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.
In fact, they do. The benefits are greater the more children they have. Those children reap more welfare benefits than a poor single adult would, so of course there's a financial incentive to breed.
Quote:
Without poor people breeding we'd also find ourselves IMPORTING people bred in OTHER countries, so you'd end up paying for the poor no matter what.
We already do, millions of illegal immigrants whose criminal status in our country is ignored, so paying poor people to breed is an unaffordable redundancy.
Quote:
A capitalist economy cannot operate without poor people, period, because there will always be the need for low and unskilled labor to be the cogs in the machine.
The problem is that we have too many poor people.
We spent $1.283 trillion for 8+ years of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
We spend $1.03 trillion on just 1 year of means-tested welfare spending programs.
Citations, here: //www.city-data.com/forum/28500583-post106.html
There is no "national" income in a free society based on fiat currency.
So there is no income generated by the residents of a nation that can be totaled and aggregated for statistical purposes? Well, you learn something every day from the brain-trust around these parts.
Exactly. Here is what happens. The wealth gap becomes so large that the elites start rigging the system in order to ensure they never lose. More lobbyists, more bought and paid for politicians, more corrupt Judges, etc. (Obviously, it's happening right now)
Democracy, fades away, replaced by corporate and elite power. Like Brazil 1% rich, 2% middle class peons to serve them, and 98% living in squalor.
In fact, they do. The benefits are greater the more children they have. Those children reap more welfare benefits than a poor single adult would, so of course there's a financial incentive to breed.
We already do, millions of illegal immigrants whose criminal status in our country is ignored, so paying poor people to breed is an unaffordable redundancy.
The problem is that we have too many poor people.
We spent $1.283 trillion for 8+ years of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
We spend $1.03 trillion on just 1 year of means-tested welfare spending programs.
Citations, here: //www.city-data.com/forum/28500583-post106.html
That's not sustainable. The math doesn't lie.
Perhaps the answer is to take measures to raise the incomes of the working class, which have fallen over the past 30 years, so that there are fewer poor people and more taxpayers paying into the system? If only there were proven steps we could take to close the earning gap that is creating this poverty? If only...
That has nothing to do with income inequality, which is largely how each group's income has changed over time.
What we have found is that the upper income group is capturing more and more of national income. That's the problem that can't be papered over with canards about everybody earning the same.
I've explained numerous times why that is, and why the government actively supports that.
Perhaps the answer is to take measures to raise the incomes of the working class, which have fallen over the past 30 years, so that there are fewer poor people and more taxpayers paying into the system? If only there were proven steps we could take to close the earning gap that is creating this poverty? If only...
We could make our tax system regressive like other countries that have more income equality, instead of the highly progressive tax system we have now, but liberals are adamantly against doing so. Analysis of tax rates here: Tax Rates: The Progressive and the Regressive
In countries with more income equality, harder work yields a higher income PLUS a lower effective tax rate, the exact opposite of what happens in our country, so much of the incentive to achieve and thus increase one's income is removed here in our country. It's more comfortable to remain poor, receive public assistance benefits, and pay very little to no federal income tax than it is to work to improve oneself and one's skills, increase one's income, and then be punished by having more of it taken away by the government. In other words, the problem is achievement and success have diminishing rewards in our country as one tries to climb the income ladder.
In fact, they do. The benefits are greater the more children they have. Those children reap more welfare benefits than a poor single adult would, so of course there's a financial incentive to breed.
There is no utility from the increase.
First, welfare has limits. You cannot be on TANF for the duration of your child-rearing years.
Next, foodstamp increases have to be used to feed additional mouths. Especially as children get older, they eat more. Therefore, no net benefit from having MORE kids to get MORE "free food."
Finally, even Section 8 is based on "sq. ft./persons per household"... so the square footage allotments go up only per person. If you have 4 people in 4000 sq. ft., it's the same utility as 3 people in 3000 sq. ft.
