs and production) while continuing to extract it locally at an unsupportable pace.

If you build iPads in America and sell them in America, it works out no matter how much labor costs, because all of the money is basically recycled over and over.  The profit comes from accumulation over time (time, while limited, is freely produced).

What we do is make iPads for $8 in China and sell them for $800 in America.  Where does that $800 come from?  It's not coming from the Chinese worker and it sure as hell isn't coming from the unemployed American.

For a long time the unemployed/underemployed American was able to _borrow_ the $800 (from thin air, like all bank-controlled fiat), but anyone with a brain can see that's just digging a deeper and deeper hole.  Now cut off the debt spigot and watch America drown.  Sure it hits Joe Sixpack first, but it hits Apple when he stops buying iPads.  Of course Joe Sixpack will never stop working to escape death but he will ultimately do the bare minimum to feed himself.

Have you ever wondered why humanity went practically nowhere for the thousands of years that slavery was prevalent?  Only in the free America of circa 1900-1980 did so many of the advances we take for granted happen so quickly.  And as we descend back into fuedalism and slavery, they will just as surely stop if not crumble to dust altogether.

MachoMan's picture

More accurately, the market here is decreasing because we still have nations, despite a unified world, and other sovereigns are better attractions for money. The transfer of markets does not cause the "pie" to shrink.  Rather, the transfer of markets only affects the grantor nation (us). 

The pie is shrinking because credit is contracting.  Meaning, there is a universal decrease in the size of the pie, irrespective of national borders.

And the remainder of your post is what happens when credit contracts...  it's how the run-up spoils of the wealth gap get put to good use.  They're converted from the ether into hard assets and then the value of hard assets are increased as the ether dries.

PS, the united states, inherently, is not entitled to keep the entirety of the world's wealth and standard of living.... 

Catullus's picture


You should have applied to king to use His Royal Internet.  How dare you, sir. How dare you!


CH1's picture

Okay Critical, I'll play:

What you wrote is utter crap, and knowlingly so.

It's all about property. (I speak foolishly, as if you cared.)

You laud stealing the property of others, in the name of "fairness" (or whatever scam word works this month) and complain that Tyler is also living at the expense of others.

Your base claim is that he is a fellow-criminal of yours. He is not. He has had your criminal game thrust upon him and seeks to extract himself. You, on the other hand, call yourself righteous for stealing the property of others.

Go away.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


You laud stealing the property of others, in the name of "fairness" (or whatever scam word works this month) [...]

Is a car your property if it has an upfront price tag of $20,000, of which you pay only $15,000?

It is not.

Are you entitled to open a shop in a mall, get income from there but 'forget' to pay the montly fees to the mall owner?

That full income is not really your property - you will be sued for those missing fees.

Are you entitled to live in the US and use its infrastructure and its marketplace to make money, while not paying fees for that (taxes)?

You are not - you will be sued (by the IRS) for those missing taxes.

It is really that simple. Your untaxed income in any developed country on the planet is not fully your property yet - you have to pay your fees/taxes first. If you dont like that concept, you can convince a few hundred US citizens to vote for your taxing scheme instead, or (which is probably simpler) you can move to another country.

Some have suggested Singapour here. (Although note that even Singapour has a government budget that is 15% of its GDP and has a non-zero income tax. That tax may rise in the future.)

MachoMan's picture

Your premise is entirely incorrect.  Our government has been captured for decades.  The elite make money off our entitlement, infrastructure, and empire building endeavors.  As a result, the size and scope of our government has increased dramatically, at the expense of its longevity and sustainability.  At the present juncture, we are at a point where the elite simply leave if they choose, but everyone else is stuck here.  Further, as a result, given the lower tiers are turnips, this leaves but one class to turn for the difference.  Your refusal to address this issue is tantamount to trolling.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

I'm not sure what to address in your post.

US per capita GDP (taxed) is one of the highest in the developed world. The overhead of the US Government at 35% is not small but smaller than of european counterparts - which countries are still very good at producing and exporting value added industrial products worth trillions.

Wage inequality is very high in the US - and that is partly due to the artificially low top income tax bracket and due to the very low capital gains tax. (Not to mention the corporate tax rate: US corporations pay an average of about 3% of corporate taxes and are paying less than the personal income tax is.)

The thing where the US middle class got screwed IMO is the high unemployment and the lack of an efficient stimulus to bridge the financial crisis. Blame the GOP and Bush for causing it, and blame Obama and the democrats for not enacting a stronger response (which response was skillfully sabotaged by the GOP as well, no doubt).

