Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 14

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by Dandelionkid 

Also regarding lower taxes, there seems to be very little difference between the two countries http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/taxes.htm. The difference is that the American system allows for a much greater disparity between the very rich and very poor. If the States government truly has less interference in the lives of it's people it comes at quite a cost to a large portion of its people.   

Another poster said my views must be based on being wealthy, and I explained that they are based on having lived (and paid taxes) in both countries. Statistics from Canada aren't going to convince me that my real life experiences were different than they were!

I only skimmed your article, but it seemed to focus on federal income tax. The Provencial income tax in Quebec was the VERY highest taxes we've paved anywhere. It was equal to what we paid in Canadian federal tax. I've heard it is the highest in Canada. Additionally, we paid 15% sales tax, which also came as a huge shock.

Taxes vary in different parts of Canada, just as they do in different parts of the US. The cost of living varies widely as well within each country.

None the less, the higher taxes and less purchasing power of the dollars that were left was the difference between me being able to comfortable stay home with my kids, and me not being able to.

There are pros and cons to each system. There were some things I like about living in Canada, but the economic impact on my family wasn't one of them.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I am also fairly sure you are a reasonably wealthy woman.  You might not care so much about government intervention if you were poor and it meant more dollars in your pocket.

Hmm. I know this comment wasn't addressed to me...but now I'm wondering if the fact that I still value my freedom means that I'm "reasonably wealthy" and just somehow magically qualify for food stamps and medical assistance.

Oh, well, at least I don't have any $100 jeans. It does, however, cost me A LOT to buy bras and swimsuits that fit properly, mainly because I weigh about 300 lbs and wear an F or a G-cup. But maybe it'll give jealous folks some comfort to know that I wear those bras 'til the underwires break and start jabbing me, then I pull out the wires and keep on wearing 'em, like, forever...

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

Hmm. I know this comment wasn't addressed to me...but now I'm wondering if the fact that I still value my freedom means that I'm "reasonably wealthy" and just somehow magically qualify for food stamps and medical assistance.

And what do you value more?  Your freedom (whatever the heck that means) or your food stamps?  (fwiw, I wish freedom and social programs did not go hand and hand  (and they do not always).

We would need to define freedom to discuss this properly.  Freedom to do what, exactly?  

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

In the US, we are very solidly middle class. My DH is an engineer who worked his way up.

In Canada, we really struggled because taxes were so much higher and Canada dollars buy less then US dollars. We lived in both Quebec and Ontario, and I was a SAHM and we homeschooled both places.

I couldn't have afforded to stay home with my children for as long as I have if we had stayed in Canada. We would have continued to struggle until I got a job. The same is true in the UK -- I would have to work for us to get buy. The SAHM and homeschooling issues would have ended the minute our kids passed the magic age that  the government decided it wasn't important for me to be home.

I've had more time with our kids because taxes are lower here.

Honestly, in Canada, we were broke.

That is not the impression I have gotten from you (over many posts) but I could be wrong.  We may define wealthy and middle class differently.  I reread my post earlier - it seemed a little snarky/personal.  Apologies.  

[Alenushka]

Honestly, no, I am not interested in paying someone welfare because it is their lifestyle choice to stay home. But again...no one asks me. My taxes pay for things far, far worse like 2 billion a week for the war and billions for Goldman Sucks bail out.

I do find it appalling how many 'by choice welfare moms because I do not want my kid in day care" make condescending remarks about moms who work outside home.

You know, someone has to pay for all of it. I found a way to work from home with babies, my husband change his career and then my kids went to preshool. So, I worked and I work and I pay taxes. Most of my taxes pay for thing I disagree with....but that's OK. That is part of living in US, I guess.

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

This is one of the realities that makes me of two minds when I hear some people talking about how family-friendly Europe is. As I've already mentioned, we do draw food stamps, our girls' health care is covered by Medicaid, and dh and I get 100 % discounts for any medical care we need. This has not, so far, resulted in the government trying to exert any control over how we are raising our family.

