Buying dolls with social security/welfare money?

Except you just said no one starves or lives under bridges. THEN you said there are people who do starve and live under bridges. Which one is it? You can't have both with your blanket statement.

 

adahara:I never said that people starve! There are no people starving, everyone gets food. No one is left homeless for long time since there is a law that every single person has to have a home. Sometimes it might take some time to get the home, but it will be provided as soon as possible. Unless you are a family with children, then the housing is provided immediately. People under bridges have chosen not to take the help. And in some very very rare accasions there are mentally ill people living in poor conditions if they are unaware how to apply the benefits. But they are mostly found and taken to a hospital and from there on the social workers will take care of them as well.

And now since we have been trough the legislation I think we should keep this thread on the issue of dolls.

 

How do you know that they're not starving, because they've chosen not to take the help? Either way, there are still people in trouble in your country, even though you've got (what seems like) pretty amazing Government help.

I'm just saying it's not a good idea to make a blanket statement like that when it's clearly not completely true.

(And I can't see how this thread can be completely on dolls - getting dolls with SS or welfare is a small part of this type of debate)

 

Anne Mae- That actually sounds like a really good system.

As for dolls, I agree with what was said earlier, i.e. that being in the sort of financial situation where a person is on government assistance of some sort in order to live would make it much more difficult to afford them because of being on such a tight budget. It is possible to save up in such cases, but the times are few and far between that people are able to save up that kind of money without some sort of emergency coming up along the way. I'm not saying it's wrong of them to spend it if they've saved up for it, just that it's difficult.

I also feel there is a key difference between Social Security/Disability benefits and welfare. Social Security is something that American workers pay into with taxes that are pulled from their paychecks, and therefore have "earned" that money, albeit over time. Welfare, on the other hand, is money that the government gives to those who are not in the position to be able to work because of life circumstances, but not those related to a physical ailment or disability- i.e. unemployed single parents and families without enough income to be able to survive.

I'll say this- I don't think there's anything wrong with people using money from Social Security for luxury items- in this case, dolls. Chances are they worked at some point and in so doing put money into the fund from which they are drawing to live. I mean, you see retired people on SS out doing things like playing golf all the time, and that's an expensive hobby as well.

As for welfare, I'll just say that I would not feel comfortable spending several hundred dollars on a doll if I were in that situation. I'm not trying to judge anyone else, I'm just saying how I would feel if I were in someone else's shoes.

 

adhara: Of course there are always people in need of help! I never said that, no matter what country, there is always pro's and con's. But my point to this all was, that I am so customed to the idea that I pay with my tax money for those who are less fortunate, and the fact is that I don't mind it a bit. And if someone uses that money by buying dolls then that's up to them. At least in my country that can be possible by saving money, don't know about other countries though.

I also didn't mean to sound cocky or selfcentered or mean etc. but I don't know what it is like to live in total poverty, in that sense that I wouldn't have money for food and would starve,or didn't have a roof over my head (I'm surely not a rich person, but I always have food on the table). And I think it's just a good thing if people get benefits enough to be able to save up for a doll (I use the term saving since I don't think anyone who is on benefits can afford a doll just like that). So in this sense I feel quite lucky.

But what ever the situation I still feel that if buying a doll brings you any kind of happiness (especially if you are on benefits) then go for it! Some people use make-up, clothes what ever to have at least a small happiness to their days, so why not a doll? As long as it's not away from your children etc. I just can't see anything wrong with it. Benefits are not a punishment, it's a small help so you can try and make a life for yourself (of course it's dependent on the country you are from, some countries you get bigger benefits then in some, and some countries you don't have any) and life also means much more then just the bare necessities and who are we to say what is necessary to whome?

Just wanted to add, when I read Kaschan502 message that in my country we call the "benefits" as social security. But we all pay the basic social security in our taxes to the government and then the government gives social security money (which is the same as your benefits) to those in need. With these taxes we also pay for everyones healthcare and education. So basically no one pays for themselves but they all pay for everyone. Then disability benefits are also taken from the taxes except if you have been working for some time, then you get a bit bigger disability benefit sicne what you have been earning is added to the basic disability benefit. I am not sure if this is the exact way in every Scandinavian country but it is very similar. Even though this thread is raising some issues and feelings I still think it is very interesting to hear about the way other countries work

 

Surviving isn't really living, it's just existing. I like to think my tax dollars go to improve the lives of those who really need it.

