-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why do we need these programs ...
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Throckmorton
Lifer
The OP was born rich, and then retroactively earned his silver spoon after somehow not gaining any benefits from it, because such benefits would undermine his arguments.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
I hope you're joking, but something tells me you're not.
It is encouraged... there are countless ways that higher incomes are encouraged. The only discouragement I can imagine is hitting a higher tax bracket, but once you're in the highest tax bracket (ie the rich) all further income is taxed the same, so who cares?
It's a simple matter of scale. What's the difference between $50,000,000 after taxes and $45,000,000 after taxes? The correct answer is "Who gives a damn, I'm filthy rich!" The problem is that the current tax system unfairly punishes the middle class by taxing them as much as the upper class.
A consumption tax replacing income tax punishes the poor more than anything, and it discourages spending. If you knew anything about economics you'd know why this is a bad idea.
It's a sort of "do unto others" philosophy. Consider a single mom who gets cancer and is unable to pay for her medical kids AND for food for her kid(s). It's not technically your responsibility to take care of them, but your representatives decided that it was a good idea for everyone to shoulder a tiny bit of the responsibility. That's what you get in a democratic republic like ours.
If you don't like it, you're free to write a letter to your Congressman. If you get enough people writing enough letters, you'll be sure to get noticed and maybe things will change. That's how the system works.
I like having the safety net there. It's EXACTLY like having insurance. The insurance premiums on your car pay for damage to anyone else's car being covered by your insurance company (plus a good chunk of overhead costs and corporate profit). If you never get into an accident, you could view that as wasted money, or more wisely you could view it as a safety net just in case you do get into an accident. If you get into a car accident tomorrow, the rest of us will be helping to pay for your repairs. Everyone has insurance, and some people will never benefit from it.
It's just a safety net. If you're ever unemployed and in dire need some day, you'll be glad that the safety net was there.
Besides, the amount you pay to welfare and unemployment is miniscule. It's a tiny fraction of the budget. I'd be more pissed off about ridiculous military spending. Millions of dollars in defense money basically go unaccounted for, yet Republicans insist that it's the welfare system that bankrupts us...
Here are some numbers for you
AFDC spending (welfare and food stamps) in 1993 was $12 billion, Defense spending was $281 billion. In 1997 federal subsidies to private business (ie corporate welfare) was $87 billion. Perhaps it would be wiser for you to ask why you have to pay off businesses that should be making money on their own?
I read somewhere that execution costs more than lifetime imprisonment. The justification was something along the lines of ridiculous amounts of red tape and additional spending for executions. I don't know if it's true or not (it sounds ridiculous), but I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable on the topic could at least weigh in.
natto fire
Diamond Member
You keep throwing out the the word involuntary, but it really isn't. You could move to a place that does not have those programs, kill yourself, or simply stop paying taxes. Yeah, those alternate decisions might be so out there that it may seem involuntary for you to pay for these programs, but that is not correct.
The rest of the discussion is flamebait city and I don't really care enough to discuss it over the internet. Not that doing that has a horrible track record of getting things done...
The rest of the discussion is flamebait city and I don't really care enough to discuss it over the internet. Not that doing that has a horrible track record of getting things done...
heyheybooboo
Diamond Member
Don't you wish ...
The nation-building police action of an occupation, it's continued funding and loss of life and limb has got ""G-O-P"" written all over it ...
theeedude
Lifer
Because if you fell on hard times, someone would "involuntarily" be paying your way.
Also, while you claim it's involuntarily, these laws were passed by people's elected representatives, so indirectly, the majority of the people volunteered to do so by supporting candidates who passed these benefit programs.
Jaskalas
Lifer
Indeed sir.
Being a conservative myself I believe government should lift people up when they fall down on hard times. However, I do not believe it should support them indefinitely. The goodwill and charity of others can be abused and we must look to avoiding that abuse whenever possible. It would not be humane for our limited resources to be squandered and left unavailable to those who truly struggle and try to succeed if those who want to mooch off us take everything we have.
So there must be a balance, certain requirements such as getting back on your feet.
This has become more difficult to balance lately because even with 2 parents working full time jobs American families continue to make lower wages compared to the rise in the cost of living. So for each and every person on services, more people are being added every day and those on the program continue to require more and more indefinitely until our economic piggy bank breaks.
Very inhumane times are ahead of us as we realize we cannot afford all that is promised. Yet every day I hear politicians electing themselves with more promises even though we cannot sustain current levels. It would be a hilarious joke that people were so stupid to believe them if not for the very real crisis our bankruptcy will bring.
Safety net is exactly what it should be.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
