> As I said, I'm all for welfare/assistance given generously to those in need, but that's different from funding non-working lifestyle of those who have good working options and simply don't want to work.
I don't really know if that's worth worrying about. We're not living in a subsistence economy where if someone isn't carrying their weight the whole tribe dies. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a certain amount of non-participatory portion of the population, we should make sure it doesn't get to the point of unsustainability but trying to police absolutely everyone in society is a recipe for disaster.
> But let's not take money from people who need it just so a group of people can quit their job.
The people who need that money aren't going to bear the majority of the burden - when you get down into the range of poverty wages people are already exempt for non-transactional taxation and end up receiving more money than they pay. I don't think it's fair to paint any new expenditure as "But how will the poor bear this cost" - when, in the end, the middle and upper classes are where we look to for funding.
The 1980s perpetuated the idea of a "welfare queen" that we should all be really mad at - there are folks that take advantage of the system but it's such a small cost that, honestly, whatever. Most people can't enjoy that kind of a lifestyle so if a few people get to live content lives that would otherwise be ground into the dust I'm perfectly happy for them.
I don't really know if that's worth worrying about. We're not living in a subsistence economy where if someone isn't carrying their weight the whole tribe dies. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a certain amount of non-participatory portion of the population, we should make sure it doesn't get to the point of unsustainability but trying to police absolutely everyone in society is a recipe for disaster.
> But let's not take money from people who need it just so a group of people can quit their job.
The people who need that money aren't going to bear the majority of the burden - when you get down into the range of poverty wages people are already exempt for non-transactional taxation and end up receiving more money than they pay. I don't think it's fair to paint any new expenditure as "But how will the poor bear this cost" - when, in the end, the middle and upper classes are where we look to for funding.
The 1980s perpetuated the idea of a "welfare queen" that we should all be really mad at - there are folks that take advantage of the system but it's such a small cost that, honestly, whatever. Most people can't enjoy that kind of a lifestyle so if a few people get to live content lives that would otherwise be ground into the dust I'm perfectly happy for them.