However, in many countries in Europe, it is very difficult and sometimes even illegal to homeschool. I think unschooling would be very difficult or impossible there.

Our freedoms are very important to us. On the one hand, I think it would be absolutely lovely to be paid to stay home with my children for the first three years of their lives. On the other hand, both of mine are well past three now, and I strongly feel that it's best for them to have the freeedom to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. I love it that we're free to decide what's best for our children, irregardless of whether the majority of the population agrees with us. I'd hate to be in a place without these freedoms.

I think it is unfair to compare the European (and specifically German) policies on homeschooling with the American system of freedoms or even the social welfare system here in the U.S..  Both countries (US and Germany) are coming from very different positions. I believe that Germany's main goal (as far as education goes) is retroactive.  Given its recent history, Germany seeks to be inclusive as far as minorities and viewpoints, and they seek to enforce this by requiring that children be educated outside the home.  I'm not saying that I agree with their methods in principle, but I don't think that we occupy the same positions historically to make a fair comparison.  Germany is super sensitive about not repeating its past.  Freedom of speech as we know it is also limited in Germany.  I can understand how this squeamishness came about, and while I think that the German people are quite capable of handling their issues on their own now without governmental interference, they are at a place in their history where they have not quite reached a point where they feel safe.  Not speaking for Germans, but I do understand, in theory, why they operate this way and it is not tied to governmental assistance, per se.  Limitation of freedoms there (certain freedoms as we know them) are directly or indirectly related to correcting the past.  It is not about high taxes and the government in your house as result of.

[Lisa1970]

I pay my own children's bills or my dh does anyway. It is not right to make people who don't have children pay for the welfare of those who have children. It is just not right. I would have/could have profited a lot off of laws like these. But, I would not want to. It is wrong and I should not have to pay in to such a program either.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Lisa1970 

I pay my own children's bills or my dh does anyway. It is not right to make people who don't have children pay for the welfare of those who have children. It is just not right. I would have/could have profited a lot off of laws like these. But, I would not want to. It is wrong and I should not have to pay in to such a program either.

Are you OK with taxes going to schools and such?

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

That is not the impression I have gotten from you (over many posts) but I could be wrong.  We may define wealthy and middle class differently.  I reread my post earlier - it seemed a little snarky/personal.  Apologies.  

It is possible that we use the words differently. My kids go to private school, but my car has 130,000 miles on it and it isn't getting replaced any time soon! I live in a lovely home, but it isn't huge and I clean it myself. We have to set our priorities with our money, but we have more than many people and feel very blessed. We aren't rich. 

On this thread other posters have said that I must be on assistance to hold my views, so in a way it's funny that you said I must be wealthy.

Apology accepted. Lets go back to being buddies.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by Lisa1970 

I pay my own children's bills or my dh does anyway. It is not right to make people who don't have children pay for the welfare of those who have children. It is just not right. I would have/could have profited a lot off of laws like these. But, I would not want to. It is wrong and I should not have to pay in to such a program either.

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Are you OK with taxes going to schools and such?

I think it's all just a difference in where we each draw that line. On the radio this week, they talked about the need to watch speed limits in school zones because kids are walking back and forth to eat. Our city has a lot of kids on free and reduced lunch and breakfast program, and those kids are still provided meals through the schools even when school is out of session. I've never heard ANYONE in the US complain about this program.

But I'm with Lisa, I don't want to pay money to just give to families. I'd rather pay a little money to be used to make sure the weakest members of our society are OK, but keep most of my money to make my own life, or give to charities, or whatever.

yet, I don't think we are really that far apart in what we think. It's just where we draw that line.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

It is possible that we use the words differently. My kids go to private school, but my car has 130,000 miles on it and it isn't getting replaced any time soon! I live in a lovely home, but it isn't huge and I clean it myself. We have to set our priorities with our money, but we have more than many people and feel very blessed. We aren't rich. 

