Topic: Want to pay NO income tax? Cut welfare. - page 3. (Read 10095 times)

I think you are overestimating the amount of money that would actually be needed.

Simple math shows that charity dollars outperform tax dollars in helping the poor by 233.33%.

http://nomorecages.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-facts-part-1.aspx

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

I mostly agree with these statements. If you are unemployed and on welfare, the system is forcibly taking money from the employed (and actually making it harder to get jobs). If you are employed, you're making much less money paying taxes to pay for those without jobs. This also gives you less money to hire people, for odd jobs, mowing the lawn, or starting a company.

If there were no welfare, everyone with a job *could* make more. But really, I think you'd see both higher income and more jobs. But what about the jobless? Would they starve and die? Only if you let them. Nothing stopping you from personally feeding the homeless or helping out a jobless friend.

"Welfare" should be the common good of the people, acting individually. Not an government forced tax. And as Ronald Reagan said, "The best social program is a job."

End of semester delirium, to be honest I probably went off-topic as well. Incidental, we're breaking the 10$ barrier over here soon, with a ~50% increase over the last 10 years:
http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/wages-pay-and-work/wages/history-of-the-minimum-wage/index.html

This I have reservations against.

sorry i was off-topic, talking about minimum-wage laws, not welfare.

No. My own wild guess, though a wild guess tempered by a couple years of HR management jobs, is that the people must be applying on some dying career.

I worked as a manager in a security firm at different times during college (including off semesters to pile up cash to pay for the damn thing), over here guard jobs were worth around 13$. Woop-dee-fucking-doo I hear you say, 13$ to watch paint dry.

However, the amount of people that came in with CVs full of manufacturing experience (even some at technical or regular college levels) that were ready to take a 50%+ (90% in some cases) cut in salary just so they could get more than welfare was staggering, and yeah, I actually had to shut out an astounding amount of people.

Same goes for recent immigrants with educational background not recognised by my local professional orgs. I had a site literally staffed with post-doctorates that were in the process of doing n amount of college years required to get back up to spec.

Let me guess, during those types of transition periods you'd be against gov't support?

Now, before you get all high and mighty, I live in Quebec. Have a look at the platform of the most popular up and coming party:

http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QS-Plateforme-2012-anglais-.pdf

I don't like retarded regulations. I don't like that pretty much half my salary goes up in taxes. But if you think that I can conceive for a second that welfare needs to be pulled wall to wall, just wow.

in other words, the true market price of labor in your area is much lower than $10/hr.

probably held artificially high by regulators.

So everyone who has ever had to apply for public assistance is worthless? Less than worthless? There's no such thing as being unemployed through no fault of their own in Rudd-O-Land? There's no disasters that wipe out businesses, no shady business practices that eliminate jobs and fire people to avoid paying benefits, and nobody ends up on public assistance unless they're got a genetically predisposition to be welfare queens?

I don't know how it is in Australia. Here in the States for every 1 job opening there is, even if it is flipping hamburgers, there are 5-15 people competing for it, depending on the region.

My daughter handles job applications for a company. She told me at the last opening there was ($10/hr, 40/week, benefits) there was over 500 applications. All of them qualified, many of them with college degrees.

These people aren't worthless, there just aren't as many jobs as there are people who want them. Combine them with the shitty thing employers do, which is hire people as "temp workers" and then fire them right before they'd qualify for benefits by law, and you've got serious problems.

And as someone who once had to take assistance for a brief period of time, the $100 = 5 hours of community service is a terrible idea for a myriad of different reasons. Number one, you've just consigned them to about an entire work week of community service every month. Taking away time for education, classes, job searching, whatever.

Oh, and speaking as a mixed race American....

Check your privilege.

According to state and federal statistics, more white people are on welfare and food stamps then African Americans.

And yes, if you took away welfare and food stamps, millions of children of all ethnicity would face starvation, homelessness, and many other problems.

But sure, claim it's all about African Americans and all their fault.

