Welfare

Welfare...
Is it a legitimate function of the government to take away the wealth that YOU created and hand it over to someone that's done nothing to earn it? Should those that achieve be punished by being forced to pay the way for those that didn't?

Discuss...

>>1

Well, like to paraphrase Newton, "if I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants". What you may attain in your life is influenced by your conditions. Take a tremendous achiever like Bill Gates, and change his place of birth to Mogadishu, and I would expect to note a dramatic decrease in income.

Do you owe your nation for setting up the conditions that have allowed you to succeed? I would say yes, you do. How much? Uh... that's up to the nation to decide; luckily most people with access to the Intarweb live in nations which pay some lip-service to the idea of "no taxation without representation", so you personally have some say. Perhaps unfortunately, every other citizen of the country you live in has some say on your rate of taxation also. Why? Efficiencies of scale; if every individual could opt-in or opt-out of every social service, the systems of administration and enforcement to keep people from getting a "free ride" would be enormous. It's easier to just subscribe every single citizen to the same "benefit package", e.g., schools, roads, defense of property.

Now, if a majoritarian percentage of your nation wants to give some % of all taxes the government receives to those who don't have a job, you are once again compelled to go along with the majority. Why would anyone want a welfare system? Simply put, it polls like unemployment insurance. The more someone rates their possibility of being unemployed, the more likely they'll support social welfare. The less likely someone is to imagine themselves benefitting, the less likely they are to support it.

>>2
So basically what you believe in is mob rule? Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets? If everyone wants to rob Bob J. Smith of 40% of his salary at the eventual point of a gun, then they're right in doing so? Roads, national defense, mail service, all legitimate actions of government. However, this whole 'Robin Hood' bit is just a little to the right of socialism... You can shove all the military power and governmental might in my face, I don't give a damn. The highest unit of society on this planet is the individual.

Furthermore, aside from mental or physical problems, there's no reason why people should be IN poverty in THIS country. If they are, they're either lazy, have made bad choices in life, or just see nothing to strive for in life. If they're content to live that way, fine. But when they start claiming a right to YOUR money simply because they 'need' it, screw em....

rob J. Smith of 40% of his salary at the eventual point of a gun, then they're right in doing so?

I hate to point out the obvious, but a) you're not doing it at the point of a gun, and b) if the government didn't do it, eventually you would be staring down that barrel. It wouldn't belong to the police, it'd belong to someone very poor and desperate.

here's no reason why people should be IN poverty in THIS country.

You're hopelessly naive. I was born into poverty, since my father ran off with another woman, the legal system screwed my mother, and nobody employs old women. Ageism, you know? She was one of the best at what she did, but that wasn't good enough.

In the end she went back to school, but by then she was 50. She then had a choice to either work all the time, or raise me. She chose to raise me, so we were butt poor, but I had a loving mother around me all the time. I think she made the right choice, even though I think she'll live a few years shorter because of it. She was nervous all the time, counting every dollar, and she's become a very bitter person about the whole affair.

Until society is fair, welfare keeps some semblance of order around. The legal system only works for the rich. Having studied law (thanks to the wonders of a social system, otherwise this would have been impossible for someone of my means), I really believe that the average person is shafted. People do fall through the cracks all the time, and this prevents the system from eating itself alive.

Because, if it wasn't there, that gun against your head might have belonged to me. Given the choice between feeding myself and putting a bullet in your brain, guess which I'll pick first?

Greedy fool.

>>4
You're not considering the rest of my statements... Don't give excuses for your mom, mine's in a poverty situation and I love her to death, but that doesn't excuse the fact that she's made some bad choices in life... Having kids when you can't afford them is a bad choice. Again, don't make excuses...

>>4
And furthermore, the government takes taxes out of your paycheck before you even see the money to be able to miss it... If you refuse you pay your income taxes, they'll come to take your house. If you resist, they send armed men to take it.

>>3

Democracy is majoritarianism, or "mob rule" if you're feeling pejorative. You're demonstrating the common mistaken belief that liberty is intrinsically part of democracy... which it isn't. That's why there are two different words: because they're two different concepts.

And yes, I am in favor of "mob rule", because it is the only ethical system of government. You, on the other hand, are advocating plutocracy. :P

>>5
Are you stupid? What the fuck do you know about her situation, you arrogant prick?

My mom's "mistake" was getting married to the idiot known as my father. They were married for 17 years, and were upper-middle class. Most people would call that a good place to have a child. If that isn't, then tell me, what the fuck is?!

It shows how much you know about the real world. This story is far too common. Men love to bitch about all their money is being ripped off by women, but the truth is the women are the ones who usually get the short end of the stick. Look at the statistics.

And of course people like you pat the real scoundrels on the back, because the people who got stuffed and end up at the bottom was all their mistake. The rich can't do no evil, evemn though most of them became that way through stepping on others! Oh, no!

Idiot.

>>8

Thank you.

>>1

If you can argue that it is a legitimate function of government to fund and operate a fire department, then yes. The same arguments can be made that it is a legitimate function of government to care for people when circumstances overcome their ability to care for themselves.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line. You, I imagine, draw the line right directly between yourself and the colored people. I bet gays and women go on the far side of the line too.

...there seem to be a lot of sons of single mothers here...

(me = +1)

how odd.

>>10, >>2
Look, my whole point was that stealing peoples' money by force or fraud to give it to people who didn't EARN it is wrong. And for that I get called racist and bigoted... I draw the line where someone else has been unfairly taken advantage of, an individual is an individual...

Oh, and >>10 "I bet gays and women go on the far side of the line too." ... I'm bi.

>>12

I'm Mr. 2. Where did I say that theft isn't wrong? :P

Don't be a shmuck, that is not your point.