MachoMan's picture

ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY?  We needed to throw more money at this?  Jesus Christ, you are trolling the shit out of me...

congrats...  I'm done. 

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


We needed to throw more money at this? [...]

Not necessarily more money, but spent on the right things. If you expect to be able to live in a pleasant, developed society for free then you will be disappointed - people dont get born millionaires and they dont stay healthy all their life. Developed societies are expensive and it has to be paid for.

MachoMan's picture

So, who repays our creditors?  I'm pretty sure the "field of dreams" (build it and they will come) business philosophy has been universally accepted as a total failure.  Aside from the fact that you're advocating a command economy (you get to choose where the resources are spent), which universally leads to economic failure (I want historical examples of where this has worked on any reasonably lengthy timeline), either directly or indirectly through inevitable moral hazard.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

So, who repays our creditors? [...]

The issue of debt is entirely different from the issue of taxes and government spending - I'm not sure why you are bringing it up in this context.

There are certainly governments (mostly of resource rich nations) that have no substantial debt and provide rich infrastructure and services/benefits.

You also have to see debt in perspective: say US debt of 100% of GDP, at 35% GDP government spending, means that all of the debt equals to 3 years worth of income.

Individuals and corporations can get indebted that much and can pay it back. The Clinton administration actually balanced the federal budget and had a quarter where there was a substantial surplus.

Where countries like Ireland or Greece get into trouble are 300% of GDP kind of debt. That would be 10 years of revenue - quite unsustainable, especially if coupled with a non-balanced revenue stream to begin with.

MachoMan's picture

I am bringing it up because you do not get to implement spending programs (whatever they may be) in a vacuum.  You have to account not only for the resources available today, but also be able to accurately predict the conditions between now and when debt is due to ensure repayment is possible.  Given that we are presently experiencing a sovereign debt wall, I find it hard to ignore the issue of debt.  Res ipsa loquitur.

Essentially, you're advocating that post collapse, X system should be implemented.  In order to do so, you need to show some sort of precedent or indication the system will work.  One of the major omissions on your part is the moral hazard created through any government spending.  It's like a can of pringles, once you pop. . . [which is why, eventually, spending overtakes all ability to pay].

Further, you have to put the tyranny of the majority in perspective.  Previously, you've argued (without the slightest of emotional underpinning or value statement) that just because a democracy votes to act a certain way, that is the moral and just way to act.  Well, I challenge you to hold your breath until the time the majority in any developed country vote to forego any return on any productive activity for 3 (lol, 3?) years.  [completely irrelevant/doctored gdp/other metrics aside].  Do you think the lack of incentive to produce might have an effect on the level of production?  If so, what does this do to your target number of years?

In addition, you are ignoring the total level of outstanding debt.  Individuals and corporations do not get indebted into the ~$100T range.  The levels of aggregate outstanding debt are so large, there are few/no prospects of growth sufficient enough to repay them.  If I go in debt for $10k for a lawn mower and then mow yards for three summers and repay it, that's one thing.  I want to know where the organic growth (can't print) comes from to repay the sovereign debt, especially in an era of contracting gdp.  

A Nanny Moose's picture

Your entire argument is that we did not steal enough money from the productive, who have demonstrated ability to create jobs and wealth, to give to the unproductive, in order that the unproductive might actually create some of those jobs and wealth?


mnevins2's picture

MCT, am I missing something here, but is the basis of your entire argument that those who work are not paying ENOUGH in taxes or are not paying ANY taxes to the government?  You seem to suggest that "I," representative of the "middle class," doesn't pay our "fair share" in taxation - to support those who have either little desire or ability to pay for anything. Am I missing something?

I pay PLENTY in taxes (income, sales, FICA, property, etc.) and, yes, indeed resent those that feel "entitled" to provide no work or labor for the fruits of my labor.

I live in an urban area surrounded by plenty of food stamp, etc. recipients. I note that they always have cell phones, cars (many nice than mine), expensive clothes, elaborately done nails and plenty of girth. Because I also have children in an urban public school system I can state that the children of these people exhibit the same sense of "entitlement" that the adults do - little work/effort but expect to be passed to the next grade. I can throw in that they also receive free breakfasts and lunches at the school.