So... I'm still not seeing the "incentives".... maybe the child tax credit? Which kinda is self-defeating since you spend more per year paying for the maintenance of a kid than the tax credit provides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We already do, millions of illegal immigrants whose criminal status in our country is ignored, so paying poor people to breed is an unaffordable redundancy.
The problem is that we have too many poor people.
Businesses should pay more if they are interested in there being "too many poor people." The glory days of the Golden Age of America was built on solid middle class, UNION jobs where one income was enough to raise a family of 3 kids, a stay at home mom, take vacation and have healthcare for lifetime... ending with a pension for old age.
That is over, and it isn't "government policies" that have led to that shift, but the realities of a changing economy and businesses that have learned you can race to the bottom in wages and STILL find hardworking people desperate for work.
Poor people have out-bred the general populace since the beginning of time. Again, there's a correlation in all this: EDUCATION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We spent $1.283 trillion for 8+ years of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
We spend $1.03 trillion on just 1 year of means-tested welfare spending programs.
Citations, here: //www.city-data.com/forum/28500583-post106.html
That's not sustainable. The math doesn't lie.
Only 7% of households in the USA receive "welfare" (TANF).
3/4 of welfare spending in this country goes to the elderly and the disabled.
We could make our tax system regressive like other countries that have more income equality, instead of the highly progressive tax system we have now, but liberals are adamantly against doing so. Analysis of tax rates here: Tax Rates: The Progressive and the Regressive
In countries with more income equality, harder work yields a higher income PLUS a lower effective tax rate, the exact opposite of what happens in our country, so much of the incentive to achieve and thus increase one's income is removed here in our country. It's more comfortable to remain poor, receive public assistance benefits, and pay very little to no federal income tax than it is to work to improve oneself and one's skills, increase one's income, and then be punished by having more of it taken away by the government. In other words, the problem is achievement and success have diminishing rewards in our country as one tries to climb the income ladder.
That's true, but really skewed in the analysis. The poor can handle regressive taxes like VATs because the spending in those countries covers items like healthcare, childcare and education. With the basics covered, it doesn't hurt so much to pay 25% tax for that case of Coke. These countries also have most everyone paying into the system on a progressive scale, even if it's less progressive than our own. And in, let's say Sweden as it's the new hotness around here, capital gains are taxed at upwards of 30%, not 15% like in the US. Heck, in Switzerland capital gains are taxed the same as earned income and that hasn't distinctivised investing in that country.
That has nothing to do with income inequality, which is largely how each group's income has changed over time.
What we have found is that the upper income group is capturing more and more of national income. That's the problem that can't be papered over with canards about everybody earning the same.
Instead of name-calling, look at the issue here, which is far from "stupid," "clueless" or has anything to do with "envy."
Why is that a problem? People say it's a problem yet can't say why it's a problem.
Are poor people still accuring wealth? Yes. Are poor people better off than they were 50 years ago? 30 years ago? 20 yeras ago? 10 years ago?
Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.
Someone needs to show direct an irrefutble link between income/wealth gap and poverty. You cannot do it because they do not correlate. In the United states anyway. You can do it easily in a Commie country.
This reminds me of the people that complain about more people dying of old age than did 100 years ago, ignoring the fact that people live 30 years longer than they did. Dying of old age is not a problem.
Why is that a problem? People say it's a problem yet can't say why it's a problem.
Are poor people still accuring wealth? Yes. Are poor people better off than they were 50 years ago? 30 years ago? 20 yeras ago? 10 years ago?
Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.
Someone needs to show direct an irrefutble link between income/wealth gap and poverty. You cannot do it because they do not correlate. In the United states anyway. You can do it easily in a Commie country.
This reminds me of the people that complain about more people dying of old age than did 100 years ago, ignoring the fact that people live 30 years longer than they did. Dying of old age is not a problem.
The single biggest indicator of a person's educational attainment earning potential is that of their parents. The ability to move up in income and class is more restrictive now in the US than in most other industrialized nations.
Last edited by Mr. Mon; 03-04-2013 at 09:44 AM..
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.
