Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth

[Mark Kisla]

 You know if you work hard and are smart with how you spend your money, you can have a pretty nice life.

[editor]

There 2 kinds of people; those who want to manipulate and beat the system for financial gain and those who want to work and prosper within the intent of the system. It would be great if the honest person prospers and the abuser is punished.

An honest person tries to stay out of the system as much as possible.  That's why I don't play the insurance game.  Honesty doesn't pay in that game.  If you want to get paid you must stretch, ignore and/or fabricate data.  I couldn't do that.

When the wicked rule, the righteous hide themselves.

Brent

[Mark Kisla]

An honest person tries to stay out of the system as much as possible.  That's why I don't play the insurance game.  Honesty doesn't pay in that game.  If you want to get paid you must stretch, ignore and/or fabricate data.  I couldn't do that.

When the wicked rule, the righteous hide themselves.

Brent

My Dad was an honest man and his example has been a source of strength when I thought of feeling sorry for myself.
I think you being honest and not playing the insurance game is a good example to your kids.
Every business venture that Walt Disneys dad went into failed, but the guy just would get up and go at it again.
It does not surprise me that  Walt Disney was a success despite the setbacks he encountered. He learned to be tenacious.

[editor]

My Dad was an honest man and his example has been a source of strength when I thought of feeling sorry for myself.
I think you being honest and not playing the insurance game is a good example to your kids.
Every business venture that Walt Disneys dad went into failed, but the guy just would get up and go at it again.
It does not surprise me that  Walt Disney was a success despite the setbacks he encountered. He learned to be tenacious.

In one sense, Walt's dad was successful in the most important business. He raised a successful son.  (Walt's not my hero, at all, but he is an interesting character.)

Success can't always be measured in money, but failure is always a guarantee when someone won't try.

Brent

[Mark Kisla]

Someone once said, "People say, lifes dealt me a lucky hand, I tell them, the harder I work the luckier I get."

[editor]

Someone once said, "People say, lifes dealt me a lucky hand, I tell them, the harder I work the luckier I get."

There's wisdom in that.  Poker has some great lessons for the larger game of life.  Anyone can get a lucky hand, and prosper for an hour, a day, even a year.  But if they rely on luck, and don't work hard at their game, it is a certainty that they'll go broke soon enough.  On the other hand, the players that know the game, seem to get lucky, because they know how to exploit weakness in others, and apply the pressure at the right time.

You can't do that without serious study and hard work, but anyone can get lucky.

Brent

[enchilada]

You're correct.  fisherman can make some serious bucks.

I am not incorporated.  I looked into it, but the cost of maintaining the corporation and filing its tax return outweighed the tax benefits.  On your personal income, you pay taxes, right?

There is no argument over who pays taxes.  The "rich" pay them, no question about it.  Do you think that you should pay property tax, and get taxed on improvements?  Do you think that if you make a wise investment, the government should get rewarded as well?

Sorry about all the questions. 

Brent

I pay a lot of taxes, a little more than my fair share, around 33%. It's an inconvenience but I have no qualms about the tax code.  Without a respected accountant's advise, I'd be paying more, but that's due to the complexity of the keeping track of everything and knowing what to deduct and what not do.  I  use an LLC for each construction project, because I'd be exposing myself to unnecessary risk otherwise.  I just factor the cost of it all into the sale price of the product and move on the next.  Philosophically, taxes are an investment.  The returns of: good highway systems, a stong military and nuclear weapons to protect us from the soviets, etc., are excellent.   For a person who works hard, smart, and with integrity in developing something nice that others want, there is no problem with making a good living, despite taxes.  The stability that this country offers makes paying taxes more than worth the effort.  My grandfather lost 5 lumber mills to the Soviets in northern Finland after WWII, and decided to move his family to the US soon after to start over, because he could start over and not have to worry about those types of losses again.  He went on to build a whole bunch of houses and motels and live a comfortable life--always building something and keeping the cash flow positive and active rather than cashing out and getting taxed for it.  Overall the tax code rewards those who keep active and punishes those who relax and cash out and relax in their perishable imported car from germany.  Technically, I'm rich, but I drive a pickup truck that has 237000 miles and keep a small bank account.  As a result, my taxes are minimal.  No braggiing here, the truck gets a lot of laughs.