Do YOU have any experience in the "real world" at all? You write and exhibit as if you don't live my reality of being in an urban environment and witnessing the sad behavior of those that you think are "entitled" to everything and more from those that wake up every morning and go to work. Hope that I'm wrong.


chopper read's picture

Taxes and fees imposed by federal, state or local laws.:


Alternative Minimum Tax, (AMT),
U.S. capital gains tax,
Corporate income tax,
U.S. estate tax,
U.S. excise tax, (includes taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages),
U.S. federal income tax,

Federal unemployment tax (FUTA),
FICA tax (includes Social Security tax and related programs),
Gasoline tax,
Generation Skipping Tax,
Gift tax,
IRS penalties,

Luxury taxes,
Property tax,
Real estate tax,
Recreational vehicle tax,
Rental car tax,
Resort tax (also known as Hotel/Motel tax, occupancy tax),
Road usage taxes (Commercial Vehicle Operators),
Sales tax and equivalent use tax,

School tax,
State income tax,
State unemployment tax (SUTA),
Telephone federal excise tax,
Vehicle sales tax,
Workers compensation tax.

Punderoso's picture

Dude, are you french kissing a picture of Karl Marx while you type?

It is not just bad that your logic is all messed up, but you don't even have your facts correct.

However, on a positive note from what you have written, it sounds like there is a good chance that you could become an economic czar in the Obama administration.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Junk jackpot there, sunshine.

Focusing on the "trees" for moment, you put gas in your car do you not? There is a tax for that....pays for roads. Roads were build to support.

Backing out to the forest:

A) we have no money

B) when the drug dealer runs out of drugs, it is the dependant junkies who riot, because they have no idea where things...important things, like food...come from, or how to obtain such necessities on their own.


chet's picture

"it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system"

These are paranoid ramblings.  Go meet some truly poor people and spend a day with them.  You may still be convinced that they get too many benefits, but what you won't believe at the end of the day is that they represent some sort of dark machevalian force trying to rip you off.  For the most part, they don't even vote.

traderjoe's picture

At the very least, the comment is a generalization, which means that it might contain some element of truth, but clearly applies more to some individuals but perhaps not to others. But I do not believe it represents a paranoid rambling. 

There's no question (IMHO) that most people believe there should be a social safety net for their fellow citizens. But that is where the agreement will likely end. IMHO, there are several key problems with the current system/structure:

1. As the article alludes to, there is little to no incentive to move off benefits once you are on them - the 'marginal tax rate' is extremely high. For instance, once you have a Section 8 housing voucher, moving to a higher-paying job or working more hours might lead you to lose the housing voucher - which means you will be worse off.

2. On a general note, politicians are are creating a self-perpetuating cycle of dependence and patronage - by creating a larger government state, they get more power and span of control, gather government worker votes (by encouraging higher pay and larger bureaucracies), and ensure constituent support/votes with more promises of government largess.

3. As with all taxes, they are collected at the 'barrel of a gun'.

4. The terms and structure of the welfare programs aren't particularly rigorous. For 99 weeks of unemployment - why shouldn't there be a community service requirement for some portion of the week? How about a requirement to clock in and out of a job searching location for a certain period of time? Essentially, one taxpayer is both paying for both a park representative to clean the park, and one unemployed citizen to not do anything at all. Why not turn unemployment into a work program?

5. Government services are provided as a monopoly - and therefore can't be argued to be the most efficient providers of the most appropriate services. 

A vast and for-the-most-part effective non-profit services sector exists in this country which many people generously donate to. It would solve a great many problems (again, IMHO) to have the non-profits be the go-to provider of the country's social safety net. They compete for donations (and therefore have to demonstrate effectiveness), vast government bureaucracies could be dismantled (and with it some of the entitlement issues), and voluntary participation by donors would allow the wisdom of crowds to determine how and in what forms the social safety net should exist.


Non Passaran's picture

Good points.

Here's part of a well-written article that discusses problems in public housing (

Many households, the group tells me, have never paid bills for themselves: Utilities came with public housing, food stamps helped with groceries and everything else was paid for in cash. Not surprisingly, the priority was to keep receiving benefits and, if possible, increase them. That meant keeping live-in boyfriends - even if one was the father of a child in the household - off the lease lest the man’s income lead to a rent increase. It also meant suggesting to school authorities that a child might have a learning disability - such a designation could bestow nearly $300 a month in Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on the household. (School officials reportedly are often eager to comply because excluding hard-to-teach students could boost schoolwide test results.)

(Notice how the disability and school test results outcome invite additional milking of the system - more money for education (unions), healthcare (big pharma), etc.)

RKDS's picture

Why not turn unemployment into a work program?

Call me cynical but I expect the "special friends" of government officials will use this "free" labor pool to do the work their  "mysertiously" laid off former employees and move us one giant step closer to government-sponsered slavery.

DFCtomm's picture

There will be a price to be paid if in the end they cannot sustain the leviathian they've created.

CH1's picture

LOL... who is it that doesn't know real poor people?

Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

Question : Has the American Political System created a Permanent Underclass? If so, to what effect?