Your point is that you shouldn't have to share if you don't want to. And maybe you shouldn't. But fuck man, there are lots of places to live in this world. If you don't like the social contract in whichever European welfare state you live in, move to another one. Russia has very low taxes, and so does the U.S. Or hell, try Mogadishu. You never have to worry about taxes there. :P

pro-tip0: insulting the audience's mothers is a poor debate tactic.

pro-tip1: if you find insulting the audience's mothers to be a necessary consequence of your point of view, maybe your point of view is wrong, or at least, not ethical.

>>13

pro-tip2: do we have any chocolate cake left?

>>14

pro-tip3: yes!

The major problem of welfare is that in the end it is a method of control.  The people who are on welfare typically become dependent and forget how to fend for themselves.  Politicians that support welfare are typically using it as a method of indirect vote buying.  Because welfare is handled by government, all a politician need to do is say "vote for me and I'll ensure your "free" money!"  Since the people on welfare have become reliant upon welfare to continue to live, they typically WILL vote for said politician.  Those same politicians will also use this strategy against their opponents as well.  In order to take votes from their opponents, they simply will say, "If you vote for him, he'll take away your welfare and make you starve!"

The next problem is that if a welfare system grows too large, it'll slowly destroy production.  This is similiar to how communism slowly destroys production.  Simply put, as people who have worked hard to earn their living continue to see their money given to those who have chosen to not work for a living, they start to think to themselves, "Why should I work so hard to make money when I could just as easily go on welfare like that guy?"  So that guy chooses to go onto welfare.  Wash, rinse and repeat.  Soon you have a domino effect of the productive members of society giving up and going into welfare.  GNP goes to hell and the country collapses.  Who cares though, right, because the politicians who supported welfare simply leeched all the money off the top of the welfare plan and probably skipped into another country.

This is one of the reason why social and communist ideals just do not work.

>>16

OMG! THAT IS INCREDIBLE! I HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT CRAP BEFORE!

Hey, >>16! Look! It's an ELEPHANT!

gagh gagh gagh gagh

>>16
I think you're the first person to agree with my thread. e.e
Congratulations. *Confetti*

>>19
Well, you're wrong. Social welfare is basically a method to maintain social stability and avoid class warfare. You are not just paying for some poor fag's lunch, you are also paying him not to burglarize your house or march on the capital.

<Inst>

if the government doesn't have the right to step in and help people who actually need the help, they shouldn't have the right to do a damned thing to people who can manage on their own anyway.  dump welfare, and you might as well just have straight-out anarchy for all the good it'll do.

>>11
Because I'm that damn smoooooooth. Negro.

>>20
You're still 'awarding' people for being lazy rather than 'punishing' them, at the expense of people who were NOT lazy. -_- If you award people for bad behavior, they keep doing it. If you destroyed government handouts, people would get their damn act together eventually.

If he wants my money, let him come and rob my house. He shall be greeted by my 12-gauge slug of JUSTICE! >:O *Raises finger dramatically*

If he wants my money, let him come and rob my house. He shall be greeted by my 12-gauge slug of JUSTICE!

That has to be the stupidest thing I've read on world4ch all day, and that's really saying something.

Do you hear that? That's your mommy telling you to do your homework and go to bed.

>>24
Learn to better judge somebody else's degree of seriousness. -_-

Why should a kid be punished because his parents don't have money? At least some minimal welfare is necessary to give everyone the same opportunity.

>>26
then only give welfare to parents.

>>26
Why should a kid be punished because his parents don't have money?

Because that is how life is you deluded bastard. When your parents are rich you are rich. That is how life is and have been for a long time. Life is unfair (or extemely fair depending on who you are). Deal with it.

>>28
And when you get shot in the head, you die.  Deal with it.

There's no point in government or law at all then, is there?

>>28

Why do you bother discussing then? "thats how life is and has been" is not an argument, except for retarded morons.

>>25
I know it was a joke. I also know only a thirteen year old brat would find it funny. Anyone older would die in shame from writing such shit bravado.

What, you think this is the movies or something? I AM ARNOLD SCHWARZNEGGER

>>28 doesn't understand the concept of "social species". Truly, he is a marvel of our education system (zOMG waste of taxes lol!).

>>32
welfare doesn't help the bugger get rich y'know. there is free education to help with that. welfare does what. feed him? his parents will take care of tha wouldn't they. in first world countries, poeple don't starve. period. what more would anyone need really. why would i wwant to spend my money so someone else can have more kids

feed him? his parents will take care of tha wouldn't they.

Unfortunately, not always.

in first world countries, poeple don't starve. period.

Holy fuck you live in a bubble. Some people do starve, but even if that wasn't true, why do you think they don't?

Oh, that's right! Welfare! AHA!

why would i wwant to spend my money so someone else can have more kids

Me me me me meeeeee! You realize the welfare system isn't just about letting people have more kids? What country are you from, anyway? US, right?

You're all avoiding my damn main point... -_-

>>35

Your main point being the taking? The stealing? My precioussss?

We're not avoiding it. We're over it.

How else do you have a government? We all *agree* to have the government do this. If not enough people agree, we stop.

Unless I missed it, he's one of those fags who wants all the benefits without paying for it. Schools, roads, hospitals, defense, research, standards, legal, emergency services, etc, etc, it's all obviously free!

Of course, the moment he's getting the cuts, he'll bitch about it. Not in my back yard, amirite?

>>34
Welfare is a form os ME ME ME MEEEEE thing too.  What's so bad about letting parasites die?

>>4
If you tried that the police you cart you off.

Parasite.

>>37

THAT's what I pay TAXES for, dur hur hur. :B

Not so some slob can afford to contribute nothing to society.