3 ms·

It's primarily an economic argument, not a moralistic one.

• emodendroket 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's right, but even if it is, I believe the parent's point is that nobody who'd actually had to live on welfare in the United States would conceive of it as an easy, carefree life that someone would prefer to steady work.
  • humanrebar 10y ago
    Well, either way, the argument is that the handcuffs are economic ones. The incentives are arranged to keep people stuck in their current economic situations regardless of how anyone feels about it. For example, many benefits are withdrawn when people make over a certain income, basically punishing earning. Likewise, many benefits are cut off when a couple gets married, punishing people who officially form stable families. It's not about gaming the system or preferring being on the take. It's about economic incentives producing predictable outcomes. These are all arguments people make for minimum incomes and negative income taxes. They economically encourage people to pursue growth instead of punishing them for it.