government subsidies

Akkarin wrote: How is voting for people that give you benefits any different from voting for someone who promises to lower your taxes in terms of a conflict of interest? Maybe I just didn't get what you mean by 'conflict of interest'

Where taxes have been around as one of the oldest forms of government funding, social aid provided by government is a relatively recent thing. Paying one or two percent less or more tax is not a strong motivator to sway a vote when your livelihood does not depend on it. Food in your belly when you’re already hungry is.
I do not think that any legal citizen should ever have their right to vote removed less they renounce the country and their citizenship. But I DO feel that it is a tactic used by politicians to sway voters to support a political career that lacks merit.

"'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)

I guess I’m just a big, evil, meany head… I don’t see how someone can say that others should float the lifestyle they feel they deserve on someone else’s tab. I know that people may get use to a certain lifestyle and way of living and that it is hard to go without or have to tighten ones belt when hard times come. I know that even though there are groups which provide aid during hard times they are not idea and that there is only so much they can do. I know that it might not be the individuals fault they are unemployed. I know that sometimes people NEED help. And I am happy to help someone get back on their feet!

What I don’t understand is the sense of entitlement that people seem to have. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe we should change it to the guaranty of happiness? Or never experience any discomfort and if you can’t make it or think something is beneath you don’t worry because we’ll spoon feed you happiness.

I am a programmer at a machine shop and I have a double E (Bachelors in Electrical Engineering) and I have dug ditches and flipped burgers. I have done whatever it took to provide for my family and I have never taken a penny in government aid. Sure, it’s hard! Sure, I had to go to where the jobs are (hence why I am in the city) and I might have been tired and wore out after a long day of manual labor, but I got the calls out, went on interviews and found a job with a stable future where I could provide a comfortable living for my daughter. Maybe I’m nuts, maybe I’m just a workaholic? But I do NOT think I am owed anything; I do not think that my happiness and comfort are guaranteed… I think that if there is something out there you want; you better get off your duff and go get it!

Wescli Wardest wrote: Where taxes have been around as one of the oldest forms of government funding, social aid provided by government is a relatively recent thing. Paying one or two percent less or more tax is not a strong motivator to sway a vote when your livelihood does not depend on it. Food in your belly when you’re already hungry is.
I do not think that any legal citizen should ever have their right to vote removed less they renounce the country and their citizenship. But I DO feel that it is a tactic used by politicians to sway voters to support a political career that lacks merit.

Right I've got you now you make a good point

There is a rather large problem of people, as you say, feeling that they deserve a lot more than they have. There is a great lack of people being satisfied with the gifts they have been given already...

I know it's hard to find a job...really hard sometimes, but people do seem to act differently now. My dad says that when he was a younger man people would show up to a construction site in the hope that there would be work for them. Nowadays, it's the hardest thing in the world to find help...anybody! I work in that industry and we had a job available for years before it was ever filled...and you know why that was? Nobody wanted to work. We'd have guys come in, work for a day, and never return...well except for their paycheck. And it's not a very hard job.

We've even had a few stores close because they couldn't find help. The signs would say $11 hour but nobody would apply.

I think a lot of times (not all of course) people are looking for a certain job in a narrow sector and don't ever bother to look elsewhere. There are jobs...they just might not be the most popular or glamorous.

But I also agree there are many employers who don't pay well enough. And in those cases the workers need to band together to change things. We also need the govt. to change to make it easier for businesses to grow. It cost quite a bit to employ a person...just in taxes. If the government would stop taking so much then employees would get paid more. Not only do they tax us, but they tax the employer too.

The middle classes are willing to move around the country in order to find a job, or if they are required to relocate they often do so. It is the lower classes that tend to remain idle, never leaving their neighborhoods and never feeling engaged enough to go out and find work where the jobs are...

Sometimes I do just wonder how much is brought upon by ourselves...

That can apply to anyone of course... how many people take out loans or mortgages that they can't afford? I know one lady who took out a loan to pay for a new iPhone...

@deso...rethuglicans :woohoo: ... loved that...still laughing...likewise I grew up poor so I've been through the system...that's why I was so reluctant to even consider subsidies...

When I was stationed on guam the average income of someone with a job was 35k a year while the average welfare recipient's income was 56k a year...shows how jacked up the job market and economy were/are...

Part of the problem the poor have with relocating for work is the enormous expense involved....trust me, I sat down and started writing down all the deposits, etc that would be needed...it was too disappointing to finish....I was more than willing to relocate for a good job, but I'm not going to relocate and be homeless...if I move its going to be done right not halfassed...not all companies will pay relocation expenses for an unproven asset...

Ive hesitated to contribute to this conversation, but I do live in a country whose policies are definitely socialist. We have a welfare system that for the most part functions well. Everyone has access to medical care that has a high standard. Education is for the most part free, though parents are asked to donate what they can, and New Zealand's unemployment rate is at 6.20%

While there are significant tax breaks for businesses, the average person here pays around 25% tax. as well as an additional 4% to a compulsory retirement saving plan. In all, things are pretty good. In NZ you are entitled to certain types of assistance to support your family, start a business, buy a first time home and study, regardless of your financial situation. Because there is that safety net, more people are entrepreneurs, we have a thriving arts community and we tend to more time on recreation.

But, it also means that there is less incentive for people to be educated, to work towards personal success and for some, to do anything with their lives at all. We have an huge issue here with generational welfare. Entire families where no one works, and women who have child after child because the state pays per baby. The levels of child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse and violence is extraordinary and frighteningly high. People with no incentive to create their lives because its simply handed to them, live a very unenviable existence. I interviewed a young woman recently for an admin role and one of my questions was what sort of career she wanted. Her answer was "Whatever pays more than the dole".

I don't have an answer, but having been brought up somewhere that has no social welfare I can tell you that not needing medical insurance is awesome. Knowing that if my business went downhill, I have the reassurance that I could turn to a safety net to get me through if I so chose. but I don't think that throwing money at people who either cant or wont play their part in a functional society is an answer. I also don't agree with people who make far more money than they need exploiting loop holes in order to keep more of it. There must be a better way. There has to be a balance between every man for himself, and permanent hand outs.

No developed nation has it fully figured out yet...some are close while others are miles off...