You are saying that the working poor don't pay tax in the US (although they do in Canada - I don't know how that works in the US). The thing in that if you are taking money from the system and not contributing you are still taking money from those the system is intended to support because the money is finite.
When I think of "paying tax," I think specifically of income tax. A family of four who's bringing in near poverty level should be getting back more from the IRS than they paid in (so maybe they "overpaid" and had $2,000 taken out of their paycheck over the year; they get refunded that plus $2,000 in child tax credits, some EIC, some more somehow...and they end up paying negative $3,000 or whatever).
Yes, the money may be finite...but how much is there? Let's say that food stamps has $5,000/mo to go around, and five people are eligible. $1k per month for each person. If I sign up, everyone now gets $833 per month, still more than enough to buy groceries for a whole family. If someone else signs up, everyone now gets $714/mo, still more than plenty. One more person, $625/mo. I'll start to feel a bit antsy at this point; if I'm already signed up, I'd probably not change anything. But if I'm not, I'd be less likely to do so. 10 people = $500/mo for food, that's starting to cut it a bit close, I would fully accept your argument that I'd be taking from someone truly in need if I were to sign up (or stay signed up) at that point.
I just don't see that happening. Well, maybe to a small degree, but in the early stages. A family of four's max benefit used to be $668/mo. It recently dropped to $632. Our TOTAL food budget ($80/wk groceries plus $20/wk restaurants) for a family of four is $433/mo. In Australia (higher cost of living). It would be similar in the US, since we'd pay more for certain foods and not buy the absolute cheapest (in Australia, most cheap peanut butter doesn't have hydrogenated oils, bread doesn't have HFCS, milk doesn't have growth hormone, etc.). I guess we're at the stage that I'd have no problem applying if we qualified, but I wouldn't try too hard to shuffle things around so we did qualify (actually I have some proof of this; we could have applied back in 2011, but it'd require moving some funds into an IRA that I wanted to keep more liquid; I didn't bother).
Those who are poor and not paying taxes have the ground of necessity and this is socially supportable. Those who stand on a mound of money do not and they are taking limited funds from those that need it. If everyone does this then the system will collapse. If a lot of people do it social programs will be underfunded which gets spread across the pool of those in need.
I was going to post a decent-sized reply to this...but I think we're getting off the off-topic. All this has been hammered out in the other thread. I will ask though...when is it a mound of money? Is $20k a mound of money? $100k? Does age play a factor? I.e. if I'm 25 with $100k in retirement savings, should I be morally opposed to taking advantage of food stamps? What if I'm 55 with $200k in retirement savings? Gut feeling says the 55yr old should be given more slack...but why? And why should the person making $20k/yr who's managed to save $300k in retirement not be allowed to get food stamps, but the person making $30k/yr who's managed to save absolutely zero be allowed?
Do you not have a national pension program to assist if you are in poverty at retirement in the US? We do in Canada and there is a top-up for low income seniors. I'm not sure if the social policy in the US is good or not, it might be but it also might encourage abuse of the system through early retirement.
There's Social Security, but that's supposed to be a program you pay into, and get benefits based off of that. If you've never worked and aren't/weren't married to a spouse who worked, I don't think you'd get anything from that (I'm sure someone will jump in to correct me). There are various programs you might qualify for, such as food stamps and subsidized housing. But there's not an old-age pension based solely on your assets and income. Australia has such a thing, which results in many people plowing through their super (retirement account) just so they'll qualify. Absurd, but there ya go.
I guess the check in Canada would be that in order to receive assistance if you are employable and under 65 you have to be actively looking for work and there is a system to check and a whole rather strict program for this. It seems that this is not required with food stamps? If not, this seems a very unreasonable system to me and would encourage abuse.
There is some kind of work requirement. Again, not having been on the program, I can't talk specifics. As I recall, if you're on Unemployment, the "looking for work" requirement is waived (as you already have such a requirement to be on UI). There may well be a "if you're older than X, you don't have to look for work/look as hard for work" clause as well.