- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: My 600 lb. Life wouldn’t exist without welfare.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 9:01 pm to Demonbengal
Posted on 12/28/23 at 9:01 pm to Demonbengal
So you are for welfare?
What’s interesting is the vitriol for someone who is hypothetically receiving a certain amount in benefits living a shite life versus someone who is not reporting a job that would result in the same amount of taxes. I would say that ratio is 25:1. Someone who illegally evaded 100k in taxes would be judged as negatively as someone who used $4000 in tax subsidies. Even then, it would be like” he did the crime, do the time.” Vs “this POS scumbag lowlife”
What’s the reasoning? Someone will always have to be the poorest. I get the hate for someone that is not contributing to society, and benefiting from it, and the concern for a system that enables it, but I think there is an irrationally proportioned hate for someone using subsidies. Maybe it’s just a worry of this population exploding and causing great damage to society? Does a tax evader get that much leeway because he may be a net contribution, what if he was it?
What’s interesting is the vitriol for someone who is hypothetically receiving a certain amount in benefits living a shite life versus someone who is not reporting a job that would result in the same amount of taxes. I would say that ratio is 25:1. Someone who illegally evaded 100k in taxes would be judged as negatively as someone who used $4000 in tax subsidies. Even then, it would be like” he did the crime, do the time.” Vs “this POS scumbag lowlife”
What’s the reasoning? Someone will always have to be the poorest. I get the hate for someone that is not contributing to society, and benefiting from it, and the concern for a system that enables it, but I think there is an irrationally proportioned hate for someone using subsidies. Maybe it’s just a worry of this population exploding and causing great damage to society? Does a tax evader get that much leeway because he may be a net contribution, what if he was it?
This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 9:06 pm
1
Posted on 12/28/23 at 9:17 pm to Rust Cohle
I am definitely okay with a safety net existing for normal people who have fallen on hard times. I would like a time limitation on it though. I’m also okay taking care of special needs individuals who don’t have family to help, and also, certain scenarios like a 75 yo grandma who is having to raise 4 grandkids because their mother/father are deadbeats. I am not okay taking care 20/30 something’s who eat their way out of the workforce.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News