While I am on my own income my mother is on social assistance and disability. It's helped to pay her serious medical expenses but it's also allowed her to pursue crafts at home to keep her mind busy. To me that is as valuable as any medical therapy.

 

In my country; Finland, the benefits I get from the government include health care, clothes, food AND hobbies which are different depending on the person. I concider dolls as my hobby and although I may not buy a doll straight from a monthly benefit, I save the money, I put some amount aside, and ta dah! One fine day I'll be able to buy the doll. I'm fortunate to live in a country with good social security system that allows people to have hobbies and encourage people to have activities in their lives -<it brings happiness and people living with benefits don't get depressed.

 

Ans I'm on benefit at the moment because my leg was amputated. I will be returning to working life soon.

 

That's the bedrock of my opinion.
People are allowed to spend some of the support money given to them on things they enjoy. For some people this may be a new tv or a gaming console, for others a BJD.

 

northern-raven, Glammie and Gelf I really agree with you. Benefits are not just to survive, but also to live, and there are so many more things in living then just the "bare necessities".

 

As someone whose family actually receives SS benefits (from my late father who was denied disability until after he died), I think it's the individual's choice as long as:

a.) They are paying for what the money is used for (bills, food, living expenses)
b.) They are not cheating the system.

I buy dolls. I have bought 3 dolls in three years (but I'm selling one to afford to buy things for them). I save up the leftover money I have from paying bills and buying food and set a little money aside in a doll fund. Unlike most, I don't buy clothing unless I REALLY need to, and I never buy new items. I don't buy many entertainment items, and I gave up most of my other hobbies to focus on my doll hobby. It's not like I'm buying a bunch of luxuries with money I'm given, since there are sacrifices. Dolls make me happy. I can understand if someone is buying SOOM limiteds instead of buying food or paying their bills and sleeping all day, but really? Is one not allowed to be happy because they can't work or can't find work?

I pay for the necessities, then put a small portion aside. 90% of the money my family receives goes to bills and food, so 5% goes to dolls or something else. After a few months, it adds up to enough for dolls, with a little extra money earned elsewhere. I'm certain that some people on welfare can do the same, it's a matter of priorities.

Honestly, there are only 2 real necessities in life: food and shelter (and their expenses). You are basically saying people should only buy enough food to keep themselves alive and a roof over their heads, which is a very dull life with nothing to enjoy. It's not fair to say "buy only necessities", because new clothes, blankets, phones, televisions, and most packaged foods aren't necessities, either. You don't even need grocery stores to survive because you could grow your own food, in my opinion. "Necessities" differ based on perception.

I know people who get pregnant, just so they can get child support or food stamps and not work. That is wrong. There are plenty of people who cheat the system, but don't assume everybody does.

...I'm not sure how anyone could use food stamps to buy dolls, since you aren't even allowed to buy candy on food stamps in the US.

 

^ This is basically my stance on this issue of allocating funds.

I don't know anyone who receives SS, or disability, but I do know about unemployment. That only pays out for a limited time. After that, you can only hope for the best - and even that lasts a limited time.

Unless there's a rule that states in your benefit package that after food, clothes, and bills, you have to give the extra money back, then who am I to care what someone does with their left-over funds? Even if they're not interested in the doll hobby, there are a lot of things they could do with that money that isn't for food/clothes/shelter - books, movies, museums, music... They promote our culture and history. Even people who are not financially well-off should be able to experience that. We can't nitpick what others buy, even in what I mentioned above, because then we'd be debating "Do we let them buy 'To Kill A Mockingbird' and not allow 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Harry Potter?'"

The only time that I'd care at all is if they knowingly did cheat the system, and gloated about doing so.

 

Kira-Kat. Your impression is something that some governements in this world teach to people in order to then say, that it's somehow a good thing that they give money so little that people don't become addicted to it. Very few people actually WANT to live on welfare. and in the countries that give benefits enough to actually make a living don't have anymore people on benefits then in other countries (in many cases actually less). Giving someone money just for the necessities does not make the person want to do anything better with their lives. They only get depressed and are unable to rize from their situation. Giving people money enough to have a life and some hobbies makes them happier and thus they will have the energy and ability to make a better life for them selves. Now this has actually been studied and what I just stated is a very simplified version of the study.

