3 ms·

You wouldn't need welfare in this scenario and that's the point. Let people keep all or the majority of their money (thus enabling more potential for prosperity

You wouldn't need welfare in this scenario and that's the point. Let people keep all or the majority of their money (thus enabling more potential for prosperity if the individual is responsible). If the point of tax dollars is to fund some form of socialism (e.g., for the disabled or others who can't care for themselves), then allocate the majority of tax revenue to that and strip down the federal government to bare essentials (as it should be). Also offer tax credits to people who offer amounts above 10% for allocation to such costs. There's plenty of ways to take care of others without letting it burn up in the hands of the unproductive class (edit: meaning the government, not people who can't care for themselves).

josephcsible 4y ago
By "welfare cliff", I meant a situation where slightly increasing your gross income could significantly reduce the money you actually have available to spend. You don't actually need a welfare system for that to happen.
- rglover 4y ago
  > Welfare cliffs are an unfortunate feature of the American welfare system. They occur when a family’s breadwinner, or an individual, discovers that his or her family will become worse off economically by earning more money. It sounds paradoxical, but it happens whenever the loss in welfare benefits exceeds the additional take-home pay. Had to double-check...what I said still stands. If people are retaining more of what they earn (nationally, not just on an individual basis), market dynamics should play out that costs are lower, too, meaning you're not chasing increasing prices all the time with the same money (if we were on a Bitcoin standard, that would be even more true as there'd be no means for manipulating the money supply).