There is a keen correlation between the amount of money a person or family has when they win the lottery (and choose a one time payment) and how long before they are completely broke. The relationship is inverse. The less the person(s) has the faster they are broke, regardless the magnitude of the win.

Why is this? I used to read these stories with morbid interest and little in the way of conclusions. But having grown up in an area of the country, and amidst a culture where the lottery is the most popular retirement plan, and where the portion of the population rec receiving some form of government handout is 25%, something occurred to me. I have wrestled with this for years. Why were there people who didn't break the cycle? Why did some people avail themselves to assistance when needed but set their goals beyond that lifestyle, while others formulated goals that were all about maximizing the benefits of inertia?

This kind of culture not only seemingly locks a percentage of that population in the cycle of dependency, it also washes over the local middle class to its detriment as well. For example, 3 students of 143 graduates went on to pursue higher education. Far more then that were represented in the middle class, so the dynamic holding them all back was not a personal connection to the cycle of poverty, but rather an indoctrination unbeknownst to them into a culture of very average expectation at best for the future. Coupled with a form of ignorance that comes from geographic isolation and lack of exposure to much outside the borders of the home county, and their highest  objective became that same middle class. I do not mean to suggest there is a single thing wrong with that middle class. Indeed I envy them in many ways. However, when the top income earners are miners, timber mill workers, and the services around those industries like truck driving, repair, etc., it doesn't require much in the form of additional education to achieve it.

What is lost with this lack of hard knocks education? Exposure is lost. With no input counter to the cycle of dependency folks settle into a nice coexistence between the workers and the takers. But could something, anything be done to move takers into the roles of workers? The answer is yes, in a few cases. But why not all?

Like the lottery, what if takers were handed an amount of money that would be considered sufficient if handled well to secure a family for life? And as a thinking exercise, what if the same money was given to the middle class in this same town? 

Some of each group would go broke, but overwhelmingly the numbers would be greater among the poor. They are the ones with seemingly more to loose. But are they really? 

Within the answers lies the fundamental truth about how to solve the problems of the poor in this country.

Feeding dependency will not lift the populace. Raising welfare payments to $100,000 per year would not solve the problem. You would have people living an impoverished lifestyle, behind on bills, and struggling to make ends meet on $100,000 per year. The expectation of the next check devalues the dollar in ones pocket. The fear the next check may not come enhances that same dollars value. Do you realize that a great deal of poor people believe the government has its own money? They make no connection between taxing hard working people and the money they receive with a wink and a nudge. I've heard the still dependent relatives of a successful child or sibling have discussions about welfare, money, and taxation and it was clear that those dependent, while not resenting that successful family member in a form of class envy (they keep that for strangers), they didn't realize that every increase in dependency was a decrease in their family members available income.

I submit, just explaining that alone could make a huge difference. Largely these are not dishonorable people, just not well informed.