just how much income is a person "supposed to have"?

[Guest MormonGator]

Well, Adam Smith also supported some forms of welfare.  So does Friedman.

Right, so do I. 100%

Edited January 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm no anarchist, I do think we some form of safety net. Even though I think private charities do it better than government ever could. But the worst places in the world are where the rule of law is ignored. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

Well, Adam Smith also supported some forms of welfare.  So does Friedman.

If there is anything that government could provide that private entities could not, then and only then, could there be a legitimate form of taxation. But the so-called "public goods" are often ruses, and we accept them because we have been acclimated to thnkg that only government could do it. (and at our great expense.)

War is the only real public good evil government is necessary for. And I'm not so sure it does a good job even at that.

I have been there. I know how wasteful war is, and I do not mean the loss of life and destruction of property. I mean the simple waste of procurement, the imposed use of weapons that do not work, the subsidies to a host of companies (all cronies of the powerful) for political gain.

Hawkeye Pierce told Frank Burns he should not "try to bring the war in on budget". No war ever goes under budget. But we fight them at great cost in blood and treasure to further entrench the power of the state.

GRTF-Welfare schools are evil, not because they are expensive beyond all reason, but because they are yet another bulwark of the state. They undermine families and the Family.

State-supplied roads, libraries, fire departments, "assistance" offices, the whole lot is rarely anyhting more than another step along the road to slavery to the government that exists, according to Doc&Cov 134, to protect our freedoms.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I'm no anarchist, I do think we some form of safety net. Even though I think private charities do it better than government ever could. But the worst places in the world are where the rule of law is ignored.

Please show that the unofficial safety net could not do all (and more) that the tax-funded safety net does.

Were it not for the excessive theft of private means, welfare would do a far better job at half the cost. As it is, we don't have the means to support it. And it goes to buy votes.

Lehi

[An Investigator]

Wow glad I am on a different time zone to the rest of you, how very Christ like to be judge others in their life choices which are none of your concern.   I will do what is best for my family and mine alone,  when you have actually met me and understand my situation then you can respond. 

[LeSellers]

how very Christ like to be judge others in their life choices which are none of your concern.   I will do what is best for my family and mine alone,  when you have actually met me and understand my situation then you can respond.

We don't know which of us you are concerned about.

I hope, in my posts, you noticed I've said that it is your choice, irrespective of anything I (or anyone says). You can make your decisions based on any criteria you prefer, and I'm perfectly fine with that. What I am interested in is presenting the facts so people can make as good a decision for themselves and their families as possible. Most people do not have those facts, and most people do not weigh them in the choice.

As noted earlier, every Job comes with its own costs; no Job is free of them. How you weigh these costs is your business, but unless you know what they are, it is far less likely that you will make the best choice available to you.

All the best, and I mean that most sincerely.

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

If I'm following this conversation, you have the right to object to someone privately owning a car? Seriously?

You have misunderstood completely.

What anyone owns privately is no concern of mine. It is an aggression against me when he uses the government to take my money to fulfill his neesd or wnats.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Well, Adam Smith also supported some forms of welfare.  So does Friedman.

The problem with welfare is that it is not charity. It is theft, to start with, but worse, it dehumanizes all who participate: recipient, "donor", functionary.

It is, I believe, one of the chief roots of what individual racism exists in this country because a far higher number and proportion of Black compared to Whites receive it, and we all know it. Welfare creates the monsters who burned Fergusen, and so many other towns across the land: young men with nothing to do, and with no concept of earning anything, with a sense of total entitlement, and no morality (sexual, economic, or any other). Men who've lived off their mothers, who've never seen a real man go to work, never seen a man treat a woman respectfully, never seen a man love his children.

Welfare is objectionable for more than economic reasons, so Friedman and Adam Smith, economists both, are hardly the sources to which we should turn for suggestions.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

Welfare is objectionable for more than economic reasons, so Friedman and Adam Smith, economists both, are hardly the sources to which we should turn for suggestions.

 

They actually are because they are both practical and live (past tense for them) in reality. If you think you can abolish the welfare state, good luck. I don't even bother debating with the abolitionists. It's a useless debate. 

Arguing for abolishing it is living in a dream world. Reform is the best you can do.  

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

They actually are because they are both practical and live (past tense for them) in reality. If you think you can abolish the welfare state, good luck.

Unfortunately, there is too much power for politicians when they buy votes with my money. I harbor no illusions about ending the welfare state.

The only real hope there is, and it's faint, is to convince the recipients that they're being played for fools.

Arguing for abolishing it is living in a dream world. Reform is the best you can do.

I know, I know. I don't have to like it, but I have to live with it.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

I know, I know. I don't have to like it, but I have to live with it.

Lehi

Like the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you what" 

[Guest]

If you've ever studied the origin of numbers and math, you inevitably recognize that taxes were the first real motivation to formalize math.

 

Death and Taxes.

[Blackmarch]

Forgive me if this goes into matters too personal, but my mom and sisters and I were chatting about this today and really drew a blank.

We are instructed to live within/beneath our means. It's suggested we do our best to use our talents to be self-sufficient and charitable. Let's throw on top of that the variations in costs of living and the rather loose definitions of rich and poor.

The extremes of McMansions and dying of starvation aside, how much income should a person/family be looking for? When should they be looking to increase income and when should they be satisfied?

depends how its being used. And what your goals are.

[JojoBag]

It doesn't matter how much of an income a person has.  What does matter are a couple things.  Do you neglect your spouse, family, your callings, attending church/temple, and self to acquire a large income?  If so, you are breaking the commandments.  If you are not neglecting these things, then what are you doing with your money?  If you are using it to keep up with the Jones', buying anything you don't need (large fancy house big enough for ten kids when you have only two, Mercedes when a Toyota will suffice, etc.), are coveting money, not being charitable and helping others in need, etc., then maybe you have too much money.  If you are not wisely using your money, but squandering it, then maybe you have too much money.