On this thread other posters have said that I must be on assistance to hold my views, so in a way it's funny that you said I must be wealthy.

Apology accepted. Lets go back to being buddies.

OT a little but I think a lot of assumptions are made in general where money is concerned.

I travel regularly.  It is where we spend our money (I am middle class).  DS has friends who call him rich because we travel a lot.  I know their parents make as much money as we do.  Money and perceptions are interesting things.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

And what do you value more?  Your freedom (whatever the heck that means) or your food stamps?  (fwiw, I wish freedom and social programs did not go hand and hand  (and they do not always).

We would need to define freedom to discuss this properly.  Freedom to do what, exactly?  

I value my freedom more than my food stamps. And the specific freedom I was talking about was the freedom to give my children a learning environment where they are free to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. To me, this means the freedom to homeschool -- or, in our case, to unschool.

CatsCradle, I do understand that the German government probably does look at everything from a different vangage point -- but, then, I've heard that homeschooling is also illegal or, at the least, very difficult, in Sweden and some other parts of Europe. True, every country has its own unique history so maybe it's not fair to compare.

And yet -- people do compare the helps that are available to many European families with the welfare system in the U.S., Given our different histories, maybe those kinds of comparisons are unfair, too.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

I value my freedom more than my food stamps. And the specific freedom I was talking about was the freedom to give my children a learning environment where they are free to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. To me, this means the freedom to homeschool -- or, in our case, to unschool.

There are several programs that help families with less money in Canada.  Child tax, mat leave, universal child allowance and any provincial money does not relate at all to HSing.  You get them if you qualify, they are based on age of kids  or income or both and that is that.  Really, it is a check that comes in the mail.  They determine if I get in based on my tax form.

I do not think you can be on welfare and HS because you are supposed to be looking for work.  There may be loopholes and exceptions.  I doubt this is different in the USA.  As noted upthread -  USA and Canada are huge places, anyone would need to check into their local regulations.  

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I do not think you can be on welfare and HS because you are supposed to be looking for work.  There may be loopholes and exceptions.  I doubt this is different in the USA.  As noted upthread -  USA and Canada are huge places, anyone would need to check into their local regulations.  

I think what you are saying is that in families who don't have any children under six (or whatever age is considered "school aged" in the state or region in question), both parents need to be working, looking for work, or getting some sort of training or education in order to qualify for government assistance. Yes, this is true in the U.S., too. At least, I'm pretty sure that it's true for the food stamps program, but I'm not sure whether it applies to things like children's Medicaid or adult medical discounts.

Of course, if both parents are working regular day shifts, Monday through Friday, this would most likely mean that the children need to go to school. However, I can tell you that back when dh and I were both working (before his health worsened), we worked opposite hours so that one of us could always be with our girls. So we kept homeschooling, and, even with two incomes, we still qualified for food stamps (though we naturally got less than we do now), Medicaid for the girls, and 100% hospital discounts for dh and me.

I'm not sure if, by welfare, you mean only TANF and not food or medical assistance. If that's your definition, then maybe you don't even see the help that my family is getting as welfare. I think the rules are a lot stricter with TANF, but, then again, TANF is only a short-term thing whereas, at least in the U.S., you can get food and medical assistance for however long you qualify based on each program's criteria.

That said, when I spoke of the freedom to home school, I was talking about straight-across-the-board freedom for everyone in that country. It's my understanding that, in some of the countries that are touted as being the most family-friendly, homeschooling is either illegal or very difficult -- not just for poor families, but for all families residing in those countries. Of course, I do get what the other poster said about every government growing into its own way of looking at things based on its own unique history.

So maybe there's no real way to compare or to accurately predict what might happen here if we were to start having three years of paid maternity leave, and so on. Maybe this would have absolutely no affect on our freedom to let our children direct their own educations if they so choose. Or maybe it would. Who really knows?

