- This topic has 84 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
My comment was that if you do not give charity you will have a higher tax bill at the end of the year. I do not know anyone who willingly wants to pay more income tax than they have to. Even Clinton when their tax return was revealed deducted used clothing donations on their tax return.
Maybe the reason the school monitor in Lakewood NJ is trying to STRONG ARM the community into increasing real estate taxes by $6.5 million is because of this. I assume the Jews in Lakewood give charity but who knows. I never had to go on a program but I have read that to qualify for these programs your income has to be below 130% of the poverty line based on family size and you are restricted as to what assets you can have.
As far as someone on programs having a new minivan, it may not be theirs or a relative pays the lease for them and that is why they have a new car. Or even if they are paying the lease themselves it may not be counted as an asset for govt. program purposes and may shelter some of their income. Why don’t you give them the benefit of the doubt?
Avram – I’m baffled why you ask me to differentiate between EITC and EBT when I said they are the same to me.
Yes, the fact that no one needs to go about in rags proves that the programs are serving the social benefit that was intended. That doesn’t prevent people who don’t get benefits from comparing themselves to those who do (and thus being the thief of joy). What was your question? You’re confused as to why people are upset that the system works so well that it seems like welfare receipients have it better than hard working people? Yeah run that by me again.
As to child tax credits, those are in the same category as giving tax exemptions for dependents. The country wants its citizens to have families and offers a financial incentive.
I’m baffled why you ask me to differentiate between EITC and EBT when I said they are the same to me.
I don’t think he’s referring to anything you said, just a sense he gets in general. See here, for example:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/bring-back-shame
This e-mail was sent by the Chafetz Chaim Heritage Foundation:
Day 117 – A Good Job
SEFER AHAVAS CHESED ? Part II Chapter XXI
To strengthen a businessman who is faltering takes savvy, and it takes money. Not everyone is positioned to be of real help in such situations. That does not mean, however, that the commandment to strengthen one?s faltering brother is out of reach for the average person. There are many situations in which even a middle-class person with no money to invest has the opportunity to perform ? and reap the rewards ? of this life-giving mitzvah.
The Chofetz Chaim points out that those on the middle and lower rungs of the economic scale often live in constant danger of falling into dire straits. A car-service driver, a handyman, a woman who helps with housekeeping or baby-sitting, the owner of a small store ? any of these individuals may be one job or one bad business week away from disaster. Patronizing their businesses, employing them and using their services fulfills the commandment to strengthen one?s brother just as completely as does the act of investing in someone?s thousand-man factory. Even a person who has the wherewithal to be of help to a large business enterprise is obligated to help the simple, struggling worker to stay afloat as well. He is not relieved of the burden of looking around him at the everyday people who cross his path, simply because he is putting a large sum into saving his neighbor?s business empire.
Even if using the services of a struggling fellow Jew will cost a person additional money, the Chofetz Chaim says, one should do it nonetheless. The additional cost is simply money spent on the mitzvah, money which Hashem promises to recompense at some point, in some way. Whatever a person seeks to accomplish, Divine assistance is the essential component for success. One who chooses his employees or contractors with attention to their need for the income channels Hashem?s help into the endeavor. Conversely, saving money at the expense of a Jew in need will not, in most cases, save any money at the bottom line.
Helping people who are locked permanently into a financial struggle can be a discouraging experience. People who have few assets with which to cushion their setbacks may find themselves in need again and again, creating a sense of futility for those who help them. The Chofetz Chaim sees this factor as no reason to cut off one?s help or support. As many times as a person stumbles, one is obligated to step in and prevent his downfall. Even if one saves the same person?s life a hundred times, each and every time he acts, he is saving a life.
I don’t understand why everyone is so against kollel couples on the government programs. isn’t this what the programs are here for?? for people who are on low income and cant afford more?? Does a kollel family not apply to that??
HIR -“I don’t understand why everyone is so against kollel couples on the government programs. isn’t this what the programs are here for?? for people who are on low income and cant afford more?? Does a kollel family not apply to that??”
They’re against people who take programs & live like kings and queens!
They’re against those Kollel guys who take and they don’t learn like they’re supposed to!
