Fairfax county pilot program to give 750 a month to low income families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/fairfax-county-pilot-program-provide-2m-guaranteed-income-180-eligible-families

Not that 750 a month is a ton of money, but hasn’t this already been tried other places? Is it scalable?

The nature of this program is that it only works if kept small-scale and it only helps the families selected.

If the county decides to tout the results of this program as a win for equity and decides to implement it for all eligible families, then housing and prices will go up and we will be in the same situation we were already in, except now you have a new welfare dependent population.

The county would be better served by examining the policies that make life unaffordable here in the first place.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/neighborhood-community-services/economicmobilitypilot

more info. No in person interview. Participation not required in GMU study on what happens with unrestricted cash payments. Participation in financial counseling available but not required. So it's free money and a useless study will be done. 180 participants and data from the study could be used to justify program expansion.Who pays for this?

Taxpayers , covid cash, and might ask for donors [note indirect taxpayer]. No federal income tax due since "No. The financial assistance payments from this pilot are not included in gross income calculations and are not taxable due to being disaster COVID-19 relief." Open to non US citizens.

See, this is EXACTLY the bullsh_t democrats do that make their argument that they're not for open borders a complete farce. They give illegal immigrants drivers licenses. Then they give illegal immigrants the right to vote. Then they give them in state tuition at universities. Free health care, and now they want to give them free cash from the taxes paid by our citizens. Just open the borders to mass migration and have our citizens pay taxes to give out free cash handouts to the United Nations pouring in through our borders. What a brilliant plan.

Meanwhile, my healthcare costs $2000 per month and the schools in my pyramid are overcrowded and falling apart.

[Anonymous]

And this is why songs like rich men north of richmond are so popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not going to help except if you also provide financial literacy. Someone not used to having much money isn't going to benefit like they think and once the pilot is over it's going to do more harm than good. The other issue is if their income is just on the limits for food stamps, child care, housing and medical it could impoverish people more if they lose those benefits as that amount would not cover what they lose.

This has actually been extensively studied and several links have appeared in this thread. If you want to learn more, you can. If you just want to spew prejudice against poor people, I, personally, wish you wouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how DCUM brings so many retrograde Reaganites out of the woodwork.

Cash transfers to low-income households are one of the best ways we have to fight poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children. Turns out giving money to impoverished people relieves poverty. What a concept!

Here’s one recent study finding that cash transfers are associated with reduced mortality among women and kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06116-2

You can volunteer your tax dollars. According to the county, 167k residents are within 200% of the poverty line. Giving each of them 9k a year would cost $1.5 billion. Last year the entire county budget was $3.5 billion.

Not only that, but giving all 167k residents this cash would drive up housing and other costs considerably. We’d be right where we started, but worse.

And how is it fair to give this money to just a select few?

Because the goal is to help the needy and not the already secure. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on welfare after I left my former husband, and had two kids under three. An extra $750 a month would have been life changing.

Happy to report that like most welfare recipients, I was off the doles after a couple of years. I am all for this.

Great! You pay for it. Send your check to FFX county.

That’s not how taxes work. Taxpayers don’t get a line item veto. There are plenty of things I’d rather not spend public dollars on, but I still gladly pay my taxes because that’s how government works. Chalk it up as a cost of living in civil society.

+1

Do people get this up in arms about the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that go toward corporate subsidies? And the fact that major corporations take pains to avoid paying taxes?

Not to mention the multiple major bank bailouts that have happened in our lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is why songs like rich men north of richmond are so popular.

The working class needs solidarity and here you are sowing division. I bet you aren’t even working class yet here you are talking like you know what’s what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on welfare after I left my former husband, and had two kids under three. An extra $750 a month would have been life changing.

Happy to report that like most welfare recipients, I was off the doles after a couple of years. I am all for this.

Great! You pay for it. Send your check to FFX county.

That’s not how taxes work. Taxpayers don’t get a line item veto. There are plenty of things I’d rather not spend public dollars on, but I still gladly pay my taxes because that’s how government works. Chalk it up as a cost of living in civil society.

+1

Do people get this up in arms about the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that go toward corporate subsidies? And the fact that major corporations take pains to avoid paying taxes?

Not to mention the multiple major bank bailouts that have happened in our lifetime.

DCUM has a bunch of educated elites thinking that they speak for the working class. It’s shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on welfare after I left my former husband, and had two kids under three. An extra $750 a month would have been life changing.

Happy to report that like most welfare recipients, I was off the doles after a couple of years. I am all for this.

Great! You pay for it. Send your check to FFX county.

That’s not how taxes work. Taxpayers don’t get a line item veto. There are plenty of things I’d rather not spend public dollars on, but I still gladly pay my taxes because that’s how government works. Chalk it up as a cost of living in civil society.

+1

Do people get this up in arms about the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that go toward corporate subsidies? And the fact that major corporations take pains to avoid paying taxes?

Not to mention the multiple major bank bailouts that have happened in our lifetime.

DCUM has a bunch of educated elites thinking that they speak for the working class. It’s shameful.

I'm not speaking for anyone else but myself. What gave you the impression otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just makes the place more attractive for people seeking handouts. Which will lead to more pressure on housing for the bottom quintile whether they are working people or not.

Nonsense, housing can collapse very quickly when those with means flee. I'm sure you could get quite a few multifamily units outs of those new build SFHs in Vienna

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how DCUM brings so many retrograde Reaganites out of the woodwork.

Cash transfers to low-income households are one of the best ways we have to fight poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children. Turns out giving money to impoverished people relieves poverty. What a concept!

Here’s one recent study finding that cash transfers are associated with reduced mortality among women and kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06116-2

You can volunteer your tax dollars. According to the county, 167k residents are within 200% of the poverty line. Giving each of them 9k a year would cost $1.5 billion. Last year the entire county budget was $3.5 billion.

Not only that, but giving all 167k residents this cash would drive up housing and other costs considerably. We’d be right where we started, but worse.

And how is it fair to give this money to just a select few?

Because the goal is to help the needy and not the already secure. Duh.

You missed upthread that there are 167k people in Fairfax county that could be eligible. Not the entire population of Fairfax county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just makes the place more attractive for people seeking handouts. Which will lead to more pressure on housing for the bottom quintile whether they are working people or not.

Nonsense, housing can collapse very quickly when those with means flee. I'm sure you could get quite a few multifamily units outs of those new build SFHs in Vienna

Touché.

It might take a while before those with means flee, since they are best situated to survive higher taxes. Meanwhile, those at moderate and lower income bands are going to be the ones fleeing. Eventually we will be left with only poor and rich. Like SF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how DCUM brings so many retrograde Reaganites out of the woodwork.

Cash transfers to low-income households are one of the best ways we have to fight poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children. Turns out giving money to impoverished people relieves poverty. What a concept!

Here’s one recent study finding that cash transfers are associated with reduced mortality among women and kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06116-2

Does Fairfax County have a high mortality rate among lower income women and children?

Obesity is probably a bigger problem.

[Anonymous]

I know of two women (on Maryland benefits) who flew to Miami to get BBL's. These cost $6000 in advance.

If people on benefits can prepay for plastic surgery I think the money is better spent elsewherr.

[Anonymous]

Republicans want to spend your tax dollars just as much. They just funnel them towards people who are already rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know of two women (on Maryland benefits) who flew to Miami to get BBL's. These cost $6000 in advance.

If people on benefits can prepay for plastic surgery I think the money is better spent elsewherr.

No, those women are clearly doing something illegal. However, don't use anecdotes. The vast majority of people do not do this.