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

[Malthus]

Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

Thing is - in both cases, nobody was asking you to generalize. 

[garbon]

Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

Thing is - in both cases, nobody was asking you to generalize. 

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.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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?

[Malthus]

Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

Thing is - in both cases, nobody was asking you to generalize. 

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. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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.

[Zanza]

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

I am not exactly an expert on the finer details of social security here, but in general the state expects you to liquidate your wealth before you get any public assistance. There are some exceptions, but as far as I can tell, the value limit for cars is about 7.500 Euro. There is some leeway for the social security office, but they would not let you keep a 20.000 Euro car unless there is a good reason (let's say it's handicapped-enabled or so).

[Malthus]

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?

Actually, from what I've heard from owners, generally speaking the Mercedes is not the car you want to own if you are suddenly rendered poor - because of its overall extremely high upkeep/maintenance costs.

Can't speak to specific models though.

[Jacob]

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.

Excellent point.

It's not just "people like them" who benefit. "People like us" do too.

[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.

You are welcome.

Baron and Malthus, you make good points explaining the paradox.

[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.

[The Brain]

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?

AFAIK Sweden is similar. You get the normal generous healthcare, education, extra money for kids etc etc, but if you in spite of that need tax money to live then you have to spend your own money first. Which makes sense I think.

[Malthus]

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.

Excellent point.

It's not just "people like them" who benefit. "People like us" do too.

Yup.

My understanding of Garbon's POV is that 'people like us are, by definintion, 'not poor'. So this story is just an anomalous anecedote - a 'curiousity piece' - without a real message'.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

AFAIK Sweden is similar. You get the normal generous healthcare, education, extra money for kids etc etc, but if you in spite of that need tax money to live then you have to spend your own money first. Which makes sense I think.

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.

[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?

[crazy canuck]

AFAIK Sweden is similar. You get the normal generous healthcare, education, extra money for kids etc etc, but if you in spite of that need tax money to live then you have to spend your own money first. Which makes sense I think.

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.

Agreed.  It makes no sense to have people with less disposable income if they take a job after paying for things like child care and transportation.   Canada has tried to address this problem with tax credits and tax exemptions so that the working poor pay no tax.  That is part of the solution but the problem is that the working poor make so little in wages that tax exemptions alone isnt the solution.