Who gets more Welfare, The rich or the poor?

[Hugo Drax]

In terms of government handouts? Who on a aggregate basis gets more handouts?

 

[rudder]

Are you factoring in the net effect of welfare/subsidies? For example, I went to college, received a degree, and there were likely subsidies involved. I also earn money and have been paying taxes. That versus someone who lives in government housing, gets earned income credit, buy food with EBT cards which are not taxed.

Your question is hard to quantify.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

The poor do, but only because the much larger benefits the wealth receive are not in a form typically described as handouts - even though it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Are you factoring in the net effect of welfare/subsidies? For example, I went to college, received a degree, and there were likely subsidies involved. I also earn money and have been paying taxes. That versus someone who lives in government housing, gets earned income credit, buy food with EBT cards which are not taxed.

Your question is hard to quantify.

Its not that difficult. The subsides you got for going to college, who is the net receiver of the subsides? I would venture it helps enrich the top echelons of the school. (ie the board etc..) They can raise prices, give themselves raises.


MultiBillionare gets the taxpayer to fund his 450M football stadium.

Thats a a handout for example.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Companies shouldn't receive any subsidies - especially when they are cranking out record profits.

Also, if a company in the red, its leadership should forgo it's own salaries until it's back in profitability mode - they are the ones responsible for the company's well being after all.

The point of being a business or company is to venture out and be a success, not leech off of tax payer dollars.

 

[Incorruptible]

Both get far too much welfare and steal from hard working American taxpayers. Phase out all welfare.

 

[michal1980]

Both get far too much welfare and steal from hard working American taxpayers. Phase out all welfare.

this.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It`s always the ones who have jobs that want welfare phased out! Yet those same people would gladly accept welfare if they were unemployed@!

Of course now comes the obligatory no I wouldn`t...why? Because you can be anything you want on the internet!

Let them lose their job and all of a sudden need food or shelter to stay warm.....then it becomes another story...lolol

 

[nehalem256]

Well if we define welfare as the government not collecting in taxes any money it could have collected then clearly the rich. Since the government doesn't tax at 100% every dollar rich people have is due to "welfare".

 

[cabri]

The problem is subjective interpretation.

Congress authorizes tax breaks. Are those considered handouts. They were done for a set of economic intentions by the people that are supposed to represent you.

Congress & State legislatures sets budgets and delegates to other people the distribution of funds to people and companies. Again They were done for a set of economic intentions by the people that are supposed to represent you.

So what are you defining as handouts/largeness?

Companies are providing some service back to the government for payments.
That service is agreed upon for a set cost.
As part of that cost, they purchase goods and labor and pay back debts incurred in providing that service.

 

[piasabird]

Just look at the Farm Bill, Energy subsidies, Solar Panels, Electric Cars, Dairy Farms, Electric Monopolies. You name it. Every sector of business has their hands out. The worst part of the economy are people that work for a living.

Corporations get a Tax abatement and the home owner gets the bill.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The question is, who gets more handouts, the needy, or those who are not needy? I would certainly expect handouts to be given to the needy, however, those who are nod needy have no business getting handouts in the first place.

 

[Anarchist420]

i would say that judging types (as of which 90% each of the military, State bureaucrats, and unemployed are) benefit from the State while perceiving types are hurt by it. so about 57% of the u.s. population (and probably 95% of the world pop, but less than 45% of all u.s. citizens before the 1840s) benefits from the State. judging types are probably wealthier per capita in terms of net worth measured in U.S.D and the richest people benefit from patents making the businesses they work for huge and hierarchical, litigation, being management in military companies due to contracts with the State, direct State jobs, legal tender, etc, etc.

 

[Vic]

The rich. This isn't even a question.

The purpose of government is to protect property rights. Obviously those with the most assets are the ones receiving the most benefit.

 

[MongGrel]

The question is, who gets more handouts, the needy, or those who are not needy? I would certainly expect handouts to be given to the needy, however, those who are nod needy have no business getting handouts in the first place.

As the old saying goes, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"

And the Rich have a ton of Lobbyist's.

 

[MongGrel]

Credit Suisse Guilty Plea Stokes Investor Concern Over Strategy



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ea-stokes-investor-concern-over-strategy.html

 

[disappoint]

Religious con artists. They don't have to pay any taxes.

