Is Welfare a Right?

[Hoovie]

Jfrog makes some good points though I disagree that I would not give more if my tax burden was less.

I am not anti Welfare entirely though I question whether it should be run on any federal or even state level. It is best administered by those closest the population in need. The abuse issue is huge, but the greater abuse Is governmental, and occurs through the layered administrative bureaucracy which is built around and thrives on "the poor".

Free education is not a right either, though the Occupy crowd somehow wants to imply guilt on others for the loans they they willingly made.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Jfrog makes some good points though I disagree that I would not give more if my tax burden was less.

I am not anti Welfare entirely though I question whether it should be run on any federal or even state level. It is best administered by those closest the population in need. The abuse issue is huge, but the greater abuse Is governmental, and occurs through the layered administrative bureaucracy which is built around and thrives on "the poor".

Free education is not a right either, though the Occupy crowd somehow wants to imply guilt on others for the loans they they willingly made.

I'm sure some would give more if we weren't taxed to pay for welfare (probably a lot fewer than try to claim they would). But even you are hesitant to say you would give all or even most of that extra money you would gain from that tax being discontinued. So with the little extra you and some other would give, would it be enough to support all those who would be in legitimate need?

I think welfare cannot work on any level but the federal level. Let's create a ficticious United States where a welfare tax is only implemented in New York for New York. Once implemented there would be a massive emmigration of wealthy people from New York to the surrounding states. Also poor people from other states will attempt to relocate to New York to take advantage of their welfare system. Thus New York will be forced to end its welfare system due to the high influx of new people on the system and high outflux of the tax money that is paying for the system. So in my mind the only real way to implement a welfare system is on a national level (at least the tax to pay for it must be on a national level).

[Aquila]

Welfare handouts lead to bondage and dependency. Minimal work/educational requirements are beneficial.

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by jfrog

More dodging the question with rhetoric: single moms have always existed and always will... what do you propose we do about them?

No I am not dodging the question. You should read my post! I mentioned EDUCATION!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm sure some would give more if we weren't taxed to pay for welfare (probably a lot fewer than try to claim they would). But even you are hesitant to say you would give all or even most of that extra money you would gain from that tax being discontinued. So with the little extra you and some other would give, would it be enough to support all those who would be in legitimate need?

I think welfare cannot work on any level but the federal level. Let's create a ficticious United States where a welfare tax is only implemented in New York for New York. Once implemented there would be a massive emmigration of wealthy people from New York to the surrounding states. Also poor people from other states will attempt to relocate to New York to take advantage of their welfare system. Thus New York will be forced to end its welfare system due to the high influx of new people on the system and high outflux of the tax money that is paying for the system. So in my mind the only real way to implement a welfare system is on a national level (at least the tax to pay for it must be on a national level).

I'm not sure it needs to be a tax, or have government involvement at all. My point is removal of government involvement would automatically save big money.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

No I am not dodging the question. You should read my post! I mentioned EDUCATION!

Education isn't going to make single moms cease to exist. Nothing will. Therefore your mentioning of those things was an attempt to dodge the question.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I'm not sure it needs to be a tax, or have government involvement at all. My point is removal of government involvement would automatically save big money.

Fair enough. I suppose that's where we part ways. I can't see the poor being taken care of without government intervention and I'm kind of suprised you think that this immoral of a society would do what it takes to see them taken care of. So I guess I need to ask: do you really believe that in our society the poor would be better taken care of without some government funded program program?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Fair enough. I suppose that's where we part ways. I can't see the poor being taken care of without government intervention and I'm kind of suprised you think that this immoral of a society would do what it takes to see them taken care of. So I guess I need to ask: do you really believe that in our society the poor would be better taken care of without some government funded program program?

I think it's possible and even likely. It is being done now in certain segments of society. The Amish and Conservative Mennonites which is my heritage, have a freewill system of giving that "takes care of" the poor. This isworking well for them and they still pay state and federal taxes and help their neighbors on top of that.

Of course, if "taking care of them" means garanteed monthly cash payments and a Fannie May subsidized mortgage they still cant afford, then no, theycant compete with the GOV. .

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Education isn't going to make single moms cease to exist. Nothing will. Therefore your mentioning of those things was an attempt to dodge the question.

It's been proven that there are more single mothers coming out of the public school system than out of the Christian school system. That should tell you enough.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think it's possible and even likely. It is being done now in certain segments of society. The Amish and Conservative Mennonites which is my heritage, have a freewill system of giving that "takes care of" the poor. This isworking well for them and they still pay state and federal taxes and help their neighbors on top of that.

Of course, if "taking care of them" means garanteed monthly cash payments and a Fannie May subsidized mortgage they still cant afford, then no, theycant compete with the GOV. .

I'd be interested in hearing the details of the Amish and Mennonite freewill giving system.