Thread: Taxes?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Now take this theory and apply it to the woman from jockeys example.

Or to make the question more pointed, How does that woman by her presence contribute contribute anything that could be called good.

Also know that she "wasn't let down" by any system, she could have a mother who's living was earned the same way and probably is producing children who will earn their living the exact same way she is.

If you can find any "common good in that" you are a far more generous person than I.

All I'm saying is that I refuse to believe that as a young child this woman's dream was to become a drug addict. Something happened to her between child-and-adult-hood which lead to that outcome. Of course she was let down by the system.

The "good" that could be found here is what a society does with people in these positions. What "good" is there in writing people off as no-good drug whores? Why isn't it better to try and get someone back into society so that they can start contributing again?

I also lived near a welfare family, they got more per kid though because their offspring was brain damaged. I will admit though that they were more ambitious than Jockeys crackwhore the family I knew went out and got jobs, and three months later bought a house and new car then quit their jobs to go back on welfare again. You see they could make more with less effort being on welfare than working as long as they had two retarded kids but the needed jobs to get the credit to buy the house. It wasn't even like they were comparing welfare to minimum wage either she was a paralegal (how she knew the system) and he was a trained book keeper.

Your welfare system is not means-tested? Here your assets are assessed when determining payment.

James.