I've seen numerous people make the argument that welfare is morally acceptable because people NEED things like food, shelter, and medical care. They go on to say that if they can't afford these things on their own (usually due to an oppressive society rather than poor life choices) then it is the government's responsibility to provide it, utilizing the tax dollars of the more affluent. Okay, so why don't we then tax the poor 100% instead of 0%? Every dollar that they spend on something other than the necessities is a dollar that will eventually come out of my pocket. So let's take every penny they make, and then give it back to them as food stamps, housing, etc. No beer. No movies. No cable television. Your money will be spent wisely on the things you actually need so as to minimize the burden on your fellow man. Anybody see any problems with this arrangement?
2007-10-10
05:47:26
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Bigsky_52
6
in
Politics