Think of NYC. The banker on 5th Ave. only wants to watch "Gangs of New York" on DVD. That banker will gladly give up 2nd amendment rights to ensure that the NYPD is the only one with ... shooting rights.

The permanent underclass are those who are paid more not to work than to work. Or, if working are given jobs that are more or less subsistence. They are beholden to a political class who they consistently vote for and keep in power. The political class lives alongside of and is bankrolled by the banker on 5th Ave. 

While the Underclass is bought off with basic necessities, they none the less remain in fear of the system, since it is the banker that essentially controls the NYPD and its seizure of 2nd Amendment Rights. Think of cases like Amadou Diallo with victims being shot at by literally hundreds of bullets. Oh, Diallo was NOT shot on 5th Ave ...

As long as the Underclass knows who butters its bread, they are materially better off. Unless of course you are the unlucky one to face the wrath of lethality at the limits of behaviour. Then there are protests and local leaders who will take to the streets. The local leaders are also friends of the banker. There is political expression, but it's mostly show since you are going to vote for those same people who feed you and essentially keep you politically neutered. You are neutered because you are kept in check, constantly preyed upon by forces that your poor education and lack of critical outlets takes utter advantage of.

The middle class? We don't need no stinkin middle class ...

Bring the Gold's picture

This paper looks like the ground work to set up justification for Austerity in the US. How about we keep focused on the real problem, the Oligarchs. I'm not a fan of the Welfare state, but I have a far bigger problem with the Warfare state and of course more importantly, the total corporate police state. As someone else mentioned the primary purpose of the welfare state is to keep the poor from going all pitchforks and torches on that ass.


This paper while modestly interesting shows us a problem (the welfare state) that is to the body politic a hangnail. The oligarchs are to the social fabric of America a tad more like stage 3 colon cancer.


To sum up, I could give a fuck if some poor chumps are living somewhat large in AmeriKKKa, I'm just a tad more concerned with the arch-criminals in control of the emerging technocratic global gulag state. I don't know, I guess I sort of prioritize my problems and figure the welfare state is somewhat low on said priority scale.

kato's picture

unfair, even bullshit example.

hungrydweller's picture

Enlighten us, oh wise one. Why is this an unfair example?

HarryWanger's picture

Agreed. I'm getting pretty sick of the crowd that thinks everybody collecting unemployment or food stamps is some sort of slacker gaming the system. Real people who have fallen on hard times need these benefits yet you all complain about it as if everyone is taking advantage of the situation.

I'm sorry to say this but I'd love to see any of you that may lose your job, search and search to find nothing and then turn down any government assistance - whether it be unemployment, foodstamps, etc. You won't. You'll be just like the example. You too will be a "slacker" who "games the system". Such unbelievable, blatant disregard and disrespect here it that it smacks of selfish protectionism whether in your own home or country. 

Hey, posters, some people need help. That might surprise all you who comfortably have jobs and watch the NFL. But some people need assistance and as a caring nation, we are obligated to provide it.

Bob Sponge's picture

Does the USA's debt/GDP ratio cause you any alarm? Do you take Prozac or some other happy pill? Just curious and trying to understand you.

HarryWanger's picture

Look, I said often this will all end in tears but the charade can continue for decades. But that's a different thread. We're talking about supporting our fellow countrymen in a time of need and all I read here is selfish bullshit about how everyone is gaming the system. Some are but the majority need our assistance to make it through. 

God, I sure hope your family never suffers from weeks of job loss and risks losing the house. Because once that shoe's on your foot, I guarantee you'll feel differently.

chopper read's picture

i've been out of work and lived off of savings out of pure pride rather than apply for benefits, for the record.

your point about helping countrymen in need is fair, by your methods are misplaced.

first of all, nobody OWES help in America, unless it is to a war veteran.  We are the Land of Opportunity, not the land of handouts.  

However, if we wish to institutionalize help rather than just assist our neighbor directly, then simple soup kitchens, clothing, and tents will do.  



WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MurderNeverWasLove's picture

i've been out of work and lived off of savings out of pure pride rather than apply for benefits, for the record.


 I resemble that.  Never did anything but pay in, but too much self-respect to go looking for a handout.  I may be poorer in dollars because of it, but my spirit is strong.

chopper read's picture

love it.  self-belief precedes belief by others, and is why we retain our pride as a survival mechanism.  when against all odds, it can make all the difference.  

of course, outside of completely dire circumstances, pride often sabotages our progress, but thats an entirely different topic.

good stuff, MNWL.  

