This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps

[Sheilbh]

2) Many white working poor view assistance programs as racially motivated.  They see non-white people disproportionately benefit from them and believe it is because they are minorities, not because they are more likely to be poor.

[1] Which was a good description of most of my childhood, actually.

I think the racial element is perhaps stronger in the US than elsewhere.

But I think in general it's the old clash between a welfare system designed on contribution versus one on need. Which is difficult because the people who 'deserve' the support often need it less than the 'undeserving' who may not have worked, may have addiction problems, or be from a different social/ethnic/racial group. It's a very difficult issue though. I've no idea which I think is more right.

Also there is an element of middle class priggishness and trying to manage the poor which has been with us always. I think you can draw a direct line from temperance movements 'worrying' about the drinking poor in the 19th century to censoriousness about working class Brits in Mallorca or daring to spend some of their money on Sky (which, anyway, a good Guardian reader wouldn't want - except for Sky Atlantic, to watch the latest HBO series).

It always reminds me of that line from John Reid when he was Health Secretary that while increasing taxation on cigarettes may be good health policy it's also removing a genuine affordable pleasure from many of the poorest. My aunty in Liverpool died and was severely disabled by the end of her life. She was living in the same 1930s house her husband (unemployed since Ford shut down in the city) was born in and cigarettes were a pleasure for her. I've always felt queasy about saying the poor should be more virtuous and more middle-class in their enjoyments because I think that takes money.

It's that Wigan Pier bit. The reason the poor don't spend their money on cheaper and more nutritious cuts of meat that require a bit more cooking, or on brown bread is because they want something 'tasty': jam, white bread, sugar. Nowadays it's often the odd cheap holiday that you save up for, cigarettes and booze.

[Jacob]

I do not agree with government provided day care.

That's okay, you don't have to

... but I guess you shouldn't move to Quebec, then.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

I don't mind subsidizing the other models for childcare as well, though that might make it even more expensive.

[Sheilbh]

Put that way, it does.  One of the flaws, I think, in the US social assistance programs is that we jump to straight welfare too quickly.  I think some sort of tapered program that kicks in earlier but hits more targeted areas would be better.  As you go lower on the income and wealth scale, you get more and broader benefits, with straight welfare reserved for the hardest off.

This is something the current government have tried to do (roughly). They're trying to institute a 'universal credit' in place of various different welfare programmes that tapers with earnings and so on.

Unfortunately they've put the most self-righteous and least competent minister in charge of it. So in four years it's still only a pilot scheme and in those places has been an unmitigated disaster.

Personally I'm coming to the view that we may be better off abolishing lots of the welfare state that target specific people or are to promote specific forms of behaviour and just guarantee a basic minimum income. Maybe return to a Speenhamland system.

[crazy canuck]

I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

Meh, not everyone uses the public school system either but we all pay for it because it provides a benefit to most.  The number of families who can take advantage of the alternatives you mentioned is considerably less than those who need to purchase daycare services.  Playing to that minority is, in my view, playing politics to a conservative base who want a return to the days when only one parent worked.  Some may make that choice but many more will not or cannot.  We shouldnt craft social policy to meet the needs of the few over the needs of the many.

[crazy canuck]

Unfortunately they've put the most self-righteous and least competent minister in charge of it. So in four years it's still only a pilot scheme and in those places has been an unmitigated disaster.

Yeah that is the problem.  Such a system needs to be run competantly.  Too much to ask?

[Grey Fox]

I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

We also have day homes. Our system is complicated but we have

CPEs (No profit organisation that provide day care in installations)
Private daycare
Private at home daycare
Subsidize Private at home daycare

We faced a problem, couples weren't having enough children while also being totally politically unacceptable to give the impression of encouraging women to stay home & leave the workforce.

[Barrister]

I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

Meh, not everyone uses the public school system either but we all pay for it because it provides a benefit to most.  The number of families who can take advantage of the alternatives you mentioned is considerably less than those who need to purchase daycare services.  Playing to that minority is, in my view, playing politics to a conservative base who want a return to the days when only one parent worked.  Some may make that choice but many more will not or cannot.  We shouldnt craft social policy to meet the needs of the few over the needs of the many.

I very much doubt that formal day care is the majority.  In my experience most people rely on informal day homes, family and friends.

[Admiral Yi]

On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

It comes from the notion that you should spend your own money before you spend someone else's.

[crazy canuck]

On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

It comes from the notion that you should spend your own money before you spend someone else's.

Sure, but forcing people to sell goods for which they will get very little money.  That is just mean spirited.

[Admiral Yi]

Very little money for a 6 year old Bentz?

[garbon]

I'm not sure that Darlena's story would be more than a curiosity piece if we weren't expect to think upon a general takeaway.

I'm pretty sure that the "takeaway" was something along the lines of 'a spell of poverty can potentially happen to you through bad choices or bad luck, even if you are not a member of the inderclass'. Not 'I am now just like the underclass - you can generalize from my (months?) of being poor, as to what living in the underclass is really like'.

You like to rub in your point that this sort of thing isn't "real" poverty. I suppose it isn't, if by "real poverty" you mean "now a member of the underclass". But it is also not meaningless.

Indeed.  It's a message to those of us who do not currently need a safety net that having one is a benefit to us, too.

Allowing us the freedom to make unwise financial choices?

At any rate, doesn't strike me as news that a safety net can help someone if they have overextended themselves.

[Jacob]

I very much doubt that formal day care is the majority.  In my experience most people rely on informal day homes, family and friends.

Perhaps because formal daycare is prohibitively expensive for most?

[The Brain]

Wtf is formal daycare? Little morning suits and shit?

[Jacob]

Wtf is formal daycare? Little morning suits and shit?

"Formal daycare" = an institution with formally trained daycare workers, looking after the kids in a facility designed for the purposes.

"Informal daycare" = leaving the kids with the lady down the street, who also looks after a few other kids; having the grandparents look after the kids; etc.

[Neil]

Our euroweenie social system would make you sell a Mercedes before you could get social security. You may own an "appropriate" car, but a 2003 Mercedes back in 2009 would probably be above that value limit.

So, you are supposed to drive an unreliable piece of shit just because you are poor?  Especially when you already own the car outright?

Isn't the reason for forcing someone to sell a Mercedes to prevent them from driving an unreliable piece of shit with insane upkeep costs?