Left wing voters don't vote against their own interests on the issue of welfare; right wing voters do. One of the interests of people on welfare is, "keep taxes high so I can continue to live off of welfare (maybe until I find a job, maybe indefinitely)". Wanting to cut welfare while you are on it as an adult is hypocritical.
Why I am more okay with left wing voters getting welfare than right wing voters
Posts
Total:
24
I dont have a problem with it either. I am sure it serves then well to be dependent on the government instead of on themselves and those who genuinely love them.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wanting to cut welfare while you are on it as an adult is hypocritical.
Were Democrats hypocrites for accepting Trump's tax cuts?
Aym rand also got a lot of shit for living off of social security but she paid into it and the only ay you see yourmoney back is to take advantage of services that would go to waste.
There is no answer, you are a human slot machine, your opinions cannot be explained rationally.
-->
@WyIted
That's a mythAym rand also got a lot of shit for living off of social security
but she paid into it and the only ay you see yourmoney back is to take advantage of services that would go to waste.
This is correct. If a thief steals your bread, and you take his cake that doesn't make you a hypocrite. It's recovering stolen value, no different than compensatory damages that courts order all the time.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I owe the IRS several thousand dollars. I don't intend to pay it. When they come after me I am negotiating it down to 10% of what I owe which after inflation is more like 5%.
Is this a bad strategy?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Left wing voters don't vote against their own interests on the issue of welfare; right wing voters do. One of the interests of people on welfare is, "keep taxes high so I can continue to live off of welfare (maybe until I find a job, maybe indefinitely)". Wanting to cut welfare while you are on it as an adult is hypocritical.
I may be left wing but this is as ridiculous a take as saying a socialist in a very capitalist right wing society is a hypocrite for making money to survive in it.
-->
@Savant
Were Democrats hypocrites for accepting Trump's tax cuts?
Rich democrats benefit less from tax cuts than republican welfare reciepiants do from welfare handouts. The rich democrat easily could donate more to charity to fill the void.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ann Rand is not a hypocrite because she's rich. If she believed the same thing and was homeless and never paid enough taxes to make back social security, then she would be a hypocrite.
-->
@RationalMadman
I may be left wing but this is as ridiculous a take as saying a socialist in a very capitalist right wing society is a hypocrite for making money to survive in it.
It depends on how one defines socialism. If they define it as, "Everyone should have the same income", and they see the US GDP per capita is $70K/year and they earn $140K/year, then they would have to donate half their income to level it out.
If it's defined as a pro UHC stance paid for by people significently richer than they are, then it's not hypocritical anymore than someone drinking beer at 26 advocating for banning alcohoul for those under 21.
-->
@TheUnderdog
No. It's not hypocritical to say 'I want this but society as it is makes this optimal instead'.
-->
@WyIted
I owe the IRS several thousand dollars. I don't intend to pay it. When they come after me I am negotiating it down to 10% of what I owe which after inflation is more like 5%.Is this a bad strategy?
It is if you let slip you planned it that way.
To pull it off I think you need one of those specialist lawyers, they cost a lot but the IRS knows they can't out-annoy them; it will just end up costing everyone way more so they settle.
So that negotiation stuff is real but you can't do it yourself. They need to believe you'll waste five years in court. Also be whiny, and talk about the dreams covid destroyed or something.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If she believed the same thing and was homeless and never paid enough taxes to make back social security, then she would be a hypocrite.
Correct.
Edit: RM is more correct. She could argue (in a completely fictional world where she actually requested welfare, and where she wasn't still owed a ton) that if the government didn't steal all the time she would have been able to find a good job and wouldn't be homeless.
The only thing that could make her a true hypocrite is wielding the force and extorting people herself (either directly or through proxy responsibility like voting for a candidate more likely to do that).
-->
@TheUnderdog
The rich democrat easily could donate more to charity to fill the void.
Charity is tax deductible, so taxes wouldn't affect how much they could donate. Also plenty of middle and lower class people paid less in taxes under Trump. I don't think these people are hypocrites, it's just an example of how it doesn't make sense to blame people for accepting what the government offers them. A libertarian might not want their taxes going to public libraries, but once that library is built, they might as well go there.
-->
@Savant
Charity is tax deductible, so taxes wouldn't affect how much they could donate.
That's not quite true.
Charitable donations can be deducted from your gross adjusted income, they aren't subtracted from your tax liability.
