What if we taxed the poor 100%?

Question

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?

Sorry folks but I'm not running for president, and you'd probably hate me if I did. I'm a Libertarian, and asked this question just because I'm in a really, really bad mood this morning. I wanted to see if anybody would recognize that under this plan there would be little incentive to improve your situation unless you were on the very edge of the upper boundary. There would actually be a perverse disincentive for everybody on this program to do as little as possible and make as little as possible. Throw in the cost of the administration and it would become a government nightmare. Tincoatr recognized the problem with this system, although he then jumped 180 degrees with his solution. What kind of incentive would NO welfare provide? And I can't believe that somebody actually made the argument that we must have welfare because people would turn to crime if they didn't have it. That's OPEN robbery instead of being subtle about it. "Give me money or I'll start stealing from you."

Answer 1

The idea of welfare is to bring the poor up to the minimum standard of living. The amount of welfare should be given based on the amount of money they make so in effect they are being taxed 100% on that money. This is why many people on welfare don't even look for work because it will reduce the amount of "free" money. It is easier for some people to live in poverty than to actually work for a living. The solution would be to require every able-bodied person to work for the government to receive welfare. These people could perform menial tasks like park/roadside cleanup, mowing of parks, school cooks, etc. This could also be combined with mandatory job training. Many jobs are currently being paid for with tax dollars at low or minimum wages that could be filled by people on welfare. We could save tax dollars. This would also give people on welfare more incentive to get off of it. Those who really just need a helping hand will get it and be better off. Those that don't want to work and just want a "free lunch" will be eliminated from the welfare system.

Answer 2

There is already an indirect source of genocide in this country. The nonspoken elimination of certain people such as the young, the sick, the disabled, and the elderly.

So one would suspect that there would be a lot more deaths, a lot more crime in the beginning, and a lot of middle class shoved even farther down the corporate ladder.

Answer 3

You know what some of those "poor life choices" are? Getting pregnant while on birth control and deciding to have the child and try to raise it themselves. Getting themselves out of a physically or mentally abusive marriage or relationship and having two small children to raise and no skills to bring to the workplace.

Saying "poor life choices" makes it easier for you to sleep at night, doesn't it? And do you have any idea how many bureaucrats it would take to police something like you are proposing?

Answer 4

Everyone would be poor, eventually. You would not have a job as a cable TV intaller, nor as a beer manufacturing employee, nor as a movie rental employee, nort as a fast food employee, which would trickle down to not having a job as a metal refinery worker, not have a job as a farmer of barley, and not have a job as a cattle hearder. The economy would be completely crippled within 3 years. You would be booted out of your political office, as the poor can still vote you out.

Answer 5

Wow, you sound like an accomplished economist. You should go to work for the IMF or the World Bank.

Actually, giving to the poor aleviates their situation. Cutting them off completely is likely to do one of two things; 1) they adapt on their own and start making money, 2) they all become crimminals because they can't adapt.

Answer 6

Why not : if the state cannot supply the armed forces adequately or the CIA without Fraud, waste and corruption, how about all those millions who have no incentive to co-operate and all the suppliers who equally have none. You just put them into further poverty trading goods for cigarettes, make the whole low-budget rental sector even more fraudulent than the European farmers. Money doesn't make people fraudulent, but non-money substitutes make them rubbish traders.

Do you hate even the monetarist Milton Friedman? Read free to choose: due to the inadequacies of the product market he recommends the exact opposite, that we decide the money poverty level and bring people up to that ...

Answer 7

Its good for the poor to pay no tax. The poor will spend every single penny they have, and that is a good thing, from an economic standpoint.

Answer 8

Heck, I'd be happy with 1%. Not only do we provide them with all of what you described, but we actually give them an income by way of the Earned Income Tax credit. basically, we tax them at around -15%...that's a negative. That's your and my hard cold cash by the way. And they really appreicate your charity.

Answer 9

Don't be simple. The reason we don't tax the poor is because we can't get anything out of them anyway. These people don't exactly file tax returns, if you know what I mean.

Answer 10

That's ridiculous. How are you going to tax the poor if they have no money?