Of course there are some people who prefer to live on the benefits and not do anything, those are few, but they do exist. But it has never been shown that in countries where benefits are enough to make a living would have any more of these people. Plus I would argue that even they have some mental issues which we are unable to see or are no aware of. Since the social stigma is so big to those an welfare itäs very unlikely that people will take that stigma just for the fun of it.

I have to say that this discussion makes me really sad at some points. And I really understand why the social welfare system in some countries is not that good. If all the people think like this, then there is no chance of making it ever better. Which is very sad to those who actually need it.

 

Those who are in disability are no less people than those who are not in disability and we have no right to say what they should be doing with the little help they get, if they get any at all.

Everyone deserves happiness and happiness is relative. Some might just need the basic things of life (food, clothes and roof over your head)to be happy, others will need more and there's nothing wrong with that. I also think everyone needs hobbies! why only the well should have them?

I have no saying with what people do with their money but I don't mind if my taxes go to those who are in need. And if they save from their disability money to buy luxuries- things that make them happy, and as long as they get food and clothes first- then go for it!! buy all the dollies you(general you) want!! go to the beach, to the movie theater, a restaurant for a nice dinner. Enjoy!

BUT as the old saying goes: "The just pay for the sinners" or "one does harm, and another bears the blame"

I have never been in those circumstances and hopefully never will *touches wood* but I have seen on the tv cases of people who abuse of the system(those who are well but don't like to work) and I personally know people who really are on disability and since they really need the help, they save every penny they can to make it to the next month.

Too bad that many of those who really are in need are looked down upon because of the wrong doings of the others who are perfectly fine. Edit: I just want to clarify, not trying to say that people here look down on others, but I know some do.

 

Don't get me wrong, my government has that stance too, and I know they are actively trying to get people out of Benefits and into jobs, and it's also getting harder to get benefits in the first place. At the same time though I think the government here is still much more hands-on when it comes to helping people getting that job, or getting people to a point where they could get that job (with extra schooling and training or start-up loans).

I think that overall government is more seen as being partly responsible for people's situations to begin with, and thus with how they can get out of a bad situation they are in. This has both good sides and bad sides, but I think you could put the difference in the case of wellfare as that being helped is treated more as a right here then as a gift or charity (even if there has been a distinct shift to the latter the past 8 years or so), compared to countries that have a more 'no matter the circumstances, you are responsible for your own situation'-approach.

It does, but I find it interesting that I have the exact opposite approach. I feel more uncomfortable about the idea of charity (from private gifts) then government-help when it comes to dealing directly with humans (no problem with animals or anything).
For example in dealing with homeless people or addicted people (homeless shelters, programs for drugaddicts), the Private organisations dealing with drugaddicts are mostly religious and that is not something I am comfortable with. Not that there is anything wrong with religion, not at all, and I can see where it can help people in difficult situations, but it seems a bit of a mixup of priorities since people who are on a very low point in life are naturally going to be more vulnerable to the underlying message that your help is giving as well.
Religion is not pushy in this country to begin with, and I also trust religious people to genuinely wanting to help people, but I still feel uncomfortable with the priority mixup. I feel it's first and foremost the governments responsability, and while private organisations can be an addition they should never take over the basic task because that is our responsability as a society in general.

 

There's a difference between people starving, because there are no programs to help them out and people starving because they won't/can't accept help. It's not always their conscious choice. Sometimes you can get in such deep trouble, that you just don't know where to start to ask for help, even though there are dozens of different organizations to go to.

Like Anne Mae says, our welfare system is quite good, but we still have homeless people. Most of them use the benefits they are entitled to (in the Netherlands this means a minimum wage income) and they live on the streets because of other problems. I vaguely know a few of them and they have serious mental illnesses. One guy is schizophrenic and doesn't realize how bad his condition is right now and others are paranoid and don't trust their psychiatrist's intentions, so they won't go to appointments. None of them are currently on their meds.

It's sad, but that's why social workers keep a close eye on those people. They make sure that they're off the streets at night when it's freezing outside and they keep trying to persuade them to get help. But you can't force them (they'd most likely run away when they are admitted by force). And until they want to, there isn't much you can do.