So if Bob earned $100k in a year $21,911 would be stolen. 21.91% effective rate. (he keeps $78,089)
If he donated $39,900 in that year then his effective income would be 100,000 - 39,900 = $60,100
Then they would steal 16.77% of the rest = $10,081 (he keeps $50,019)
If you say he needs $50,000 to live (which is way low in most suburban to urban areas) then he could give $50,000 without taxes, but only $40,000 with taxes.
So it's not like you have a clear choice between charity and taxes unless you're willing to leave yourself below the standard deductible. This makes perfect since from the thieves point of view. If they let you choose to spend your money on charities, we would just create government services and call them charities.
The "save a house from fire" charity and so on. No sane person would fund the military industrial complex when they could pick a cause they actually cared about.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Sure, but I don't think the rich people TheUnderdog is talking about are donating so much that they're toeing the line of how much they need to survive. (And I very much doubt most of them increased their charitable contributions as a result of their tax savings.)
-->
@Savant
Charity is a bit tricky.
If you know someone is in trouble or has issues, sure give him the money. That way, you make sure person who needs it is person who gets it.
If you know a poor community, sure, send some money there.
But large donations to "charity organizations" or church often get misused because you never really know what percentage of money goes to where its needed and what stays in pockets of those who run it.
And I agree that if you reduce taxes, its obvious rich people wont be giving all that money they get from reduction, to charity.
However, what might happen is that they invest more in buisness and increase competition, creating lower prices so indirectly helping the poor.
Helping the poor needs careful judgment, because there are people who choose to be poor because they dont want to work.
Also, government can only help the poor in form of some small income, food and medicine, but even that ends up costing more and not really reducing poverty by much.
Also, there is a big question of if you wanna tax people to solve poverty by charity, because any country that has done that has suffered both economical and social problems and many unexpected ways in which people abused charity money.
In my view, if someone is poor, give him a job. Make a work place for him, and let him work there and earn money.
Government can easily create lots of jobs through paying to make work places and then selling it or giving it to someone to run it and make profit.
But the Capitalists are more effective at making jobs if they have extra money, because government barely has any motivation to fix anything. All of its plans are always wishy washy, half done.
-->
@Best.Korea
Welfare as we know it today is nothing more than a euphemism for extorting votes from American workers through the threat of taxation with no partial refund.
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly, and similarly federal theft is used to extort states.
"Whoopsies, looks like under the new guidelines your state infrastructure and education department no longer qualifies for federal assistance."
"So you'll stop taxing our citizens so they can have the government policy they want?"
"lol no, you had your chance; this is going to Ukraine also so NASA can explain middle age Islamic scholarship to women in Afghanistan."
-->
@RationalMadman
It's not hypocritical to say 'I want this but society as it is makes this optimal instead'.
It's one thing to make concessions. An example would be if you want to ban abortion but are okay with it being legal up until 12 weeks. This isn't hypocrisy; it's a compromise. It would be hypocritical though if you believe abortion should be banned while you get or pay for an abortion.
Wanting some welfare because it's pragmatic when you would prefer to ban welfare isn't hypocritical. But wanting welfare banned while you are on it is hypocritical even if you are willing to compromise with a less anti welfare policy.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Edit: RM is more correct. She could argue (in a completely fictional world where she actually requested welfare, and where she wasn't still owed a ton) that if the government didn't steal all the time she would have been able to find a good job and wouldn't be homeless.
How would taxation make it harder for someone who already has a job to find another job?
-->
@Savant
Charity is tax deductible, so taxes wouldn't affect how much they could donate.
If they owe $30K in taxes and they donate $5K, then it wouldn't be enough to lower their taxes to $25K. Maybe $28.5K though. They still pay more money overall.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Edit: RM is more correct. She could argue (in a completely fictional world where she actually requested welfare, and where she wasn't still owed a ton) that if the government didn't steal all the time she would have been able to find a good job and wouldn't be homeless.How would taxation make it harder for someone who already has a job to find another job?
If a company can afford to pay 3 employees $10 each and then the government steals $10 then the company can only afford to pay 2 employees $10 each or 3 employees less.
There is no such thing as "passing it on to the customer", if every seller "passes on costs" then the buying power of the dollar is reduced by the same proportion with the same effect: Less buying power for the three employees or less employees.
There is no way to trick reality. When somebody steals your product it is gone.