shadowy corporate loopholes and tax shelters

[CILONE/SK]

W also have an unprecedented level of corporate corruption that has been taking it's toll on the people supposedly here to regulate.

 

That is the part AOD does not see and people like him want to allow those corporations even less regulation and more power to do the same greedy bullshit they have been doing.

[CILONE/SK]

one of the glaringly obvious problems with this mindset is that the 'regulations' you advocate, make it impossible for people to be entrepreneurs. regulation costs dont affect walmart the way they affect a small competitor. they dont affect monsanto the way they affect joel salatin, etc.

 

This is comical. Will less regulation make Walmart smaller and allow small business to compete with them? Less regulation is what is allowing Walmart to take over some markets and drive out small business.

[Decyferon]

Regulation should make it easier for SME but not allow larger companies to pay less and remove benefits, banks should be made to lend more to SMEs enabling the local economies to flourish.

 

Traders, financial institution should be taxed more if they outsource jobs to another country. Markets should not be allowed to bundle bad debt into something that is supposed to make money when logic dictates it won't.

[angelofdeath]

regulations preclude market entry.

 

which is why its illegal to buy a pound of cheese from your neighbor, because whether your neighbor wants to make one pound of cheese or 500,000 lbs it needs to be made a 100K dollar USDA approved facility. now, who benefits more from this situation? kraft or your neighbor?

 

you should probably lay off the michael moore and read this guy...

 

 

in fact, i wouldnt doubt if you havent already seen this american radical in 'food inc.'

[angelofdeath]

Traders, financial institution should be taxed more if they outsource jobs to another country. Markets should not be allowed to bundle bad debt into something that is supposed to make money when logic dictates it won't.

 

 

the only reason derivatives existed was because of governments moral hazard.

ie. the promise of a bail out if they lost money.

 

how would you act if you had the opportunity to make a tremendous amount of money, at virtually no risk? would you take it?

 

outsourcing of jobs can be placed at the foot of the US government and their state government subsidiaries. when you enact excessive taxation and regulation, you get flight. when governments over tax, money leaves the country.

imagine if you were given the choice between paying 100$ for a pair of shoes at one store, yet in another town, you could get the same pair of shoes for 25$. which would you choose?

 

this is another example of blaming something brought about by government on laissez faire. the unintended consequence of excessive taxation and regulation is flight. now you need to pass 5 more laws to deal with this situation, which is why a regulated economy always seeks total totalitarian control.

[CILONE/SK]

regulations preclude market entry.

 

which is why its illegal to buy a pound of cheese from your neighbor, because whether your neighbor wants to make one pound of cheese or 500,000 lbs it needs to be made a 100K dollar USDA approved facility. now, who benefits more from this situation? kraft or your neighbor?

 

The neighbor might benefit more, but what you do not see is that where I am living dairy farmers are fighting regulation, because they will have to spend more to clean up their act, because right now, there are soooooo many steroids in the milk in cheese that it is affecting the local population. There is a need to regulate them, because they are not doing the right thing on their own, because they want a bigger profit. Regulations do stop growth of some business, but that is because hey are not being responsible members of their community. Look at oil companies in Montana, hell anywhere in the world and tell me they are being responsible. If so, you are lying to me and yourself. They have very minimal regulation, yet they seem to screw up everything they touch in order to make more profit on the record profits they already make.

 

Small and big companies will always error on the side of profits when pitted against doing the right thing for the community.

 

BTW, I have never once seen a michael moore movie. My view points are from seeing the world and every state in America, experience.

[CILONE/SK]

the only reason derivatives existed was because of governments moral hazard.

ie. the promise of a bail out if they lost money.

 

how would you act if you had the opportunity to make a tremendous amount of money, at virtually no risk? would you take it?

 

outsourcing of jobs can be placed at the foot of the US government and their state government subsidiaries. when you enact excessive taxation and regulation, you get flight. when governments over tax, money leaves the country.

imagine if you were given the choice between paying 100$ for a pair of shoes at one store, yet in another town, you could get the same pair of shoes for 25$. which would you choose?

 

this is another example of blaming something brought about by government on laissez faire. the unintended consequence of excessive taxation and regulation is flight. now you need to pass 5 more laws to deal with this situation, which is why a regulated economy always seeks total totalitarian control.

 

Wrong again. they have found a way to defund all regulations and find loopholes so they do not have to do the right responsible thing. Less regulation will just make it easier for them to screw people and their communities to make more money. We should never let them get so big that they needed a bailout and it is our fault that we did not break them up when we gave them the money.

