Why should we be honest?

amother

Violet

Mon, May 30 2016, 9:36 am

I work in a school full time. B'H my dh has a pretty good job. I can't tell you how many times this year I've heard the therapists in my school talk about how they can't take anymore hours because it will effect their benefits. Then of course you have the families who learn (this is not a kollel bashing thread!!!) and the husbands choose no to apply any talents or skills that hashem gave them to earn money. Instead of course, they survive on programs and family help. All this of course is perfectly legal. Yet if I play games, and try to bend the rules a little, like for example not reporting cash earned, this is considered stealing. Can someone please help this make sense to me?

amother

Orange

Mon, May 30 2016, 9:54 am

There is no inherit dishonesty/deception in the examples you give of people choosing not to work or to work less hours in order not to lose government benefits.

For what purposes aren't you reporting the extra cash earned? If it to TAKE government programs then it is theft no matter how many people do it. If it is not to PAY taxes then you have a more valid question.

amother

Violet

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:16 am

amother wrote:

amother

Aquamarine

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:21 am

amother wrote:

If you can't see the difference between legally meeting the requirements for benefits, and not reporting cash you are legally mandated to report, I don't think anyone can convince you otherwise.

Honestly, I think you're trying to rationalize the cash you don't report.

Because those people are within the letter of the law, though I agree not within the spirit of the law. But you are violating the actual letter of the law.

Put it this way: It is you who will face consequences if the IRS catches up with you. Not them.

amother

Orange

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:23 am

amother wrote:

I disagree. Very few programs have any type of work search requirements.The conservatives (myself among them) who oppose programs point out all the time that they take away peoples incentive to earn a honest living etc. Yet those who support them support them anyhow.

gp2.0

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:28 am

You should be honest because you wouldn't make a very good criminal. A good criminal doesn't question the idea of cheating or struggle with morality or feel guilt. A good criminal just does what he wants, quietly, under the radar, not just pretending that everything is completely kosher, but actually believing that everything is completely kosher. If you can't be a good criminal, you're better off being honest. You don't want to be a bad criminal. Those are the ones that go to prison.

#sarcasm

amother

Mistyrose

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:37 am

[quote="amother"]I believe there is absolute inherent dishonesty/deception with regard to people who voluntarily choose not to earn money and instead essentially receive money from other people that are working (programs). It's not debatable that the programs where intended for people struggling, not people voluntarily choosing not to work.[/qu

I love how everyone gets so self righteous when it comes time to the programs. In a perfect world yes programs are for honest hardworking people who are in between jobs or can't work because of a disability. Let's take a real good hard look at the programs. Most people are abusing the system one way or another. Why are you a single mom with 6 kids with 6 different last names? If you don't show up to work or show up drunk you will get fired. Yes in a perfect world everyone is a hardworking productive citizen and they don't use programs as a way to get by day to day. That is unfortunately not the case. I am way happier to see my tax dollars go to the kollel wife therapist (who by the way got an education and has a respectable job) than I am to see it go to all the low lives in the ghetto.

LittleDucky

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:39 am

This is a major issue with the way welfare is handled in our country. There should be a sliding scale system that encourages people to go out to work. Not this sudden drop off once you make $1 too much.
The programs should encourage self sufficiency- not dependency which is the state many are in. If you can work, one should work. Not just take from others. Because the government doesn't make money- anything people get in benefits is coming from your neighbors and fellow citizens.

youngishbear

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:48 am

LittleDucky wrote:

I have often wondered why it can't be changed. Anyone know?

LittleDucky

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:55 am

[quote="amother"]

amother wrote:

I believe there is absolute inherent dishonesty/deception with regard to people who voluntarily choose not to earn money and instead essentially receive money from other people that are working (programs). It's not debatable that the programs where intended for people struggling, not people voluntarily choosing not to work.[/qu

I love how everyone gets so self righteous when it comes time to the programs. <SNIP>
I am way happier to see my tax dollars go to the kollel wife therapist (who by the way got an education and has a respectable job) than I am to see it go to all the low lives in the ghetto.

So because one group theoretically is cheating the system or choosing to depend on it, another group should too?
And you don't get to choose how your tax dollars get spent (besides in elections). If there is not enough to go around, true desperate people can't get help. Either through lack of funding for more welfare $$ or lack of government officials to process paperwork. I know someone who is truly physically disabled. Not sure if I could even think of a job he can do because of his illness. (Permanent and progressive). He lost his benefits due to no fault of his- some official got the paperwork goofed and checked the wrong box. He lost his assistance for months and needed family help for rent because no one in the office had the time to check off the file. They admitted their fault but it took months when they knew what the issue was! Someone else I know can't get housing assistance because there are no openings on the list. Was literally homeless for months. Too many people getting government help and the truly disabled can't get anything.
So when the person who can work but chooses not to (either at all or full time) to qualify it hurts people.

LittleDucky

Mon, May 30 2016, 10:59 am

youngishbear wrote:

I have often wondered why it can't be changed. Anyone know?

Politicians want to be reelected. Their future opponent will bring up that he cut benefits to the single mom, these kids are going hungry...
And if you promise that you will take from peter to pay Paul, you will get every Paul's vote. And there are more Pauls than Peters...

youngishbear

Mon, May 30 2016, 11:02 am

LittleDucky wrote:

Oh I get how politics works. My question is why can't there be a gradual transition between full benefits and none, above the current system? Won't the economic benefits and increase in taxes make up for the budget increase?

LittleDucky

Mon, May 30 2016, 11:13 am

youngishbear wrote:

What do you mean? It can be spun as "decreasing benefits" even if they really make it up through extra income. Same question as why don't they require proof of job training, applications for jobs etc. Paul's won't reelect you...

amother

Lilac

Mon, May 30 2016, 11:45 am

amother wrote:

Just wondering, maybe this should be in another thread, but what % of people can honestly say that they would report completely untraceable income earned in cash by tutoring in the evenings? Am I wrong in believing the answer is probably less than 10%?

Oh you'll have all sorts of self righteous people here saying they would report. You're right, but that 90% would never admit it. So don't bother with that thread.

boysrus

Mon, May 30 2016, 1:49 pm

amother wrote:

ummm, my husband has been tutoring for over 15 years and keeps a log of how much he earns for two purposes: maaser and to declare it in full for taxes.
Do you really truly believe that only 10% do that?! and according to the previous posgter, I am self righteous for saying that! why on earth is that self righteous???very confused.... What

amother

Violet

Mon, May 30 2016, 1:54 pm

boysrus wrote:

Actually, after thinking about it, I really truly believe that 10% was way to high. I'm pretty sure it's more like 2%. I wasn't the one who said anything about being self righteous.

marina

Mon, May 30 2016, 1:56 pm

youngishbear wrote:

The system does have a transition - you get less benefits if you earn a certain amount, it doesn't go from all to nothing.

And many programs require you to apply for work or take classes or attend training sessions to continue to qualify for support.

The people implementing these programs are not idiots. But there will always be flaws and ways people get around it and situations where people are stuck. There is no perfect solution.