“it isn’t contradictory for the same person to oppose government laws offering food stamps, welfare, WIC and Section 8 at the generous levels it is offered, and yet at the same time take advantage of those very laws he wishes to abolish”
It isn’t contradictory, it is hypocritical.
Jews do not, in general, vote for their economic interests. The frum neighborhoods in Brooklyn vote for Republican politicians who would end the very government programs that are essential to the survival of their communities. But the high income modern orthodox in Teaneck and Riverdale vote for Democratic politicians knowing that those politicians support raising their taxes.
“In other words, if paying taxes is like giving tzedaka. Receiving government funds is like taking from the Tamchui.”
Remember that contributions to the tamchui and kuppah were not voluntary. Rambam ruled that anyone not contributing the assessed amount would be given lashes and have his property confiscated by beit din.
It is not well known, but the English Parliament under Queen Elizabeth I set up a system of support for the poor that was surprisingly similar to the kuppah, with mandatory collection of taxes and distribution to the poor according to need. Every English colony would adopt a similar system; one of the persons who served as a poor funds administrator at one point during his career was George Washington.
It is not hypocritical. They are saying as long as we (as a community) pay taxes to fund these entitlement programs at the generous level they are being funded and offered, we (i.e. our community members) who qualify for it at the current levels will take full advantage of it by applying and accepting the full aid they are legally entitled to.
That being said, we take the position that the level of the entitlement programs should be less generous, and thus less taxes collected for them, and we will accept them being at a lesser benefit level.
charliehall: First of all, the only ones ever to cut those programs, like SS or Medicare, have been Democrats (Clinton and Obama). They talk a good game and scare the elderly that if you don’t vote for them, you’ll lose those benefits. That is EVIL!
The welfare programs have harmed society by destroying family life. My cousin was a welfare social worker in NY when those programs first started and he saw how the temporary split in families, who were intact, happened in order to get benefits, became permanent. That breakdown in family life has ruined society.
Just because some Frum people benefit, doesn’t make it good. People who scam the system, and there are many, makes for a Chillul Hashem. You know the old Williamsburgh approach to living on “MUSAF” even when working off the books? Also, it is not Tzedaka when you demean the recipient either, which the system does.
Also, even if it were done with the best of intentions, the programs were supposed to be a last resort (ha ha), not the first option so you don’t have to earn a living.
Barry -“of all, the only ones ever to cut those programs, like SS or Medicare, have been Democrats (Clinton and Obama). They talk a good game and scare the elderly that if you don’t vote for them, you’ll lose those benefits.”
That’s why they’re called DEMONcrats!
health: what make you think their not learning like their supposed to? And how can you live lavishly through food stamps?!
How does it demean the recipient?
Exactly the way Chazal explain it does. Nahamusa D’Kisufa. We say in Bentching every day “V’lo Lidai Matnas Basar V’dam”, but go ahead with taking such Matanos on purpose (not saying right or wrong, but it is demeaning).
Finally, the culture of dependency (as I’ve mentioned before) can only hurt Torah Yidden as a society.
That’s even if it is not Tzedaka :), and I guess off-topic.
For the kollel families that I know personally, the issue isn’t whether to earn a living or not, but choosing to earn less (and do with less) than is potentially possible in order to prioritize learning; e.g., the spouse works, the husband teaches on the side, etc.
Could say the same about any Yeraim Jew and any sacrifice they make for their Yiddishkeit, from Kosher food to tuition to living in a Jewish community. Sacrifices are demanded by Hashem, otherwise we wouldn’t deserve the reward.
I have yet to personally see a kollel family living the high life
Depends how you define Kollel; see above.
That’s fair, but I would like to know what you would propose as a better amelioration of poverty?
No welfare or other government direct payments without mandatory relocation and work (similar to “workfare”), or go all out in the other direction with unconditional basic income.
But that is for a different thread.
Avram in MD: Increasing taxes on working people is NOT cutting seniors. Taxes get increased all the time and will continue to be be raised.
That is a far cry from scaring seniors, who are current recipients, that the Republicans will cut or even take away many seniors sole source of income. That scare tactic is despicable and can literally take years off a person’s life.
I knew a frail senior on Maryland, who happened to be very conservative, who was going to vote for Al Gore because of that scare tactic.
Republicans are foolish by always running scared of the leftist media and not fighting back, often caving in on issue. What passes for the current national Democratic party and their tactics are just EVIL!
