Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes thats how I want to see my country! The well off few like me, and the rest starving in the streets and begging like a third world country!
Yup! Thats a awesome America you got in mind!
No one is stopping you from charitable giving. Put your money where your mouth is. Private charities are the way to go to meet the needs. Should be no problem considering all the support for subsidizing the poor expressed in this forum.
Oh... wait... they always want someone else to pay for that, not themselves.
Shrug. Are you a member of a society or not? Are you OK with people creating $100 of profit, and receiving $1 in pay?
All the while increasingly long patents, copyrights, and laws make it impossible for the individual to compete with large multinationals?
Some people think they're entitled to live better then others because they believe that they are somehow more important. That they're efforts DESERVE to be rewarded more then others. Because they work HARDER then others, and SMARTER then others.
Your contention is that people determine their own salary? Interesting... If so, why are so many earning so little?
The current welfare (and income taxation) system IS the same thing as a guaranteed basic income--you're just talking about changing labels. Where do you think the money comes from when you put money in the pocket of the poor? In all cases, it has to come from confiscating the earnings of someone else.
None of what you're saying is even close to being remotely true.
How is the bold not true? Where do you think the funding for the $1+ trillion/year spending on means-tested public assistance programs comes from?
I don't see why this isn't a good idea. The poor would be better off getting money in their pocket instead of leeching off the welfare state. This idea is gaining traction. Some prominent conservatives are actually entertaining the idea.
No need to completely cut off welfare; make it voluntarily-funded, only. Either via a public fund that one can contribute to voluntarily, or via private charity organizations.
Give the pro-welfare activists an outlet to put their money where their mouths are.
No need to completely cut off welfare; make it voluntarily-funded, only. Either via a public fund that one can contribute to voluntarily, or via private charity organizations.
Give the pro-welfare activists an outlet to put their money where their mouths are.
Good, hunger is a great motivator since the welfare advocates are hypocrites.
That makes no sense. Just look at all the pro-welfare advocates on this forum. If they contribute voluntarily to welfare, there should be no problem.
Private charity doesn't even come close to meeting the needs of the poor in the USA. Your insane policy points would be disastrous, but hey I guess since all you care about is money you might have lower taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