Racist. How's the food at the Klan meetings?

I suppose explaining such things as empathy, compassion, reasons, how a society should be judged on how they treat those who have fallen on hard times and the most vulnerable of their citizenry, the duties of a government to serve the public good, and other esoteric topics would be a complete on a man who has it all figured out.

I hope, for your sake, Rudd-O, that you never fall on hard times and have to subsist on the very safety net you so despise.

Or you know, perhaps this thread is about Australia.

Well "said."

Nathan Fillion is the shit, btw. Browncoat all the way.

Why not just give them a job paying $20 an hour?

5 hours?  That's like double the minimum wage.  These people can't get a job to flip fucking burgers because they are less than useless, and you're suggesting to pay them $20 an hour?  Holy shit, you're generous!

:-)

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

The cost of housing sits (after a quick scan of local listings) at $1,000/mo for a 3 bedroom house. Well, that's unaffordable. How about something cheaper?

I found ONE place that was a 3 bedroom for $550/mo, in a bad part of town, that was a mobile home in a lot. (Everything else that was 3-bedroom was at least $650/mo) That leaves roughly $200 to cover: Electricity, car insurance, phone, natural gas, gasoline for the car.

So, let's assume that someone gets an $8/hr job (seasonal, meaning they'll only be employed for a short period of time), working 32 hours a week (so their employers don't have to pay full time benefits according to state regulation), and using a tank of gas every two weeks to get there. (Public transportation is next to useless for most people) They'll be making $256/week, spending that $56 on gas every two weeks.

So, before taxes, they'll be pulling in $1024/mo.

The concept of "welfare queens" and "living high on welfare" is a fallacy. Nobody WANTS to sit on public assistance. You have no mobility, you have next to no money for anything beyond the basic sustenance, and you're scrabbling harder than if you had a minimum wage job.

Sadly, many employers are now using the part-time to avoid paying benefits (can't get in the way of record profits and shareholder profits), meaning either both parents will have to work (meaning possible child-care costs and even two cars and the additional upkeep costs), or one parent will have to hold down two jobs.

Welfare, food stamps, HUD, and other social safety nets are vitally important to a nation's well-being, and considering the screwed up taxation of the most wealthy parts of the nation, the lack of employee safety-nets, the loss of unions (at least they made sure you HAD a damn job), and many other problems, removing welfare is a horrible thing.

Very well, I will connect the dots for you. The Marijuana Tax Act was the first shot in the drug war. It effectively made pot illegal by requiring a tax stamp in order to possess it, and to get a tax stamp you had to come in with some...

So with marijuana illegal, they went looking for other drugs. Many years later, crack cocaine is introduced, and because of it's relatively low price, sells like gangbusters. It's the drug war that enables this, because if drugs were legal, the poor quality of crack, stemming from the bizarre list of chemicals used to cut it, would never fly on the open market. Now, we've strayed some from welfare, but really not too far. When you're on welfare, it's against your best interest to find a "real job," since almost everywhere, but especially in "blue" states, welfare pays better than minimum wage. And getting a "real job" means no more welfare. So, what do you do with the day? You could sit and watch your stories all day, but that gets boring. You could go make another paycheck baby with your woman, but you already got four, and they're starting to get on your nerves.

So you hustle. And drugs are where the real money is. Since you can just shoot your competition (What are they gonna do, go to the cops?), you can charge whatever you like, and the money just flows in. And the best part is, you still get your check from Uncle Sam on the third. So the State has created not only the market, but a good chunk of the incentive to sell.

In USA, Income taxes have been created in 1913, the same year the FED has been created.


Take the RED PILL

Find and listen to the documentary "The Money Masters"

This doc is well researched, well documented..

WARNING : Listening to it with attention may makes you angry, frustrated, and completely delusioned !

A must see.. The Money Masters


begins here : http://youtu.be/lXb-LrVkuwM

"But what about all the poor people?"

Simple: http://youtu.be/d2a5wtTrlLs?t=17m38s