4 ms·

That depends what one defines as working: one doesn't get didley squat until one sells everything one owns down to 4'000 francs. Only then does one qualify. Low

That depends what one defines as working: one doesn't get didley squat until one sells everything one owns down to 4'000 francs. Only then does one qualify. Low income families get medical insurance help, but they still have to pay, and no, tax payments don't count, because what one is allowed to subtract is symbolic. That's about it. Unemployment benefit is only for 18 months maximum, if I'm not mistaken, is not part of the welfare, and in the best case scenario only pays 80% of the salary, and there might even be a ceiling to that; if one is a homeowner and one didn't manage to find a job, savings are next, then the cars and bikes and then the house, before welfare will even consider paying anything. Ayn Rand would be furious that social benefits still existed at all. Hehe, so true, and all the more hypocritical since she herself drew welfare benefits in the United States for years.

cheez 7y ago
> Hehe, so true, and all the more hypocritical since she herself drew welfare benefits in the United States for years. Her logic, and I agree, was that she was forced to pay in, she should get it out.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  So the system she despised was functioning to her benefit as intended. That seems like an even more damning indictment of her philosophy than simple hypocrisy.
  - cheez 7y ago
    That's the opposite way to read it
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      Oh? You prefer that she was just a hypocrite after all?
      - cheez 7y ago
        She was against the use of force to take money. She was forced to give money. She took it back through that same use of force. Government is not a charity and there is no basis under which you should give government a gift of your entire working history.
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        What do you think a younger, healthier Rand would have said if a disabled person had put that argument to her? Would she have said, yes, you've paid your meager taxes your whole life, so you're entitled to a share of my tax money? Or would she have called them a corrupt, immoral parasite, and wished them cut off and left to struggle and starve? If Rand had lived in her ideal world, unburdened by taxes and the "parasites" that fed off them, she would have had a little more spending money over the course of her life, and then most likely died in misery, unable to pay for food or medical treatment. Instead, she was saved by the system she despised.
        cheez 7y ago
        Do you have any evidence that she received more than she paid in, or that she would have died in misery, unable to pay for food, etc
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        I don't know that for certain. But it seems the most probable of the outcomes, given what we know. But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Do you claim that she lived modestly and frugally, saving as much as possible, and only her lifelong tax burden prevented her from being able to save enough to support herself in her old age? More to the point, do you have an answer to my first question? Ayn Rand thought it only just that she take from the public coffers she paid into once she needed it. Do you think she would have happily extended the same privilege to anyone besides herself and her husband?
        7y ago

cheez 7y ago

> Hehe, so true, and all the more hypocritical since she herself drew welfare benefits in the United States for years. Her logic, and I agree, was that she was forced to pay in, she should get it out.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
So the system she despised was functioning to her benefit as intended. That seems like an even more damning indictment of her philosophy than simple hypocrisy.
- cheez 7y ago
  That's the opposite way to read it
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    Oh? You prefer that she was just a hypocrite after all?
    - cheez 7y ago
      She was against the use of force to take money. She was forced to give money. She took it back through that same use of force. Government is not a charity and there is no basis under which you should give government a gift of your entire working history.
      - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        What do you think a younger, healthier Rand would have said if a disabled person had put that argument to her? Would she have said, yes, you've paid your meager taxes your whole life, so you're entitled to a share of my tax money? Or would she have called them a corrupt, immoral parasite, and wished them cut off and left to struggle and starve? If Rand had lived in her ideal world, unburdened by taxes and the "parasites" that fed off them, she would have had a little more spending money over the course of her life, and then most likely died in misery, unable to pay for food or medical treatment. Instead, she was saved by the system she despised.
        cheez 7y ago
        Do you have any evidence that she received more than she paid in, or that she would have died in misery, unable to pay for food, etc
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        I don't know that for certain. But it seems the most probable of the outcomes, given what we know. But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Do you claim that she lived modestly and frugally, saving as much as possible, and only her lifelong tax burden prevented her from being able to save enough to support herself in her old age? More to the point, do you have an answer to my first question? Ayn Rand thought it only just that she take from the public coffers she paid into once she needed it. Do you think she would have happily extended the same privilege to anyone besides herself and her husband?
        7y ago