so you've got some people who (for whatever reason) are prevented from making a decent income. how are you proposing to solve that problem by routing an income that is contingent on their inability to generate their own? We have tried that for 3 generations and poverty is worse than ever, inequality is worse than ever, the food stamps go to buy drugs, and the only solution you people have is to take more money from "the rich" and pour it into the same failed social programs.
> I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less.
people who generate their own income are going to have whatever they generate less whatever you take. people who cannot generate their own income are going to have whatever you take less your operating costs, and spend it on non-discretionary consumption items like food, rent, healthcare. which are provided by people who don't need your welfare. so you're simultaneously creating a dependent class or poor people and a guaranteed income stream for the wealthy. this is why your idea has always failed.
>And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance.
you'll observe that the ones who have the most are the ones who write the tax code. good luck taking from them.
>I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.
1. creates a class of poor people who are dependent on social programs for survival.
2. "Taking from the rich" happens through a political system that is designed to protect the interests of a subset of rich people. so the rules are manipulated to take a lot from rich people without political connections, and route money towards rich people with political connections.
so you've got some people who (for whatever reason) are prevented from making a decent income. how are you proposing to solve that problem by routing an income that is contingent on their inability to generate their own? We have tried that for 3 generations and poverty is worse than ever, inequality is worse than ever, the food stamps go to buy drugs, and the only solution you people have is to take more money from "the rich" and pour it into the same failed social programs.
> I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less.
people who generate their own income are going to have whatever they generate less whatever you take. people who cannot generate their own income are going to have whatever you take less your operating costs, and spend it on non-discretionary consumption items like food, rent, healthcare. which are provided by people who don't need your welfare. so you're simultaneously creating a dependent class or poor people and a guaranteed income stream for the wealthy. this is why your idea has always failed.
>And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance.
you'll observe that the ones who have the most are the ones who write the tax code. good luck taking from them.
>I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.
1. creates a class of poor people who are dependent on social programs for survival.
2. "Taking from the rich" happens through a political system that is designed to protect the interests of a subset of rich people. so the rules are manipulated to take a lot from rich people without political connections, and route money towards rich people with political connections.