the 50$ lesson

[UtwigMU]

Welcome to the republican party

Lifted from facebook.

[KRSESQ]

"Because, Angel, I don't want that homeless man anywhere near my property. It may sound cruel, but my reason is simple self-preservation. That unfortunate fellow is very probably badly mentally ill. The only medications he's had for the last x years are alcohol and street drugs. He might be delusional. If I hire him to do those things for me, one of two things will happen: He will work like a dog and earn that $50 and I will gladly pay him, or he will work for a while, get distracted or bored or tired or a craving, and either wander off or come to me demanding payment and getting irate and perhaps violent when I refuse to pay him because he did a half-assed job. He may steal something. No, Angel, it's just too risky.

"But I'll pay you $50 if you do a good job. And you can donate your money to the homeless shelter, or spend it on anything else you like, because it's still a free country."

[Umfriend]

"But I'll pay you $50 if you do a good job. And you can donate your money to the homeless shelter, or spend it on anything else you like, because it's still a free country."

Which is exactly what the protagonist proposes. In contrast of course, if she, as the President, pays the $50 and, therefore, taxes others to come up with it, it is not a voluntary donation.

[KRSESQ]

The implication of the "joke" is that the government has no business providing any assistance to the weakest and most helpless of its citizens, and that voluntary charities are more than capable of providing for the needs of those unfortunates. Except that they're not. If they were, they would and government intervention wouldn't be necessary at all. Voluntary charities can only do so much because people can only contribute so much of their disposable income or time to charities without placing a strain on their own finances (in the US at least, lower-income Americans contribute a much higher percent of their income to charity than upper-income Americans do, and in much greater numbers - and it's still nowhere near enough). The entire reason why government relief agencies came into existence in the first place is specifically because private charities were not up to shouldering the burden placed upon them by the overwhelming numbers of the destitute and desperate. Also, unfortunately, way too many private charities are, in reality, nothing more than money-making scams that provide only token assistance for their target group.

If you want to talk reform, okay. But total elimination of government assistance is neither realistic nor desirable.

[UtwigMU]

This year I've already earned more than what is average annual salary in 10 months, yet the bastards tax me to the point that someone on welfare has better life (more travels and activities) than me, while I:
- have to provide 10.000 euros a year for some parasite (here government takes half of what you earn)
- have to risk 100k EUR fines for regulations violations
- if I don't pay mandatory monopolist state health insurance on time (I have to pay it latter anyway because they raid my bank accounts after 2 weeks), I can either not see a doctor or have to pay cash at the doctor (cash can be reclaimed but you have to have it on hand to go on appointment). Someone on welfare doesn't have to pay anything and can see a doctor without costs.

etc...

I've talked to some radio reporter girl the other day and she said, she is for more just society. I told her: A more just society would have been if I paid 3k instead of 10k taxes a year and drove a BMW.


The problem with involuntary charity is that at some point, it is more effective to be on the receiving end than on the giving end. For example in my country only 33% of people work in real economy and must involuntarily provide to others. The state jobs have doubled since 1991 while we have automated and computerized everything (you can do most state-related things on-line with free state issued security certificate). The state workers have both better job security and higher salary. Friend's friend is a minster of government and he said he cannot fire anyone. He can only transfer them to other departments. Unemployed stay at home single mom on welfare with 4 children gets average monthly salary from the state, low cost social apartment, free kindergarden. State equalizes her with hard working engineer who has to pay income tax, has to pay more for kindergarden (because he is a rich bastard) and has to pay commercial rent.

[KRSESQ]

It sounds like Slovenia is approximately where Western Europe was in the late-sixties/early-seventies: Heavily socialized and heavily taxed and badly under-invested.

An important thing to remember is that people receiving government assistance do not hoard their benefit money in their mattresses or in off-shore bank accounts; they spend it. They spend it on everything from infant care products and the bare essentials to booze and cigarettes and sometimes pot. They spend most of that money locally, everywhere from the Laundromat to the liquor store (not to mention private, cash-only enterprises), injecting that government assistance money back into the local community, in many cases back into the very same pockets that it came out of in the form of taxes. Some of that assistance money may go toward an internet connection. Once considered a luxury, the lack of one is now considered a job-seeking handicap. But the money that goes into the local isp goes out again in the form of employee salaries (but not all the money, obviously). Some may be spent at the corner used car dealership. It doesn't matter where or for what purpose. The point is, it's flowing into the local economy.

They'll spend a great deal of their government benefit money at Walmart. As that money trickles upward through the company (don't give me any more of that "trickle-down" crap) and it reaches the hands of Sam Walton's heirs and the rest of the shareholders, only then does it get hoarded in off-shore tax shelters, where it does not get used to increase employee wages or benefits, giving them more disposable income to spend at Walmart. As a result, a scandalous number of Walmart employees live very close to the poverty line. Some Walmart "lifers" like my niece do okay, and a manager can make good money. But you can have only so many managers. Sam Walton is dead. No one running the company today cares whether the employees can afford to buy Walmart's products or not, government assistance or no. All that matters is shareholder value.

[Umfriend]

The implication of the "joke" is that the government has no business providing any assistance to the weakest and most helpless of its citizens, and that voluntary charities are more than capable of providing for the needs of those unfortunates.

I did and do not read it like that. I think the implicaiton is that liberals want to provide for the poor by using other peoples money but, when put to the test, will not provide for the poor themselves and voluntarily.

Anyway, it is a joke and I actually agree with most of what you are saying here. Taxation in the US is, I am sure, vastly different from Slovenia so I probably agree with the both of you actually. I do get the impression that both taxation as welfare programs in the US are, well, a toxic mixture of bad concept, bad design and bad implementation.

[cjolley]

Well, of course, the joke works to make it's point by proposing a 100% tax that goes only to the poor.
It doesn't work like that.
In the real world in the US the girl pays about $10 in taxes on her $50 in income.
And $3.50 of that $10 goes to the poor.
Details: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Also: http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/taxes

[KRSESQ]

I think the implicaiton is that liberals want to provide for the poor by using other peoples money but, when put to the test, will not provide for the poor themselves and voluntarily.

In the US liberals tend to be higher-income and as I pointed out, higher-income people contribute proportionately less to charity than lower-income groups do. Ironically, liberals who do support social welfare programs do it likely knowing full well that their income group will be most heavily affected by whatever tax increases are needed to pay for it.

I do get the impression that both taxation as welfare programs in the US are, well, a toxic mixture of bad concept, bad design and bad implementation.

I wouldn't go as far as to say toxic. But you can definitely tell they're written by committee!

[cjolley]

...higher-income people contribute proportionately less to charity than lower-income groups do...

I wonder if that's true if you remove things like the mega church building fund from contributions that count as charity?
There are an awful lot of scam churches in the US whose donations count as charities.

[KRSESQ]

Good point. A lot of people who contribute to the largest evangelical churches are in a sore position to afford it, if some of my clients are any indication.