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

[derspiess]

But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate 

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

[CountDeMoney]

That bitch probably doesn't even stockpile ChiCom surplus ammo.

[derspiess]

That bitch probably doesn't even stockpile ChiCom surplus ammo.

I have one box left of that stuff

[crazy canuck]

But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate 

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

[derspiess]

Well, you definitely outdid me on the arrogance & self righteousness.  Congrats

[Malthus]

For me, the real paradox is that the more I am around rich folks the more left-wing I become, and the more I am around poor folks the more right wing I become. 

Put me for a week in my friend's in-laws' "compound" and I begin to think that punitive taxation rates and redistribution of the assets in social programs to support the disadvantaged is a matter of simple justice, Ide-style.

Put me for a week at another old buddy of mine's cottage with his dad and his dad's new wife - a woman who is a part of a whole clan, not one of whom has done a day's work in their entire lives (well, other than casual hooking and drug-dealing), whose every need is supported by their ability to scam one government assistance plan after another - and I could become a card-carrying republitard. 

[derspiess]

Put me for a week at another old buddy of mine's cottage with his dad and his dad's new wife - a woman who is a part of a whole clan, not one of whom has done a day's work in their entire lives (well, other than casual hooking and drug-dealing), whose every need is supported by their ability to scam one government assistance plan after another - and I could become a card-carrying republitard. 

I grew up in West Virginia.

[DGuller]

But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate 

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

I don't think that's a paradox, and I don't think that really does apply to all Western countries.  I think this is a US paradox, and not much of a paradox at that.  It's a result of politicians fanning the flames of non-economic issues to get people so fired up against the other party that they would fight against their economic interests. 

[dps]

But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate 

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

Why is it a paradox, if people are looking to their own self interest?  The working poor and the lower-middle class generally have too much income to qualify for most forms of assistance, so they derive no benefit from those programs, yet a lot of the tax burden required to pay for those programs come out of their wages.  The upper-middle class and the upper class, OTOH, don't miss the money taken from them in taxes nearly as much, and often are classic limousine liberals.

[frunk]

Why is it a paradox, if people are looking to their own self interest?  The working poor and the lower-middle class generally have too much income to qualify for most forms of assistance, so they derive no benefit from those programs, yet a lot of the tax burden required to pay for those programs come out of their wages.  The upper-middle class and the upper class, OTOH, don't miss the money taken from them in taxes nearly as much, and often are classic limousine liberals.

It's because everyone is correct.  For the working poor and lower-middle class taxes are too high, and for the upper-middle/upper class taxes are too low.

[crazy canuck]

But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate 

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

Why is it a paradox, if people are looking to their own self interest?  The working poor and the lower-middle class generally have too much income to qualify for most forms of assistance, so they derive no benefit from those programs, yet a lot of the tax burden required to pay for those programs come out of their wages.  The upper-middle class and the upper class, OTOH, don't miss the money taken from them in taxes nearly as much, and often are classic limousine liberals.

I think you have described the paradox quite well. Those who dont qualify and are just on the margins should be advocating for increases in support so that they do qualify rather than advocating for reductions so as to reduce further the chances that they will quality.

As for not missing the money, I dont think it is that at all.  I think the real issue is that a lot of rich people are able to structure their financial affairs so that they pay very little tax.  If a proper progressive tax system was created perhaps that would deal with the paradox on the upper end but it still doesnt answer the question of why people who actually need more support would advocate against support systems.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I think its an odd, and somewhat damaging, shift in attitudes that poor people are not expected to have any nice things.  Used to be people would scrape and save for a good pair of shoes, or a nice car, or something similar.  Now they're expected to buy the cheapest shit Wal-Mart or Schmoymy's House of Clunkers sells, even if it costs more in the long run.  On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

Is it a shift? My father still holds onto anger on how my grandfather always got a new cadillac every few years despite the fact that he could barely provide the minimum necessities for his 9 children.

There is a threshold of acceptability, which I didn't make clear in my original post.  The saving part should not compromise basic necessities.  I think your father's anger in that case is justified.  Plus, Caddies are shit for reliability.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

Without knowing a) the model or b) the ownership situation, it is hard to judge that.  Just this morning I heard a radio ad for a local dealer offering barebones Camrys on lease for $149/month.  Seems like a really good deal if you need a reliable car for hauling around 4 kids.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I think you have described the paradox quite well. Those who dont qualify and are just on the margins should be advocating for increases in support so that they do qualify rather than advocating for reductions so as to reduce further the chances that they will quality.

As for not missing the money, I dont think it is that at all.  I think the real issue is that a lot of rich people are able to structure their financial affairs so that they pay very little tax.  If a proper progressive tax system was created perhaps that would deal with the paradox on the upper end but it still doesnt answer the question of why people who actually need more support would advocate against support systems.

I think there are two reasons:

1) The lack of tapering in assistance.  When people get above the threshold for assistance, in many cases they actually regress.  That means the working poor[1] can end up worse off than people who don't work and rely on assistance.  It also provides a disincentive for people on assistance to actually find work, because they might actually make their situation worse.  This breeds resentment amongst the working poor for people on assistance, and in turn on the assistance programs themselves.

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.

[Malthus]

I think you have described the paradox quite well. Those who dont qualify and are just on the margins should be advocating for increases in support so that they do qualify rather than advocating for reductions so as to reduce further the chances that they will quality.

As for not missing the money, I dont think it is that at all.  I think the real issue is that a lot of rich people are able to structure their financial affairs so that they pay very little tax.  If a proper progressive tax system was created perhaps that would deal with the paradox on the upper end but it still doesnt answer the question of why people who actually need more support would advocate against support systems.

I think the part you are not allowing for is that there is a bit of a culture clash among those on the margins. Some see social assistance as a legitimate source of income and some see it as a life preserver of last resort - a source of shame if needed.

The latter tend to end up resenting the former, all the moreso because they are making real sacrifices to support themselves. As in "I bust my ass to pay for my car and daycare, while that person gets everything paid for by social assistance - and has a nicer car than mine" - the derspies point. They put a positive moral value on an ethic of self-reliance. 

Upper middle class types generally don't actually see this in the flesh as it were, to them it is mostly just anecdote. What they see, is how very much money people like them have, and how unfair it is that some have so much, while others in society are in need. They put a positive moral value on social concience.