Want to pay NO income tax? Cut welfare.

[Rudd-O]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni

OH, THE HORROR!  ANYTHING BUT THAT!

:-D

[1714798433]

1714798433

[asdf]

Example for Australia:

$150,890 million - Individuals Income Tax (includes capital gains)

$121,907 million - Social Security and Welfare

$21,277 million - Defence

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

Hell yes! I'm living in AU and have made the same point.

[asdf]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

Try looking at the other side of the coin. What are the consequences of NOT robbing people of half their labor to give handouts?

- A man can actually support his family without his wife working, leading to better raised children, less strain on the relationship hence fewer single moms needing welfare.
- More disposable income/time for voluntary charity.
- Stop the culture of dependency that the welfare system creates. These people will actually work and produce extra wealth for society instead of pumping out more welfare babies.
- More wealth produced due to NOT reallocating resources from the productive to the unproductive. This will result in lower cost of living.

Of course, most of the problems that the welfare system "solves" are problems which are also created by state violence: crime, gap between rich and poor, high cost of medical care/education, etc.

You are treating the symptoms of institutionalised violence with institutionalised violence.

[Dalkore]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

So, War, and drug addiction.

War we can lay squarely at the feet of the State. I don't think anyone's going to argue against that.
Drug addiction, though, especially to the harder forms.. that's a tougher nut to crack... or so it would seem. What was the Jazz musician's drug of choice?
Hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

So, What turned these Jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights (note, I am not talking about sidewalks, here)

I think just experimentation and that spread but the problem was that they are almost impossible to quit.  From accounts I have read, it literally just spread like wild-fire that in a time frame like a few months is what just everywhere like an epidemic.  Also there was a ton of money (profit) involved in it so it was pushed quite hard. 

You're still chopping away at the branches. Strike the root. Why were they experimenting? Why was it so profitable?

Please enlighten me, you seem to know the answer, I have been responding to questions to this point.

[myrkul]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

So, War, and drug addiction.

War we can lay squarely at the feet of the State. I don't think anyone's going to argue against that.
Drug addiction, though, especially to the harder forms.. that's a tougher nut to crack... or so it would seem. What was the Jazz musician's drug of choice?
Hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

So, What turned these Jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights (note, I am not talking about sidewalks, here)

I think just experimentation and that spread but the problem was that they are almost impossible to quit.  From accounts I have read, it literally just spread like wild-fire that in a time frame like a few months is what just everywhere like an epidemic.  Also there was a ton of money (profit) involved in it so it was pushed quite hard. 

You're still chopping away at the branches. Strike the root. Why were they experimenting? Why was it so profitable?

Please enlighten me, you seem to know the answer, I have been responding to questions to this point.

Oh come now... What might have caused these Jazz musicians to experiment with harder drugs? Why was it so profitable to sell crack cocaine in the ghettos? What happened in 1937 that started us down the road to where we are now? What started right around the same time that started us down an even more disastrous road?

It's all connected, intertwined, in a way I don't even think the architects of the system understood.

[Dalkore]

It's all connected, intertwined, in a way I don't even think the architects of the system understood.

In what manner is the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the New Deal of 1933 connected to people of lower income in urban areas experimenting with very hard drugs and if we want to include both, profiting from the sale of it (not sure if you were referring to both of my examples in your response)?

[DoomDumas]

Example for Australia:

$150,890 million - Individuals Income Tax (includes capital gains)

$121,907 million - Social Security and Welfare

$21,277 million - Defence

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

Better than that, just take back owner ship of the money-printer, instead of borowing money with interest from the FED.. there you go.. keep SS and Welfare, no taxes increase, and no more deficit..

US debt = US Govt owe to the FED

Shutdown the FED (privately owned) and no more debt right away !

[Rudd-O]

"But what about all the poor people?"

Simple: http://youtu.be/d2a5wtTrlLs?t=17m38s

[DoomDumas]

In USA, Income taxes have been created in 1913, the same year the FED has been created.