Home improvements should be taxable because they increase the home's value, thereby the income.  If a person's property taxes are too high for him, then there is always the option of selling his house and move someplace where they are less.  That's what I did, and reduced them by 75%.  As far as taxation on returns from investments, I agree that we should be taxed on them if we cash out and relax.  However, if the profit is rolled into another investment, then the taxes are, as they should be, deferred.  Overall, taxes are not a big deal if it is understood what the government wants: action.  It is best for everybody if investing is going on and people are working as a result, as opposed to cashing out and buying a bunch of perishable luxury items.

Dan

[editor]

I pay a lot of taxes, a little more than my fair share, around 33%. It's an inconvenience but I have no qualms about the tax code.  Without a respected accountant's advise, I'd be paying more, but that's due to the complexity of the keeping track of everything and knowing what to deduct and what not do.  I  use an LLC for each construction project, because I'd be exposing myself to unnecessary risk otherwise.  I just factor the cost of it all into the sale price of the product and move on the next.  Philosophically, taxes are an investment.  The returns of: good highway systems, a stong military and nuclear weapons to protect us from the soviets, etc., are excellent.   For a person who works hard, smart, and with integrity in developing something nice that others want, there is no problem with making a good living, despite taxes.  The stability that this country offers makes paying taxes more than worth the effort.  My grandfather lost 5 lumber mills to the Soviets in northern Finland after WWII, and decided to move his family to the US soon after to start over, because he could start over and not have to worry about those types of losses again.  He went on to build a whole bunch of houses and motels and live a comfortable life--always building something and keeping the cash flow positive and active rather than cashing out and getting taxed for it.  Overall the tax code rewards those who keep active and punishes those who relax and cash out and relax in their perishable imported car from germany.  Technically, I'm rich, but I drive a pickup truck that has 237000 miles and keep a small bank account.  As a result, my taxes are minimal.  No braggiing here, the truck gets a lot of laughs.

Home improvements should be taxable because they increase the home's value, thereby the income.  If a person's property taxes are too high for him, then there is always the option of selling his house and move someplace where they are less.  That's what I did, and reduced them by 75%.  As far as taxation on returns from investments, I agree that we should be taxed on them if we cash out and relax.  However, if the profit is rolled into another investment, then the taxes are, as they should be, deferred.  Overall, taxes are not a big deal if it is understood what the government wants: action.  It is best for everybody if investing is going on and people are working as a result, as opposed to cashing out and buying a bunch of perishable luxury items.

Dan

Sounds like things are going well for you Dan.  I glad to hear it.

Brent

[enchilada]

Sounds like things are going well for you Dan.  I glad to hear it.

Brent

Thanks,  just keeping busy to help pay for the welfare checks.  I'm glad you are making a good living, Uncle Sam needs your dollars to help finance welfare.  Overall Welfare is necessary, but needs to cut costs somehow.  I think the evil is in the gross inefficiency, such as the 20 cents per dollar you mentioned.  I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while.  People that move into this country could also use a helping hand after they get off the boat.  Welfare for new immigrants seems like a good way to go while they learn to speak Engish and get a job.  I figure that if they have the courage to move over here, then they probably have the ability to become good citizens.  There's plenty of room here for them.  However, if they act lazy and mooch, then back to Elbonia they go.

[M2]

Thanks,  just keeping busy to help pay for the welfare checks.  I'm glad you are making a good living, Uncle Sam needs your dollars to help finance welfare.  Overall Welfare is necessary, but needs to cut costs somehow.  I think the evil is in the gross inefficiency, such as the 20 cents per dollar you mentioned.  I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while.  People that move into this country could also use a helping hand after they get off the boat.  Welfare for new immigrants seems like a good way to go while they learn to speak Engish and get a job.  I figure that if they have the courage to move over here, then they probably have the ability to become good citizens.  There's plenty of room here for them.  However, if they act lazy and mooch, then back to Elbonia they go.