[Mercer]

Michael Moore = LOL

 

I'm not a follower of any specific political philosophy, I'd rather think about individual issues for myself than join a herd.

 

[angelofdeath]

The neighbor might benefit more, but what you do not see is that where I am living dairy farmers are fighting regulation, because they will have to spend more to clean up their act, because right now, there are soooooo many steroids in the milk in cheese that it is affecting the local population. There is a need to regulate them, because they are not doing the right thing on their own, because they want a bigger profit. Regulations do stop growth of some business, but that is because hey are not being responsible members of their community. Look at oil companies in Montana, hell anywhere in the world and tell me they are being responsible. If so, you are lying to me and yourself. They have very minimal regulation, yet they seem to screw up everything they touch in order to make more profit on the record profits they already make.

 

i guess, i'd be some sort of radical extremist to point out that the US regulatory agencies are largely responsible for urging farmers to use said products in order to keep food 'safe.' it has been the USDA who has been courting cattle farmers for years on the new 'scientific' methods of feeding cows....... dun dun dun... dead cows. and then you'll blame mad cow on 'capitalism.' government policy has incentivized and collectivized farms into creating monocultures. monocultures do not occur in nature, yet because of these policies, we have this situation which causes adverse side effects for all involved.

 

the only way to address these problems and solve them is NOT from the top down, it is from the bottom up. just like people like salatin are doing. what needs to be done is we need to free entrepreneurs up to solve these issues and undermine govt connected companies who are causing these problems. yet, sadly, your ideology forbids them from doing so.

 

agribusiness is nothing but an arm of the state. monsanto's power is derived from government and its enforcement of 'patents' that are not legitimate property, its nothing but a monopoly privilege granted by government.

 

various companies who pollute or act 'irresponsibly' are acting that way because their liability is either limited by the government, with things such as the price anderson act, or the court system has made it largely impossible to sue polluters for damages.

 

if you consider the US as having 'minimal' regulation, tell me what the proper level of regulation is. your type NEVER answers this question, so for the sake of conversation, i must assume you want total government control. that is the only logical conclusion, because no matter what regulations are passed, you will always need more.

 

so your response is the same ol same ol. problems created by government, and you blame it on capitalism.

 

thankfully, i believe in freedom enough to help my own neighbors, prepare myself for any emergencies and to rely on myself, and yeah, even consume unregulated illegal raw milk and meat from grass finished cows. unlike your self and your nanny state supporting, leaching off of others and using force to impose your will on others, beliefs.

 

 

BTW, I have never once seen a michael moore movie. My view points are from seeing the world and every state in America, experience.

 

whatever. it matters not. you come to the same conclusions.

[CILONE/SK]

i guess, i'd be some sort of radical extremist to point out that the US regulatory agencies are largely responsible for urging farmers to use said products in order to keep food 'safe.' it has been the USDA who has been courting cattle farmers for years on the new 'scientific' methods of feeding cows....... dun dun dun... dead cows. and then you'll blame mad cow on 'capitalism'

 

agribusiness is nothing but an arm of the state. monsanto's power is derived from government and its enforcement of 'patents' that are not legitimate property, its nothing but a monopoly privilege granted by government.

 

various companies who pollute or act 'irresponsibly' are acting that way because their liability is either limited by the government, with things such as the price anderson act, or the court system has made it largely impossible to sue polluters for damages.

 

if you consider the US as having 'minimal' regulation, tell me what the proper level of regulation is. your type NEVER answers this question, so for the sake of conversation, i must assume you want total government control. that is the only logical conclusion, because no matter what regulations are passed, you will always need more.

 

so your response is the same ol same ol. problems created by government, and you blame it on capitalism.

 

thankfully, i believe in freedom enough to help my own neighbors, prepare myself for any emergencies and to rely on myself, and yeah, even consume unregulated illegal raw milk and meat from grass finished cows. unlike your self and your nanny state supporting, leaching off of others and using force to impose your will on others, beliefs.

 

 

 

 

whatever. it matters not. you come to the same conclusions.

 

Good way of not replying to the example.

 

You do not believe in freedom, you believe in business controlling everything instead of the government.

 

A good amount of regulation is enough to ensure that business does not do whatever they want to maximize profits at the cost of the population. Which is what is happening.

 

Go back to your lala land and get some worldly experience before you form your misguided viewpoints based on other peoples books.

[Decyferon]

the only reason derivatives existed was because of governments moral hazard.

ie. the promise of a bail out if they lost money.