Take the RED PILL

Find and listen to the documentary "The Money Masters"

This doc is well researched, well documented..

WARNING : Listening to it with attention may makes you angry, frustrated, and completely delusioned !

A must see.. The Money Masters


begins here : http://youtu.be/lXb-LrVkuwM

[myrkul]

It's all connected, intertwined, in a way I don't even think the architects of the system understood.

In what manner is the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the New Deal of 1933 connected to people of lower income in urban areas experimenting with very hard drugs and if we want to include both, profiting from the sale of it (not sure if you were referring to both of my examples in your response)?

Very well, I will connect the dots for you. The Marijuana Tax Act was the first shot in the drug war. It effectively made pot illegal by requiring a tax stamp in order to possess it, and to get a tax stamp you had to come in with some...

So with marijuana illegal, they went looking for other drugs. Many years later, crack cocaine is introduced, and because of it's relatively low price, sells like gangbusters. It's the drug war that enables this, because if drugs were legal, the poor quality of crack, stemming from the bizarre list of chemicals used to cut it, would never fly on the open market. Now, we've strayed some from welfare, but really not too far. When you're on welfare, it's against your best interest to find a "real job," since almost everywhere, but especially in "blue" states, welfare pays better than minimum wage. And getting a "real job" means no more welfare. So, what do you do with the day? You could sit and watch your stories all day, but that gets boring. You could go make another paycheck baby with your woman, but you already got four, and they're starting to get on your nerves.

So you hustle. And drugs are where the real money is. Since you can just shoot your competition (What are they gonna do, go to the cops?), you can charge whatever you like, and the money just flows in. And the best part is, you still get your check from Uncle Sam on the third. So the State has created not only the market, but a good chunk of the incentive to sell.

[Monster-Ant]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

The cost of housing sits (after a quick scan of local listings) at $1,000/mo for a 3 bedroom house. Well, that's unaffordable. How about something cheaper?

I found ONE place that was a 3 bedroom for $550/mo, in a bad part of town, that was a mobile home in a lot. (Everything else that was 3-bedroom was at least $650/mo) That leaves roughly $200 to cover: Electricity, car insurance, phone, natural gas, gasoline for the car.

So, let's assume that someone gets an $8/hr job (seasonal, meaning they'll only be employed for a short period of time), working 32 hours a week (so their employers don't have to pay full time benefits according to state regulation), and using a tank of gas every two weeks to get there. (Public transportation is next to useless for most people) They'll be making $256/week, spending that $56 on gas every two weeks.

So, before taxes, they'll be pulling in $1024/mo.

The concept of "welfare queens" and "living high on welfare" is a fallacy. Nobody WANTS to sit on public assistance. You have no mobility, you have next to no money for anything beyond the basic sustenance, and you're scrabbling harder than if you had a minimum wage job.

Sadly, many employers are now using the part-time to avoid paying benefits (can't get in the way of record profits and shareholder profits), meaning either both parents will have to work (meaning possible child-care costs and even two cars and the additional upkeep costs), or one parent will have to hold down two jobs.

Welfare, food stamps, HUD, and other social safety nets are vitally important to a nation's well-being, and considering the screwed up taxation of the most wealthy parts of the nation, the lack of employee safety-nets, the loss of unions (at least they made sure you HAD a damn job), and many other problems, removing welfare is a horrible thing.

[Rudd-O]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

[farlack]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

[Rudd-O]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

5 hours?  That's like double the minimum wage.  These people can't get a job to flip fucking burgers because they are less than useless, and you're suggesting to pay them $20 an hour?  Holy shit, you're generous!

:-)

[myrkul]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

Why not just give them a job paying $20 an hour?

[fgervais]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

[myrkul]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

Well "said."

Nathan Fillion is the shit, btw. Browncoat all the way.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

In USA, Income taxes have been created in 1913, the same year the FED has been created.


Take the RED PILL

Find and listen to the documentary "The Money Masters"

This doc is well researched, well documented..