Bob Sponge's picture

Yes, we do not know the percent of people gaming the system, so maybe it is low (maybe not). This article is about the system being set up such that a person who wants to work less can do so with the help of benefits. Do you agree that this set up is bad for our country?

Chupacabra's picture

Wanger, you're a complete, unremitting tool.  Have you lost all your money shorting gold and silver yet?

oh_bama's picture

You know why so many people mark your comments as junk? Cause right now it is not a good time to talk about big heart. Resources are limited and should be allocated per people's contribution to the society. Entitlement discouratge savings, encourage risk taking, cheating and corruptions. It gives no incentive for hardworking, entrepreneurial activities and independence. Entitlement will, in the long run, create a culture that is counter-american and counter-capitalism. And it could become a cancer that polutes this country and polutes the sprite of our children.  

The fact that some 10 per hour jobs are hiring and the fact that millions are taking benefits means at least some of those guys taking benefits are just lazy. This is 2 grade math.


Jeff Lebowski's picture

I volunteer at a non-profit, no-kill Animal Shelter on weekends and also serve on the board.

We utilize volunteers, but also have a few 40 hour/week positions that pay $10/hour, and yet, the positions remains unfilled.  The last applicant determined when she calculated the rate of pay, and included gas...  She was better off to remain unemployed and continue collecting.

That was indicative of the majority of the applicants, and the example should be no news to anyone, but provided to give oh_bama's story a real-world experience.


CH1's picture

Reality instead of pontification! How nice!

RKDS's picture

Oh come on, you cannot create a world where it costs $20 per hour to live and then howl with rage/disbelief that people can't take $10 per hour jobs.

And anyway, maybe the people trying to fill these wonderful McJobs should get real about their requirements.  A couple of years back, I wanted to supplement my income with a 2nd part-time job.  I had evenings and Saturdays free (M-F office job, Sunday supermarket), but couldn't get the time of day even from retail.  When the hell do they think working people shop?  Oh well, let's just have another round of "lazy kids today, don't want to work" excuses.

And that's before all the horror stories of companies that specialize in finding ways _not_ to hire Americans so they can get the H1B quota raised...

RockyRacoon's picture

Just wondering how it is that the person can still get unemployment if your job or another is available.  I thought that was not supposed to happen.

Miss Expectations's picture

I posted this comment on Leo's thread about NYC Pensions:

My neighbor is a retired New York detective.  He collects about $105,000/year in pension benefits plus medical for himself and his wife.  His single daughter and her illegitimate daughter live with him.  His 34 year old daughter collects about $500/month in welfare payments.  She does not work.  His granddaughter qualifies and receives free/reduced lunch at school.  His mother-in-law died 3 years ago and left his daughter about $30,000.  His daughter went out and bought a brand new VW for $24,000.  About one year after the detective retired, he somehow qualified for disability.  Now, all three of them drive around with handicap placards hanging from their rear view mirrors and park in the handicapped spaces at school (despite greatly inconveniencing the parents who are picking up kids who are in wheel chairs).  Oh yea, the detective mows his lawn with a push mower every week and plays golf twice a week...without a golf cart, he prefers to walk.

What bothers me, always and everywere, is the FRAUD

shuswap's picture

Exactly why Amerika is in the toilet. There is FRAUD in everything. Very very few Americans know what it means to be honest. For that matter neither does the rest of the world.


Miss Expectations's picture

This guy is an ex COP!  Karl keeps asking, "Where are the cops?"  I know where one is.

tip e. canoe's picture

now let's contrast Ms.E's anecdote with this local story:

"And if the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which passed in the House and is currently stalled in the Senate, had been passed months ago, Ehmer may still be alive today, she said.

“One of the last treatments he was going to try costs $8,000 a month, and Medicare wouldn’t cover it,” said Annette. “If that was passed when it should have been passed all of these guys would have had access to health care.”

Robert joins the more than 900 other first-responders who have died in the years following the attacks."

John Walcott, former NYPD detective who now has leukemia, chose not to accept settlement:  “If you read the settlement package, there is no guarantee you will get what they offered you. The only guarantee is you give up your rights.”

i think everyone commenting on this topic could agree that if any group of people is deserving of public assistance, it would be these folks.  yet look how long it's taken them to get anything.   and for 900+, it's too little, too late.

so to Mr. Steroid above, whether gov't is inefficient or corrupt, we can argue til the cows come home.   the point is that it's broken and it's not delivering the services to the people who are most deserving, yet the people who are least deserving get full access to the trough as long as they can figure the way to game the system.

speaking from someone who might be willing to agree with you philosophically, until you're willing to propose a way to fix this little paradox, your argument falls flat, sorry.