4 ms·
The point is broader than that. For instance, many people (excepting children) who go on food stamps, disability, or welfare are often people who have paid int
by michaelchisari 16y ago
The point is broader than that. For instance, many people (excepting children) who go on food stamps, disability, or welfare are often people who have paid into the system over the course of their life. In that sense, the social safety net is an example of the government simply giving back their tax money.
So in that same sense, there exist massive programs of subsidization of the middle class and even the wealthy, just as there is of those who take in welfare or unemployment benefits.
Ultimately, the point the article is making is that society is an interlocking set of dependencies, and that demonizing one group for receiving government payouts ignores the complex social dependencies that all economic classes have in some form or another.
- shawndumas 16y agoAre there people that are on food stamps, disability, or welfare that haven't paid sufficiently into 'the system' to off set the cost of them consuming said services?
- michaelchisari 16y agoOf course there are, but determining someone's access to basic survival based on how much they had paid into the system would be problematic and Dickensian, to say the least. And most importantly, societies don't benefit from denying basic survival and dignity to people. Crime rates rise, social stratification increases, the net effect of social problems due to economic entropy of a class of people can be detrimental to the health and well-being of a society as a whole. Especially for the middle class, which lacks the wealth to isolate itself from said social problems the way the upper classes can.
- shawndumas 16y agoThat's not what I was getting at. You said '[people on] welfare are often people who have paid into the system' (emphasis mine). Right? What would you guess the ratio was of what the majority of people on welfare paid in as opposed to what they get in pay outs? (I am getting to an important point; stick with me; please and thanks.)
- michaelchisari 16y agoI don't have access to that information, and haven't known any studies to have been done. Assuming the statistics would fit your expectations, what would your point be?
- shawndumas 16y agoI want to see your expectations. I started by saying that not taking more of my money does not constitute welfare. You countered my point by saying that many people that later get paid out first paid in. So I am asking -- how many people? What ratio for paying in and taking out? You're saying that me keeping more of my own money (you know, the money I worked for) should be called welfare because I might take some of the money -- taken from me in the first place -- back. In effect: we all put in to a kitty. One day Cardboard holding, Camel smoking, Corner lollygagging, 'Carl' takes some out -- next day I take some out. Right? Well I am asking you; how much does 'Carl' put in and how much does he take out? It's easy for me to say I have tax withholdings and I know how much welfare I've used. What's your guess for the average 'Carl'?
- michaelchisari 16y agoMy guess is that a specific number for who "deserves" what social investment is a chaotic system which cannot be quantified properly. And I would consider it an exercise in futility to determine a social theory based on something so chaotic. Conversely, I would suggest that my payment into a welfare system benefits me, since I am merely middle class, and cannot escape the detrimental social effects of abject poverty nearly as easily as the wealthy.
- shawndumas 16y agofor the sake of argument let's say I agree with everything you said. Further, let's say I am so moved by your argument that, even though it doesn't seem like it, I now see that it is in fact better for all men for me to have even more of my money pilfered. what I still don't understand is why we should call pilfering my money from my hands should be called me receiving welfare?