Are new immigrants getting welfare to establish themselves??  It seems like those who know about the system use it.  New immigrants may not be in this category.  New immigrants are required to have a sponsor or enough money to support themselves when they enter the country.  They very rarely are a drain on the welfare system.  There are other problems but I do not think that that is one of them.  Refugees may be a different matter.

A hypothetical question, that requires a lot of imagination :
You said, "I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while."
If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while?

Marcia

[enchilada]

Are new immigrants getting welfare to establish themselves??  It seems like those who know about the system use it.  New immigrants may not be in this category.  New immigrants are required to have a sponsor or enough money to support themselves when they enter the country.  They very rarely are a drain on the welfare system.  There are other problems but I do not think that that is one of them.  Refugees may be a different matter.

A hypothetical question, that requires a lot of imagination :
You said, "I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while."
If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while?

Marcia

I read somewhere that new immigrants are qualified to collect welfare benefits, and if they have children born in this country, then they become qualified for additional money.  But I think it's fine for them to collect because it will supplement the income they receive while working at Taco Bell until they find a higher paying job somewhere else, say at a Jiffy Lube changing oil, then enroll in a JC to quickly learn how to work with engines and get a job as a mechanic at Mr Goodwrench.  There is a good career path for everybody and welfare is a good place to start, or hot rock bottom if something bad happens.  Which leads me to your question: If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while?  Answer: without a minimally soft cushion like welfare to land on to pay for food, cheap rent, and so forth, there would probably be a lot more prostitutes out there for the uneducated wife who was dumped by her husband and left with the children to support without a job.  There's other examples, but I don't feel comfortable elaborating. 

Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society.  The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people.  So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat?

Dan

[M2]

I read somewhere that new immigrants are qualified to collect welfare benefits, and if they have children born in this country, then they become qualified for additional money.  But I think it's fine for them to collect because it will supplement the income they receive while working at Taco Bell until they find a higher paying job somewhere else, say at a Jiffy Lube changing oil, then enroll in a JC to quickly learn how to work with engines and get a job as a mechanic at Mr Goodwrench.  There is a good career path for everybody and welfare is a good place to start, or hot rock bottom if something bad happens.  Which leads me to your question: If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while?  Answer: without a minimally soft cushion like welfare to land on to pay for food, cheap rent, and so forth, there would probably be a lot more prostitutes out there for the uneducated wife who was dumped by her husband and left with the children to support without a job.  There's other examples, but I don't feel comfortable elaborating. 

Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society.  The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people.  So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat?

Dan

Hi Dan,

In Canada, and probably in the US, almost no one needs to be on welfare.  It is not the welfare system that has made life better for North Americans such that it attracts immigration to the degree that it does.  Also, though immigrants may be eligible for welfare they may not be aware that they are eligible.  It is the long term residents, and possibly the newer ones who had someone tell them, who take advantage of the system.  Welfare recipients get welfare if they apply for it and meet the requirements.

In Canada, we have employment insurance (EI) which is used for those that become unemployed.  They receive a percentage of what they made up to a maximum and for a certain number of weeks/months.  There are some who work for six months and then collect EI for six.  Some people feel they have a right to it since they paid in to it.

You said, "Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society.  The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people.  So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat?"

Are you saying that without welfare that the N.American poor in society could degrade to that of third world countries??  IMO it is not so much the lower taxes as what it does for the people on welfare, if they were not on welfare.

Marcia

[editor]

Hi Dan,

In Canada, and probably in the US, almost no one needs to be on welfare.  It is not the welfare system that has made life better for North Americans such that it attracts immigration to the degree that it does.  Also, though immigrants may be eligible for welfare they may not be aware that they are eligible.  It is the long term residents, and possibly the newer ones who had someone tell them, who take advantage of the system.  Welfare recipients get welfare if they apply for it and meet the requirements.

In Canada, we have employment insurance (EI) which is used for those that become unemployed.  They receive a percentage of what they made up to a maximum and for a certain number of weeks/months.  There are some who work for six months and then collect EI for six.  Some people feel they have a right to it since they paid in to it.

