The term welfare state is often interchangeably used with social policy. However, it is considered derogatory in the socio-political studies and discussions to mean the attempts by the government to help those who are below the poverty line by providing a form of economic as well as financial protection. But what eludes this concept is the definition of who meets the criteria to be classified as poor and if being poor is relative, temporal, or both. The most outstanding fact is that the majority of those who benefit are well-off people. There is also a notion that the government does not justify its tax base and rates to raise monies for this program. The welfare state is often composed of two interrelated divisions.
There is a visible welfare state and a hidden welfare state. Both are different in size and structure. Many adjudge the welfare state as a course to warrant the lowest acceptable and normal livelihood state of affairs. That it seeks to defend people from unforeseen dangers to sustainable revenues that they are not able to seek alternatives. This may be those insecurities related to forced sequestration, bad health, physical deformation, or even joblessness. Therefore welfare state has two sides, one of communal backing and another one of collective indemnity.
To fully point out the beneficiaries of the welfare state then consideration of its purposes deems necessary. The main aims are to provide revenue assurance, well-being, job provision, and occupational guidance. These purposes have similar characteristics for example the call for the disruption produced by industrialization, the inclination towards adoption as a communal indemnity, and their positions as having been introduced first in America and the wider Europe. The other objectives cover shelter provision, utility servicing, and edification together with heroes’ projects. Since the underlying function of the welfare state is to ensure a balanced allocation of resources as well as wages, the previous practice in the United States has not been in tandem with the objectives. The welfare state’s work has been to reallocate earnings diagonally to age groups than to the income or wage groups.
Another urgent issue that needs attention is the creation of special groups by the rich people and corporations to get tax relief. The startling observation is the way the government subsidizes tax for employers while on the other hand raising the minimum personal tax rate. This way a club of invincible corporations and individuals who enjoy what could be termed as a kind of a welfare consideration. Given the purpose of the programs, then the hallmark of equitable redistribution of earnings among the populace is not upheld. Those who greatly benefit from such tax cuts are the rich and the corporations and not the vulnerable poor under whose name the schemes were drawn to target.
It is not clear who benefits from the tax provisions granted by the Treasury. The Treasury directory details and Joint Committee personnel record differ on the items that qualify for tax provisions. The main point of divergence is the descriptions of the taxable income and revenue items for both individuals and corporations. For an item to be fully described some conditions must be met. For example, an individual will receive his Earned Income Credit (EIC), he should declare his income at least for the last six months, have a valid Social Security Number (SSN), and must be an American citizen. If one is married, he and the spouse should file jointly. The children must be declared whether they qualify or not. The procedure of filing the forms themselves is strenuous and requires too many details. Some of the provisions also do coincide.
It is also a condition that to receive the EIC, one must have resided in the United States for more than a year. There are exceptions to military personnel who worked overseas and those people regarded as not having shelter. This group is treated separately.
The American welfare state has two stages. The higher rank is made of communal indemnity provisions and the public health service provision. They are loudly considered basic and thus receive a wide following among the citizens as well as the policymakers. The provisions are funded from the taxes on incomes which is homogeneous across the country. Everyone is entitled to benefit, seen as rightful, but has been enjoyed mostly by those who get take-home pay.
The lower rank is made up of means-tested plans for example the food stamps. In an operational description, these schemes are designed to serve the poorest of a community. They are funded by the overall proceeds and not the wage levy. Here the entitlement is not to be paid like in the community indemnity but an individual gets access to it as a measure of last resort. It is also a noted inconvenience that these schemes are politically interfered with. The beneficiaries are considered to be comparably underprivileged and pitiable. The qualification rules differ in the 50 states. Due to this kind of treatment many people who are poor because of a reason or season choose to opt-out of the schemes.