[mamayogibear]

Here in the US this is not possible. To get cash assistance you have to put your kids in daycare for at least 25 hours a week so says the paperwork but they made me leave mine in daycare for 32 hours a week. It was very difficult to spend that much time searching for jobs since there just aren't that many here. I don't see how someone could be on welfare and stay at home with their kids, it's not possible. I would love to be a mom that works outside the home and will be putting my kids in daycare in September when I have a job lined up in another town. But for now there is no point in my leaving my kids in a state run daycare for 32 hours a week while I look for a job that does not exist that I would only work at for three months...
 

Originally Posted by Alenushka 

I do find it appalling how many 'by choice welfare moms because I do not want my kid in day care" make condescending remarks about moms who work outside home.

[mammal_mama]

mamayogibear, I think the poster you quoted was talking about one-income families, such as my own, where one parent is working and the family receives things like food stamps and Medicaid for the children. In these cases, as long as you have one child under school age (in our case in Missouri I think the cutoff is age 6), it's permissible to receive these non-cash benifits even if one parent is not earning any money. I think that once all the children are old enough to be in school all day, both parents are expected to be working, studying, or looking for work for the family to keep getting food stamps. This may also be the case for the chidlren's Medicaid.

Welfare includes more than just cash assistance.

[joensally]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

Another poster said my views must be based on being wealthy, and I explained that they are based on having lived (and paid taxes) in both countries. Statistics from Canada aren't going to convince me that my real life experiences were different than they were!

I only skimmed your article, but it seemed to focus on federal income tax. The Provencial income tax in Quebec was the VERY highest taxes we've paved anywhere. It was equal to what we paid in Canadian federal tax. I've heard it is the highest in Canada. Additionally, we paid 15% sales tax, which also came as a huge shock.

Taxes vary in different parts of Canada, just as they do in different parts of the US. The cost of living varies widely as well within each country.

None the less, the higher taxes and less purchasing power of the dollars that were left was the difference between me being able to comfortable stay home with my kids, and me not being able to.

There are pros and cons to each system. There were some things I like about living in Canada, but the economic impact on my family wasn't one of them.

That makes sense.  I think it really does depend on where one sits economically. 

I don't know how long you were in Ontario, but Quebec is unique in Canada in terms of their structure, taxation and social control.  Were you eligible for any government transfers or subsidies while in Canada?  Those can off-set some of the tax burden.

Looking at OECD numbers, the US spends more per capita on health care than Canada by a long shot, at the government level and at the individual/employer level.  Yet, the life expectancy and child mortality rates are worse than in Canada.  I think it would likely be better to be poor in Canada than the US (ie no employer sponsored healthcare).  I don't have the energy to look up a bunch of numbers but it's when you look at the total tax burden + user fees + benefits in totality that one can conclude that for their circumstances one jurisdiction is better than another.

I don't believe that there's a single jurisdiction in N. America that doesn't have a work/school requirement for all welfare recipients, and some of them start years before school age.

In principle, I would love to see more kids have a parent at home longer.  Tolerance for the stretching of the public purse that far would never happen though. 

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by joensally 

I don't believe that there's a single jurisdiction in N. America that doesn't have a work/school requirement for all welfare recipients, and some of them start years before school age.

As I keep saying, in Missouri, you can receive non-cash benefits and have one parent who's not working or going to school as long as there is a child in the home under school age.

About the lower mortality rates in Canada, I think this may be at least partially due to Canada's lower obesity rates. Are Canadians less likely to consume the standard American diet? I'm not saying that obesity accounts for the whole difference, since it looks like there's not any or much difference in childhood obesity, but I can't help wondering if there may be some other differences, such as in diet or lifestyle that impact health. Or, do you (whoever has an opinion) think mortality rates are pretty closely linked to medical care?

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/united-states-vs-canada-which-has-the-lower-obesity-rate/
 

[Lillitu]

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.

[SuburbanHippie]

Originally Posted by Lillitu 

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.

Just flag her posts.