You said, "Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society.  The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people.  So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat?"

Are you saying that without welfare that the N.American poor in society could degrade to that of third world countries??  IMO it is not so much the lower taxes as what it does for the people on welfare, if they were not on welfare.

Marcia

There are so many jobs in this country that aren't filled....so many that employers WANT illegal immigration in order to procure labor.  If I landed hard, and had no options, I would go pick fruit, with my wife and kids....like the Mexicans do.  They eat, and they work, and I admire them.

Welfare is NOT the product of a civilized society.  It is the product of a rich, liberal society.

Brent

[enchilada]

There are so many jobs in this country that aren't filled....so many that employers WANT illegal immigration in order to procure labor.  If I landed hard, and had no options, I would go pick fruit, with my wife and kids....like the Mexicans do.  They eat, and they work, and I admire them.

Welfare is NOT the product of a civilized society.  It is the product of a rich, liberal society.

Brent

Brent, I'm glad you got a good work ethic.  That's commendable, and we would not need welfare if everybody was productive and healthy like you are.  One of my coworkers, who has 30-35% lung capacity, is on a motorized wheelchair with O2 tanks due to a horrible case of arthritis, has perhaps the strongest will to work among anybody I know--even though he's very wealthy and doesn't need to work.  That's great.  But what about the people that hit hard and are unable to pick fruit because they are too messed up to do anything?  Should they curl up and die or get a welfare check?  I recommend the latter, and that's why I'm not opposed to welfare and find those that are against it to be among those I disagree with.  I just want to see welfare, and most other government agencies become more efficient.

Yeah, welfare is a product of FDR.  It was going to happen as a result of Hoover's disgraceful performance in letting the economy go to waste without doing anything to counter the slide.  Perhaps welfare is no longer needed because of the abundance of jobs, but there are a lot of people who are unable to work who would probably be dead without welfare.  And the Bible says that if you don't work, you don't eat.  Well, it takes work to eat.  It requires effort (work) to lift food into the mouth, chew it and digest it.  It also requires work to go to the post office, endorse the check, and deposit it into the ATM machine. 

Dan

[BAT]

Brent, I'm glad you got a good work ethic.  That's commendable, and we would not need welfare if everybody was productive and healthy like you are.  One of my coworkers, who has 30-35% lung capacity, is on a motorized wheelchair with O2 tanks due to a horrible case of arthritis, has perhaps the strongest will to work among anybody I know--even though he's very wealthy and doesn't need to work.  That's great.  But what about the people that hit hard and are unable to pick fruit because they are too messed up to do anything?  Should they curl up and die or get a welfare check?  I recommend the latter, and that's why I'm not opposed to welfare and find those that are against it to be among those I disagree with.  I just want to see welfare, and most other government agencies become more efficient.

Yeah, welfare is a product of FDR.  It was going to happen as a result of Hoover's disgraceful performance in letting the economy go to waste without doing anything to counter the slide.  Perhaps welfare is no longer needed because of the abundance of jobs, but there are a lot of people who are unable to work who would probably be dead without welfare.  And the Bible says that if you don't work, you don't eat.  Well, it takes work to eat.  It requires effort (work) to lift food into the mouth, chew it and digest it.  It also requires work to go to the post office, endorse the check, and deposit it into the ATM machine. 

Dan

I'm sure you read the several times where I clearly stated that I was speaking specifically about people who are ABLE to work, but choose to be lazy?
In like manner, I also made careful mention of the fact that there are people who are UNABLE to work, who should be helped.  I see them as different.

If you think government's job is to guarantee a livelihood to citizens, then we do disagree.  That's OK.  There are other schools of opinion on government than mine.

I don't really think that you believe it's work to cash a check you didn't earn at the bank, do you?

OK, so how do you propose to make welfare more efficient?

To digress, I think socialism sounds awesome....on paper.  In practice, it will never do anything other than make a lame, unhappy country. 
Capitalism, on paper, sounds like survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, anarchy, where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor.  However, in practice it works better than socialism.

Here's an interesting essay.  Please read it, you may find it instructive.  It's a true classic  http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html