Hear, hear, thank God for capitalism.

Without it, we wouldn't have things like

1) technology
2) coffee beans
3) shelter
4) imageboards

I get to use a computer that I don't have to share with anyone else and also cost a relatively small portion of my disposable income to purchase.

I make enough to be able to invest in the stockmarket as well... What else... Well everything really I attribute to capitalism. Decent house, decent and affordable clothes and other things. Life is great.

File: pick-your-poison-economics.jpg (44 KB, 640x453) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 640x453

Welfare, food stamps, subsidized federal student loans, and state government grants allowed me to graduate college and start my own business.

>>1011913
This is why I support welfare that encourages you to work over welfare that discourages you from making money.

EITC is the perfect example. EITC is the basic income that reddit fags have been begging for (they just don't realize it). Yet, as you earn money (up to a point), they give you more money. In fact, if you have no earned income for the year (you leachy NEET), you get NO EITC! So you better work McD's rather than complain about how there are no jobs in your field if you want your benefit.

The same goes, to some extent, for government subsidized health care, work retraining/education credits, small business tax perks, etc.

Compare this to things like food stamps. I make 0 dollars per month and get 200 dollars per month in food stamps. If I increase my wage to 500 per month, my food stamps go down to 100/month. At 1000, its zero. Guess I'll continue not working in order to maximize my free benefit... Same goes for unemployment benefit, so I better not work and milk them for the max time period.

This latter example is the exact thing that welfare assistance should avoid: Making the recipient dependent on the handout. The handout should do the opposite: give the person a leg up so they can stop worrying about crippling poverty and worry more about finding stable work!

>>1011961
This would make the most sense.

Things like mandatory drug testing and limits for how long you can be on welfare as well.

There is absolutely no reason anyone should be on welfare for longer than 2-3 years, or using illegal drugs on it.

>>1011961
But that's retarded because it witholds money from those that need it the most. What about people who graduate immediately from college into trying to gain entry into the workforce?

Frankly it makes no sense to penalize someone like that, as opposed to a guy who possibly got fired for being a fuckup (unless you disqualify if fired) who had $45,000+ income and therefore most likely has more other assets and investments, as opposed to somebody living paycheck to paycheck. Why should my taxes to towards the people who need it the least? If I have to subsidize somebody I'd rather it be somebody who needs a foot in the door, particularly since if that guy fails he's more likely to be a continual drain on the society.

By logical extension, it'd be like giving subsidies to the wealthy just because they're wealthy. They don't need it and frankly that's the very definition of a welfare queen: somebody who absolutely does not need the money leaching off of others.

Not following this logic is why we give people small business loans--because we expect the startup money to pay itself back with interest in giving someone who needs the boost access to these resources.

>>contd
Frankly the AnCap types are hypocrites who are only opposed to regulations and reforms, subsidies, and government handouts when it's helping anybody else, yet when they can potentially leech it they're the first in line. These are the same sorts of people as want to bankrupt rather than reform Social Security just so they can swallow it up as their personal assets to recklessly play with like they did the debt until it came crashing down seven years ago.

This is more a general annoyance with the lack of maturity and sound business practices running rampant, where long term success is sacrificed for short term gain. This is not sound investment strategy--it is the definitive OPPOSITE of investment strategy because apparently being a reckless immature cowboy is only had for everybody else, not investors.

Economic help should be more like small business loans to startups than bailout subsidies.

/rant

I fundamentally agree with you, it's just I can't stand the hypocritical arguments I often see in this area. Furthermore however there is the problem that while it disincentiveses people with some of these welfare programs, the actual income or benefits from these programs is not going to buy you a Lexus. It is subsitence living, just barely, so by that logic these people should be able and willing to make a jump from shitty benefits to an actual living wage a d the self respect that it brings rather than barely being able to afford food with no hope of gaining a home entertainment system or living in an actual house.

>>1012034
Hey, I've been on a few welfare programs the last year or so, and I'm talking from experience. I apprieciated the ones that encouraged me to grow more than the ones that encouraged me to be on welfare for longer.