WARNING : Listening to it with attention may makes you angry, frustrated, and completely delusioned !

A must see.. The Money Masters


begins here : http://youtu.be/lXb-LrVkuwM

Or you know, perhaps this thread is about Australia.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

The cost of housing sits (after a quick scan of local listings) at $1,000/mo for a 3 bedroom house. Well, that's unaffordable. How about something cheaper?

I found ONE place that was a 3 bedroom for $550/mo, in a bad part of town, that was a mobile home in a lot. (Everything else that was 3-bedroom was at least $650/mo) That leaves roughly $200 to cover: Electricity, car insurance, phone, natural gas, gasoline for the car.

So, let's assume that someone gets an $8/hr job (seasonal, meaning they'll only be employed for a short period of time), working 32 hours a week (so their employers don't have to pay full time benefits according to state regulation), and using a tank of gas every two weeks to get there. (Public transportation is next to useless for most people) They'll be making $256/week, spending that $56 on gas every two weeks.

So, before taxes, they'll be pulling in $1024/mo.

The concept of "welfare queens" and "living high on welfare" is a fallacy. Nobody WANTS to sit on public assistance. You have no mobility, you have next to no money for anything beyond the basic sustenance, and you're scrabbling harder than if you had a minimum wage job.

Sadly, many employers are now using the part-time to avoid paying benefits (can't get in the way of record profits and shareholder profits), meaning either both parents will have to work (meaning possible child-care costs and even two cars and the additional upkeep costs), or one parent will have to hold down two jobs.

Welfare, food stamps, HUD, and other social safety nets are vitally important to a nation's well-being, and considering the screwed up taxation of the most wealthy parts of the nation, the lack of employee safety-nets, the loss of unions (at least they made sure you HAD a damn job), and many other problems, removing welfare is a horrible thing.

In australia, a single person will get $1,000 a month through New Start Allowance. Partners will get $1,800 a month.

Meanwhile, the current government is seeking to expand this.

[Monster-Ant]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

5 hours?  That's like double the minimum wage.  These people can't get a job to flip fucking burgers because they are less than useless, and you're suggesting to pay them $20 an hour?  Holy shit, you're generous!

:-)

So everyone who has ever had to apply for public assistance is worthless? Less than worthless? There's no such thing as being unemployed through no fault of their own in Rudd-O-Land? There's no disasters that wipe out businesses, no shady business practices that eliminate jobs and fire people to avoid paying benefits, and nobody ends up on public assistance unless they're got a genetically predisposition to be welfare queens?

I don't know how it is in Australia. Here in the States for every 1 job opening there is, even if it is flipping hamburgers, there are 5-15 people competing for it, depending on the region.

My daughter handles job applications for a company. She told me at the last opening there was ($10/hr, 40/week, benefits) there was over 500 applications. All of them qualified, many of them with college degrees.

These people aren't worthless, there just aren't as many jobs as there are people who want them. Combine them with the shitty thing employers do, which is hire people as "temp workers" and then fire them right before they'd qualify for benefits by law, and you've got serious problems.

And as someone who once had to take assistance for a brief period of time, the $100 = 5 hours of community service is a terrible idea for a myriad of different reasons. Number one, you've just consigned them to about an entire work week of community service every month. Taking away time for education, classes, job searching, whatever.

Oh, and speaking as a mixed race American....

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

Check your privilege.

According to state and federal statistics, more white people are on welfare and food stamps then African Americans.

And yes, if you took away welfare and food stamps, millions of children of all ethnicity would face starvation, homelessness, and many other problems.

But sure, claim it's all about African Americans and all their fault.

Racist. How's the food at the Klan meetings?

I suppose explaining such things as empathy, compassion, reasons, how a society should be judged on how they treat those who have fallen on hard times and the most vulnerable of their citizenry, the duties of a government to serve the public good, and other esoteric topics would be a complete on a man who has it all figured out.

I hope, for your sake, Rudd-O, that you never fall on hard times and have to subsist on the very safety net you so despise.