 

I work retail, and I have a lot of customers who use EBT cards to pay for food. That's all fine and dandy, but when someone uses it to buy $50 worth of candy and pop, that's when I start wondering if they really need that card all that badly. But that's a whole 'nother debate that I could rant on if allowed to, so I'll stop here.

 

Everyone's heard of the guy who says he can't work due to physical disability but is busted by the benefit fraud squad when he's caught doing a back flip into a swimming pool on holiday. The papers love these stories. They like to stir us up and turn us against people.

During this recession, there has been a growing backlash against disabled people. The media has dug up so many cases of 'disabled' people committing benefit fraud that the automatic assumption (in the UK at least) is that when you see a disabled person you are led to wonder just how truly disabled they are. Are they really deserving of their benefits? Are they taking the system for a ride?

This suspicion of less-able people and ill people is one of the nastier sides of human nature. People don't become disabled for fun. People don't become disabled for money. The vast majority of disabled people would rather be able-bodied than receive an allowance from the state and the majority of disabled people I know are fiercely independent and would be very offended by the thought that people they don't even know think they have a right to say what they can and cannot spend their allowance on.

As Kiyakotari has said, the system is set up in such a way that it doesn't reward or promote independence - someone could easily start by claiming a benefit they are 100% entitled to, but when the time comes to get back on their feet, they can't manage if that benefit is slashed...so they fudge the details, they get money, they keep house and home together.

It's not right to keep claiming something you're not entitled to claim, and it's not right to spend the excess of the money you're not entitled to on a luxury product however, people committing benefit fraud are significantly fewer than people claiming benefits legitimately. The way to stop benefit fraud is not to demonise all people on benefits, it's to put plans in place to support people coming off benefits. Stagger the amounts people receive so that they're not immediately cut off and left to fend for themselves. People do stupid things when they panic, like commit benefit fraud. Support them, advise them, remind them the safety net is there the whole time they walk the tightrope, and people will be a lot more eager to support themselves. Going it alone is very hard if the system has supported you for years.

If a disabled person has money left over from their rent, food, transportation and other essentials, why shouldn't they spend their money on whatever they want? Beautiful surroundings and intellectual stimulation are hugely important for all human beings' growth, self-improvement and self-esteem. If someone wants to bring some beauty into their life by having a handcrafted doll on their cabinet or a painting or a shelf-load of books, I support that. If you can't get to the museum, bring the museum to you.

 

I'm not understanding this debate exactly since it seems designed to judge people en masse without really knowing anything about them and their background circumstances at all and what is even the point of that? To shame? To make this hobby something exclusive to people who have jobs? And a LUXURY hobby at that that NO ONE even needs, whether they have a job or no. Or maybe I'm just taking it personally.

My mom supported my family on her disability benefits which she had to jump through A LOT of hoops to get and she had congestive heart failure, severe asthma and could barely walk. It took a YEAR for her to get them. Any penny we could spare on outside activities we did but not before food, rent, bills and her many medications. True, with the four of us (three once my sister got accepted to a home for the handicapped), there wasn't much of anything to spare. But if there had been money to save for/use on a doll and it would've made my mother feel better, than more power to her. As it was, though not nearly as expensive, I made sure she had cross-stitching supplies because, after working 20+ years and not being able to do much because of her physical limitations, it was one of the few things to keep her busy AND happy.

She worked for YEARS before she had to admit she couldn't get to work. To be honest, she would've rather been working but just physically COULDN'T and it would not have been fair to punish her even more by dictating every cent of the money she received because she didn't physically make it herself. If she could've made the money herself she would've and so I'm just not getting this at all. Especially since she had no control over what the government gave her and, if she had any to spare that month, we considered that a very great month.

My mother has long passed now so I probably have no idea how the system has worked in more recent years. But, regardless of how the system works, unless someone is neglecting themselves and the people they have to take care of with money given to them and/or cheating the system entirely, I don't see the point in judging how their money is spent. This is a hobby where we collect dolls. Everyone already judges us so harshly over them without knowing anything about them. So why should we judge each other and over blanket statements and assumptions?

Of course, if I have missed the entire point of this debate, excuse me. Sore subject with me. :-/