It must be a case of politicians paying homage to the biggest con artists of all time. The original con artists. Preachers.

 

[boomerang]

The point of being a business or company is to venture out and be a success, not leech off of tax payer dollars.

So, you would or would not agree that the same applies to individuals?

 

[Newell Steamer]

So, you would or would not agree that the same applies to individuals?

Oh sure - provided they do not indeed need help.

It would not apply to people who were abandoned as children. Those who were born with downs syndrome. Or, people mangled in an accident.

If you don't feel like working, then starve.

But, I don't see anything wrong with providing a % of earnings, which go to taxes, to fund programs to take care of people who have had life shit on them.

An individual who was crapped on by life is no where near anything similar to a corporation lead by million dollar salary executives who live lavish lifestyles and still take tax payer $$$ - try not to mix the two together, especially for the purposes of pissing on people you don't like (i.e. my 2nd sentance in this response).

 

[nehalem256]

The rich. This isn't even a question.

The purpose of government is to protect property rights. Obviously those with the most assets are the ones receiving the most benefit.

So not allowing other people to pillage your daughter, rape your cattle, and eat your car is now defined as "welfare"

Seems like the liberals War on English is continuing at breakneck pace.

 

[OCGuy]

This is a pretty absurd question.

Any "Welfare" received by a "rich" person would be paid for by themselves and other "rich" people.

Poor people do not pay income tax, so therefor their very existence is subsidized by others.

 

[boomerang]

Oh sure - provided they do not indeed need help.

It would not apply to people who were abandoned as children. Those who were born with downs syndrome. Or, people mangled in an accident.

If you don't feel like working, then starve.

But, I don't see anything wrong with providing a % of earnings, which go to taxes, to fund programs to take care of people who have had life shit on them.

An individual who was crapped on by life is no where near anything similar to a corporation lead by million dollar salary executives who live lavish lifestyles and still take tax payer $$$ - try not to mix the two together, especially for the purposes of pissing on people you don't like (i.e. my 2nd sentance in this response).

As to your first sentence, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that disagrees. I would add some others to the list, but you were speaking in generalities, I get that.

Your second sentence is pretty harsh because unemployment has always existed and will always exist barring some miraculous change. But I get your message and agree with it. There are signs for hiring all over my area now. My wife used to manage a business and she got calls from people about employment that just wanted to use her as a contact to satisfy the unemployment office. Although she was looking to hire, they weren't actually interested in working, just in retaining their unemployment. When I tell that story, I always get told I'm making things up. When the system pays out more or close to what people can make working, something's wrong. To address a problem you first have to come to grips that you have one.

Your third sentence describes the system as it currently exists. Take out the huge amounts of corruption and waste and it would be greatly improved.

Your last paragraph touches on a situation that can only be corrected by an enormous overhaul of our tax system. No better time to start than now in my opinion. Unfortunately for all of us, the people that make the rules are totally and wholly corrupt. So how about we work together to rid the system of them?

See Article V in my sig.

 

[Newell Steamer]

So how about we work together to rid the system of them?

Sure - just as long as we aren't following broad sweeping strokes and vilifying people who really need help.

:thumbsup:

 

[nehalem256]

Sure - just as long as we aren't following broad sweeping strokes and vilifying people who really need help.

:thumbsup:

Sorry, but if you have 3 bastard kids with 3 different daddies(2 of whom are in prison) you deserve to be vilified.

And that is precisely who NPR chose to make the poster child for single mothers "needing help".

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

 

[Newell Steamer]

Sorry, but if you have 3 bastard kids with 3 different daddies(2 of whom are in prison) you deserve to be vilified.

And that is precisely who NPR chose to make the poster child for single mothers "needing help".

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

You have no say in anything - since you linked that total bullshit story about a woman raping a boy, she got pregnant, she went to prison, she then got out and the courts forced the rape victim to pay child support.

You are a liar and anything you stand behind (even if it's 100% true) is meaningless - you have NO value whatsoever, in any way, shape or form; since you are the problem with everything that is wrong in today's world. You lie and misrepresent the truth, to force other people to be afraid of what you hate in your life.

You are the boy who cried wolf. And, there is a wolf, but, I'll just sit back and watch you get eaten - because that is what you deserve; to be consumed by the very thing you fear.