Avram,
Almost forty years ago there was a program called CETA which paid municipalities to hire welfare recipients for clerical jobs. At the time I worked for the City of NY (I was civil service) and I personally knew CETA workers who eventually took exams and became full-fledged employees. Of course, if there would not be welfare recipients the bureaucrats who administer the programs would then have to work for a living.
As for relocation, people in America do it all the time. I knew several people who left NY for other areas in order to advance their careers.
Relocation expenses can be pretty high, as well as potential social impacts of moving, such as being far away from family/friends, adjusting to a new culture, etc. Maybe teleworking technology can help prevent the need for moving. What do you think about something like mandatory community service (I guess you could call it “make-work”)?
I envision the social impacts as being extremely positive from the government’s perspective, especially for entire cultures (and there are two that I’m thinking of) that shun gainful legal employment.
When you pay people for being poor, you can easily end up with a situation in which they must keep on doing it to survive.
Avram in MD: Also, a big difference. Taxing retiree benefits for the elderly with higher incomes is vastly different than a real dollar cut for lower income elderly. While I don’t agree with that provision, it’s still a big difference.
Give us an example of Republican lying to the elderly using scare tactics about their source of income.
I envision the social impacts as being extremely positive from the government’s perspective,
I agree that the employment rate is an extremely important metric of public wellness; however, it isn’t the only one. For example, do you think that the proliferation of two-income households has been more of a benefit or detriment to society?
Depends who you ask. From a government fiscal perspective (looking to have fewer people on programs) it would be a positive. From a democrat/socialist perspective (where they want people to be dependent so they will vote socialist) then no.
especially for entire cultures (and there are two that I’m thinking of) that shun gainful legal employment.
I’m assuming that one of these cultures you mention is the kollel culture, which constitutes a very small percentage of the US population as a whole. In that case, I wouldn’t characterize the culture as shunning gainful legal employment, but rather prioritizing employment in other gainfaul activities that don’t result in money.
As I said, from the government’s perspective, “shunning gainful legal employment”. One could say the same about philosophers, thinkers, homeless people, chess players, graffiti artists, etc. That you consider one activity “gainful” (such as being a member of the society to promote graffiti) means nothing from the government’s perspective.
gavra: People who work for a think tank, philosophers and paid chessplayers are counted as gainfully employed, so I don’t see why a paid Kollel member wouldn’t be.
Avram in MD – Sure I was over the top, but many republicans (like those who would vote for Trump) would completely agree with what I said. That perspective is alive and well in the US, even if not correct.
Halacha has the concept of the “Asarah Batlanim”, ten people in the city who are paid to sit around and do nothing (be available for minyanim, learn, etc.), so we Yidden have that concept and agree it is important.
Others consider other types of “Batlanim” as providing services to their community that you would think are wasteful (example – member of J Street, or “vulture investor” (as I saw some “rabbi” tried to write an article that being one is Assur)). The government (not looking through the lens of religion) could decide that both should not get benefits, as they are not “Osek B’Yeshuo Shel Olam” in their eyes.
Finally:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
Attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to Alexis de Tocqueville. We see it time and time again in our own communities, where we vote against our most dear values for the sake of government funding.
It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection.
Also from Washington’s farewell address (who was strongly against political parties as we have them today:
All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests
Many proposals that go through the House today look at nothing other than those narrow interests of budgeting and faction promotion, without looking at “mutual interests”.
Then again, block voting only works to further the interests of the minority over mutual interests.
Avram, very often grandmother herself has relocated to warmer climes (or to Israel in the case of frum Jews). In any case, what is more traumatic, relocating of having to live on charity? Not to mention the fact that the welfare state encourages break-ups of families and a culture of dependency that spans generations. Eventually it implodes as there is no one left to pay. A far better program would involve job re-training, incentives for employers and paid national service work for those who suffer from age discrimination, which is the largest cause of unemployment among those who want to work. This would also benefit the public as older workers will not leave after a few years for higher paying jobs in the private sector. Besides leading to a stable civil service this will obviate the problem in regulatory agencies of employees feeling that they have to kowtow to those they are ostensibly regulating in order to get plum jobs in a few years.
Gavra,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.