Study: Reduce the welfare state, not immigration

[PoliticalNick]

i've never understood why our society has something against programs like this. Everyone claims that there are tons of people on welfare and unemployment who 'want to work', yet everyone rails against the idea of actually putting people to work, doing something that needs doing.

Sure, it might not be as efficient as hiring a contractor to do it. But we're paying these people to DO NOTHING. Why not pay them to do something? And yes, it might be 'beneath them' to do these tasks, but isn't it better to do something, than to do nothing?

I am not railing against hiring the unemployed to do things that really need to be done. Where I have issues is 'make-work' projects. Things aren't really necessary just to get them more govt benefits and sponsored training. We, the taxpayers, then wind up funding unnecessary projects and the benefits that follow. I would much rather see that money go directly into the post-secondary education up front. The results are the same but are achieved quicker and at less cost.

I also believe that creating full-time employment at a decent wage should be a priority over temporary employment at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

[captain morgan]

Go ahead and post em if you got em, or would that blow your right wing self-centered arguments apart??.

Yeah... Pretty much just the way I predicted.. You won't do that as it undermines your thin logic.

If you knew anything other than your own personal desires you would know that a flat tax and flat fee are considered to be regressive policy, they punish those at the bottom, I am sure you are all over that considering what I have seen from you. I have never seen a report or study that doesn't say that progressive taxation is the fairest policy, those with more ability to pay have to pay more. If you have something besides your own belief in looking out for yourself and forgetting about others please feel to post it up. .

Regressive? I thought that you wanted equality?

It just proves that in your tiny world, some people are just more equal than others.

Once again, look into progressive vs regressive tax structures and when you understand them make an informed decision. I am pretty sure you would jump for the regressive structure as it allows the rich to be richer while making the poor poorer.

How theatrical.

You really ought to rally take a page or 2 from Marx/Lenin... Hopefully you get better results for "the people", unless plunging everyone in society into obscene, crushing poverty is what you got in mind.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I want equality in the way that if I have to give 38% of my gross income to the govt through various taxes and fees so should the guy making $1 million/yr and the guy making $10 million/yr. That is equitable funding of govt. Of course if we used a structure like this the number would be more like 20% and we would be able to pay off the debt in a short period of time and then reduce the percentage to about 15% and fully fund all the important programs and have them ranked as the best in the world.

 

[captain morgan]

I want equality in the way that if I have to give 38% of my gross income to the govt through various taxes and fees so should the guy making $1 million/yr and the guy making $10 million/yr. That is equitable funding of govt. Of course if we used a structure like this the number would be more like 20% and we would be able to pay off the debt in a short period of time and then reduce the percentage to about 15% and fully fund all the important programs and have them ranked as the best in the world.

Believe me ick, the guys making 7 or 8 figures are paying that in spades. Further, drop the sh*t about equitable treatment. We both know that equitable treatment would mean that everyone pays the same dollar amount to access the serviecs/facilities available... That is equal... That is true equality.

So, with this in mind, drop the references to percentages and start quoting actual dollar amounts. The guy that made $10MM paid an amount of taxes that would require someone at the $50k range over a hundred years of annual tax contributions to match.