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.
No. What I am saying is that if we were to abolish welfare, and private charities take over, then each american would need to donate $1,000 MORE a year to make up for the cost of welfare.
I'm assuming that we will be passing the burden of welfare to the private charities from the government. Hence, why they would need to take up the bill of $315 billion +.
Wrong.. because people would be taxed less, able to spend more, spurring the economy, creating more jobs... thereby reducing poverty.. not creating more..
Shall we calculate to see how much we would need to make up for if they didn't use the taxes from our paychecks?
Even if we use the $315 billion figure. That is how much we will need to make up for in a year from "donations".
That's over $1000 dollars per person in the united states. Let's chalk up, people.
[/font][/SIZE]
You make a horrible assumption in thinking that charity would be as grossly inefficient as the government.
It's not unrealistic to think that charitable contributions would increase greatly given a tax credit for donations or a broad base tax reduction due to less spending.
yes, I was not criticizing Habitat at all, (I actually donated a house to them once).. The point though is that we dont need housing, there is an abundance of houses though this country vacant, and yet they still continue to be able to convince people to donate to their cause.
I must point out that, in areas like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, there is not an "abundance" of housing - quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
N.O. is actually 1000's of homes short of meeting the actual need
Then people move to find an abundance of housing, just like people move to find an abundance of jobs..
I can't agree with this concept - for, it would destroy families - cities - cultures - communities - people.
The South - New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulfport - they are unique unto themselves. Displacing those who have been in these area for generations, GENERATIONS - is to me, unacceptable.
I can't agree with this concept - for, it would destroy families - cities - cultures - communities - people.
The South - New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulfport - they are unique unto themselves. Displacing those who have been in these area for generations, GENERATIONS - is to me, unacceptable.
I think when New Orleans flooded, people did move.. I could be wrong but, I believe so...
So because people dont want to move, we should be forced to create welfare programs for huge communities, and to support them for no other reason then their unwillingness to move?
Great.. I'm all in, let me know where because I'm moving THERE..
I think when New Orleans flooded, people did move.. I could be wrong but, I believe so...
So because people dont want to move, we should be forced to create welfare programs for huge communities, and to support them for no other reason then their unwillingness to move?
Great.. I'm all in, let me know where because I'm moving THERE..
Actually - most who left NO want to come back - the one thing stopping them is the lack of housing. Same with Gulf Port - and Biloxi
Actually - most who left NO want to come back - the one thing stopping them is the lack of housing. Same with Gulf Port - and Biloxi
But.. they did leave..
what I head is they wanted to come back.. but now that they have found jobs and housing other places, a lot of them dont plan on returning.
Which pretty much confirms my argument.. No housing in New Orleans.. you move to where it is... Similar to jobs.. People cant find jobs there because they all shut down, they moved elsewhere to find it.
Yes, some have stayed, and created one heck of a welfare state.. tens of thousands still live in government housing called trailers.. instead of helping these people to relocate to find jobs, we perpetulate the problem by putting a bandaid.
Years later, they still have no jobs and no steady housing, some would argue they are no better today then years ago after the storm... Had they had a job and housing somewhere else though, they wouldnt still be living on our dime.
Wrong.. because people would be taxed less, able to spend more, spurring the economy, creating more jobs... thereby reducing poverty.. not creating more..
True, to a degree. When people spend more, the more of a likeliness they will fall into debt. I'm all for dumping billions, even trillions, into the economy to boost it. However, removing welfare is not the way to do it.
Poverty will always exist. As long as they complain, is as long as we need some sort of government program to shut them up and make them feel like we care about them.
Not to mention, poverty isn't always the inability to get a job / keep one, it's the job that matters. Everyone has standards. And, some of the poor prefer to sit in the hell hole they're in rather than working at McDonalds or any other minimum wage job.
Quote:
You make a horrible assumption in thinking that charity would be as grossly inefficient as the government.
It's not unrealistic to think that charitable contributions would increase greatly given a tax credit for donations or a broad base tax reduction due to less spending.
Tax credit for donations? Tax Reductions? Right on man, right on. Serious.
But, think about it. An average american, say they get an additional $2,500 a year (assuming since not all 300 mill are working and paying the federal tax through their incomes, excluding kids, etcetc). What would they do? A) Spend that $2,500 on a brand new screen TV, or B) Donate to welfare charities.
Not everyone is interested in donating to Welfare.
To curing a disease, to replacing beaten children.. Sure.
But, to help Tyrese pay child support on 6 kids from 6 different strippers... I fail to see why people would dump hundreds of billions. :/
I can't agree with this concept - for, it would destroy families - cities - cultures - communities - people.
The South - New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulfport - they are unique unto themselves. Displacing those who have been in these area for generations, GENERATIONS - is to me, unacceptable.
Paying to put people back into flood zones is unacceptable. That's not to say that homes can't be built nearby... but to rebuild in an area that is seconds away from a repeat of disaster isn't a great idea.
But hey, this is WAY off topic...
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.
