2 ms·
Because you gave it to them. Don't give them money if you don't want them to have it. Since you voted for a government that distributes welfare from your taxes
by drcube 13y ago
Because you gave it to them. Don't give them money if you don't want them to have it.
Since you voted for a government that distributes welfare from your taxes, the most efficient, effective and humane method of distributing that welfare is to hand out cash with no strings attached. Any additional administration is simply a waste of money, with worse outcomes.
- kristiandupont 13y ago>Don't give them money if you don't want them to have it. So you want to make the system optional? If so, how would it be different from somebody simply setting up a charity? Your second statement is pretty bold. I am not necessarily disagreeing but nobody knows what the effects of a system like that would be because we've never tried it.
- drcube 13y agoYes, we did. Poor laborers often used to get paid in company scrip. You could buy anything you wanted with your paycheck, as long as your boss approved and it was stocked at your company store. Then we started making employers pay people in no-strings-attached cash, and things got a lot better for everyone. Command economies aren't just terrible for nations, but for much smaller economic domains as well. Like company towns, or welfare systems.