> I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.
That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
> I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
> I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.
That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
> I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
> I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.