A way you could do food stamps and welfare to not be this way is to give a defined benefit over a set period whatever happens in their life. Take welfare. They get accepted into the program and get 1000/month for the family for 6 months. At the end of the 6 months, if their situation is still as dire, they can re-apply and get it again. If, however, they suddenly start making 1000/month, they will still receive the same benefit until their benefits period runs out.

The key is to not discourage you from earning money, especially from temporary/unreliable sources. If I'm on welfare, why paint my mom's house if that's going to take away my benefits without giving me a stable income?

Or, with food stamps, I would just do away with income requirements alltogether. Nobody past certain income levels would apply for food stamps due to social stigma. If you feel like you need help being fed, the government will shell out 200 dollars per month. Then, with no income requirements, there would be no need to hire literal fucking armies of bureaucrats to check to check every income source and make sure you're under the income level. Basically, you let the 1 or 2 % of high income earners abuse the food stamp system and simultaneously fire tens to hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats whose sole job is to verify that cletus is only working at McDonalds. I honestly think it will be net positive if the social stigma of taking food stamps remains.

>>1012034
>small business loans to startups than bailout subsidies
You seem to have made a mistake though. You can't create demand by stimulating supply, and really what we need in poorer areas is a greater demand for goods in order to stimulate them. If we were to give out small loans to poverty stricken people they would just spend it on covering there needs and then not have enough to actually support a business which provides services that aren't in demand within there area, because no one has money.

The only thing that would be accomplished is that people would be both poor and saddled with debt they can't repay.

The subsidies would actually be better because they would allow people to just prop themselves up and not have to worry about not having basic needs taken care of. What would be even better is if poor people were given cheap+decent public housing in areas that have access to jobs which is considerably more intensive than the current welfare system.

>these people should be able and willing to make a jump from shitty benefits to an actual living wage
They would if they could, but really they don't have access to jobs that offer a livable wage. What they do have access to is retail, food service, or maybe maintenance jobs which frequently below poverty wages which have to be made up for by the government. Really it's fucked because the government is paying for people to work jobs at McDonalds rather than working toward getting a career set up. Add in the fact that these jobs are frequently miserable, unaccommodating, and not taken seriously by most people gets you a group who exist as second class citizens. Not exactly a good way to get people motivated.

Not really sustenance wages, but rather bribes to keep them from rioting

>>1012053
>Not really sustenance wages, but rather bribes to keep them from rioting
Probably the most insightful thing posted on this thread. It ain't pretty; there are probably people on both sides of the aisle who would disagree and be viscerally disgusted by what you're saying. It doesn't change the fact that you're right....

>>1012078
Yeah, he is...in fact, the fuck of it is some states literally have the customer subsidizing the employee for instance service sector jobs states like NY the employer can pay you only $2.13 an hour if you make enough in tips, which is hellish for a Manhattenite. Just think about that in the context of the thread: customer is literally making up for deficit in the employee's wage because employer doesn't have to pay the actual minimum wage if they make enough in tips, meaning disincentiveses the employee to breach that tip threshold otherwise they get paid less for better service, so they're financially coerced to either be a shittier worker or be the best worker.

As for the reality, frankly even as one can gauge from this page there is NO SUCH THING AS CADILLACS FROM WELFARE MONEY.

The truth of the matter is these people are making their money illegally and claiming to work part time or not at all to get the benefits and then, when asked how they could All this fancy shit, are compelled to say "from my welfare benefits" when in fact benefits are just a cover for their illegal income generated by provided for the vices of the wealthy.

Trust me, I know all about shit like business professionals vacationing upstate in for the Saratoga races and blowing their money on hookers and blow. And nobody betrays each others secret because frankly those poor people need tge money for rent or paying their bills or even college strippers, and the wealthier and upper class have vices to fulfill, so...really it's all rather unseemly. And because it's both illegal in a criminal sense and also has IRS and other risks, these people suffer the danger and indignity of selling themselves or drugs and risking being raped or shot. You should check out these guys who get cushy deals rubbing elbows with those guys up in Albany too (not that that has saved them from implication in political corruption or getting busted with hookers and blow, mind you)