Everybody knows this by now. It is the same stories in the news all the time. Yet politicians just seem to be working on their excuses. They should just hand power over to wickedfire. Instead of the workshy getting a free luch they would all just get a dickroll - problem solved!!
A family earning minimum wage will have more income than one earning $60000/yr
- Thread starter papajohn56
- Start date
Welfare requires taxation. [1]
Taxation requires a state. [2]
The state is propped up by voters. [3]
Voters ---> State ---> Taxation ---> Welfare
If you vote, you are contributing to this problem.
[1] coercive appropriation of private property
[2] Rothbard puts it nicely: the state is a "compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power." For a broader treatment, go here.
[3] You?
Taxation requires a state. [2]
The state is propped up by voters. [3]
Voters ---> State ---> Taxation ---> Welfare
If you vote, you are contributing to this problem.
[1] coercive appropriation of private property
[2] Rothbard puts it nicely: the state is a "compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power." For a broader treatment, go here.
[3] You?
Don't forget about unemployment too. It is necessary, but extending it the way they have has stifled economic recovery. One of my best friends is a leech (don't judge me). He's been unemployed since January 2008 and still collecting. I have no idea how he does it but keeps getting extensions. The worst part is he is a healthy 35 year old male with no reason not to work, but he has turned down several jobs because as he says "after they take taxes and child support, I'm getting about the same to stay home and do nothing". I saw a statistic somewhere that backs that feeling up - something around 65% of people find a job within 30 days of their benefits getting cut off. This shit is killing our economic recovery. If you give people a choice to be lazy, a lot of them will - why is this a surprise to anybody?
The article is alarmist political garbage, doing what newspapers and blogs and all media do; attempt to gain readership with something controversial or scare-mongering. Reporting reasonably and objectively is a conflict of interests for media outlets. Just like doing what's best for the country is a conflict of interest for staying in political office.
There is no easy solution to welfare. People making good money are quick to criticize the system when they don't need it, but if they were on the receiving end their attitude would change very fast. I'm not saying it's not broken -- I think it's severely broken and lots of money is being wasted, like a lot of other programs that couldn't be confused with a "socialist" agenda, but it's relevant to today's media.
There is no easy solution to welfare. People making good money are quick to criticize the system when they don't need it, but if they were on the receiving end their attitude would change very fast. I'm not saying it's not broken -- I think it's severely broken and lots of money is being wasted, like a lot of other programs that couldn't be confused with a "socialist" agenda, but it's relevant to today's media.
I have a "friend" doing the same thing. He has no plan of even looking for a job until his unemployment runs out.
Agreed. Hard to account for advantages like a decent education. Recent census #s put the literacy rate at 74% for high school grads in America. A quarter of high school grads are in schools where reading the country's first fucking language is not managed after twelve years?!?!? Blame parents, teachers, drugs... whatever. Fact is those are young adults being pushed into a world where smarter people make all the money.
Again, not saying it (welfare) ain't broke; but damn, imagine just for a second what looking at a job application and not understanding the document might mean for being competitive in a difficult working environ. Yes, a person can right that in their 20s, 30s, 40s, etc... but it's a major stagger to make up.
If you earn $60k a year and don't have more disposable income than two people each making $13k a year, you are a fucking retard and I laugh at you. That's one hell of a skewed chart and the entire article screams of political linkbait.
It's really not that hard to believe, from personal experience with a family member. He has 3 children, he's unemployed (been unemployed for a year now and plans to stay that way until it runs out) with a wife who only recently started working. He said he will probably get $8,000 in taxes in a month or so for 2010, while paying nothing into it. That's on top of all the unemployment he has gotten + the 300 times they've gone to hospitals and shit for their kids.
I was just thinking the same thing. I've lived in a family that made around $20k a year and I really don't see how that's even possible. When I first made $60k I thought was was omfg rich lol.
There it is. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but as someone in the top 2% or so, I'd rather give money to someone who doesn't need it, than accidentally fail to help someone who truly does.
As an aside, whatever gomer wrote that chart is doesn't even provide sources for his numbers, and assumes 16k in -possible and maximum- medic* benefits is somehow disposable income. That's just silly.
Indeed. I grew up really poor, and when I cleared just 50k for the first time I felt like I was rollin'.
Well, assuming that a family used up that entire $16k which they didn't have to pay, that is essentially money in their pockets. Any money they make doesn't have to go towards it.
The chart isn't skewed assuming the numbers are accurate, it's just showing that if people are willing to game the system as much as possible (and plenty are), they really can maintain a lifestyle comparable to someone on $60k with all the entitlements they receive.
Plus, you have to think, a family of 3 or 4 living on $60k alone isn't shit. You can't be "balling" on that with all the expenses that come from maintaining an entire family. Sure, when you're single living in an apartment, you can do pretty decent.
I probably netted 85-90k this year with a wife and 1 child and my savings has hardly grown at all; that's with no credit card debt or insane spending, and a wife who's obsessive about not spending much on unnecessary items.
You must have expensive housing/transportation/food/medical...because in Ohio, if you really wanted to, a family of 3 could easily live off of $40k/year. If you netted $90k, maybe you paid $20k in taxes, that still leaves $30k to grow your savings.
My uncle is doing sort of the same thing. He retired a year early because he could get unemployment. He's like why should I work if I get money for free?
Although my dad had a good job, I think the six kids and 2 wives ate up all the money.
These people are obviously adherents to Rand's Objectivist philosophy and are manifesting rational self interest, these are the kindred spirits of the WickedFire community. Why u mad bros?