 

how would you act if you had the opportunity to make a tremendous amount of money, at virtually no risk? would you take it?

 

outsourcing of jobs can be placed at the foot of the US government and their state government subsidiaries. when you enact excessive taxation and regulation, you get flight. when governments over tax, money leaves the country.

imagine if you were given the choice between paying 100$ for a pair of shoes at one store, yet in another town, you could get the same pair of shoes for 25$. which would you choose?

 

this is another example of blaming something brought about by government on laissez faire. the unintended consequence of excessive taxation and regulation is flight. now you need to pass 5 more laws to deal with this situation, which is why a regulated economy always seeks total totalitarian control.

 

It would depend, it might have little risk to me, but the money i was playing with could be peoples pensions, homes, futures, in which case I would rather not make money myself at their detriment. If there was no risk to ANYONE then sure you would be stupid not to, however that isnt how the markets work, there is always risk.

 

A company will only outsource if it is cheaper for them to do so, foreign labour may be cheaper, less regulations in that country might make it easier for them to turn a profit, however if that company wants anything to do in my country then they will be paying a hefty tax bill because they have taken money out of the job market purely to make themselves more money.

 

Imagine you were given the choice to buy a $25 pair of shoes or a $100 pair, now the $100 pair once bought are yours transaction done, however the dollar pair you pay $25 dollars for but at the end of the tax year you have to pay $100 tax. That is how businesses that outsource should be fined.

[Decyferon]

Michael Moore = LOL

 

I'm not a follower of any specific political philosophy, I'd rather think about individual issues for myself than join a herd.

 

 

THIS ^^ Mercer on point as normal

[Decyferon]

i guess, i'd be some sort of radical extremist to point out that the US regulatory agencies are largely responsible for urging farmers to use said products in order to keep food 'safe.' it has been the USDA who has been courting cattle farmers for years on the new 'scientific' methods of feeding cows....... dun dun dun... dead cows. and then you'll blame mad cow on 'capitalism.' government policy has incentivized and collectivized farms into creating monocultures. monocultures do not occur in nature, yet because of these policies, we have this situation which causes adverse side effects for all involved.

 

the only way to address these problems and solve them is NOT from the top down, it is from the bottom up. just like people like salatin are doing. what needs to be done is we need to free entrepreneurs up to solve these issues and undermine govt connected companies who are causing these problems. yet, sadly, your ideology forbids them from doing so.

 

agribusiness is nothing but an arm of the state. monsanto's power is derived from government and its enforcement of 'patents' that are not legitimate property, its nothing but a monopoly privilege granted by government.

 

various companies who pollute or act 'irresponsibly' are acting that way because their liability is either limited by the government, with things such as the price anderson act, or the court system has made it largely impossible to sue polluters for damages.

 

if you consider the US as having 'minimal' regulation, tell me what the proper level of regulation is. your type NEVER answers this question, so for the sake of conversation, i must assume you want total government control. that is the only logical conclusion, because no matter what regulations are passed, you will always need more.

 

so your response is the same ol same ol. problems created by government, and you blame it on capitalism.

 

thankfully, i believe in freedom enough to help my own neighbors, prepare myself for any emergencies and to rely on myself, and yeah, even consume unregulated illegal raw milk and meat from grass finished cows. unlike your self and your nanny state supporting, leaching off of others and using force to impose your will on others, beliefs.

 

 

 

 

whatever. it matters not. you come to the same conclusions.

 

This is a major problem in America, cattle being fed steroids etc, all that sort of practise should be outright illegal but if you insist on having 20 ounce steaks and shit like that then you need huge cattle. The same goes for dairy etc. That is one thing that America has completely wrong, everything should be as natural as possible. America must be the only country that is happy to feed its population on shite like that. If you did that to the French they would string you up from a lamppost.

[angelofdeath]

It would depend, it might have little risk to me, but the money i was playing with could be peoples pensions, homes, futures, in which case I would rather not make money myself at their detriment. If there was no risk to ANYONE then sure you would be stupid not to, however that isnt how the markets work, there is always risk.

 

good answer, but you are not adding in a few things.

namely, it didnt matter if anyone lost money, because the company would be bailed out at tax payer expense. this is called moral hazard. this is why the bail outs were bad. it creates the incentive to engage in otherwise risky behavior because you will be insulated from full liability.

 

A company will only outsource if it is cheaper for them to do so, foreign labour may be cheaper, less regulations in that country might make it easier for them to turn a profit, however if that company wants anything to do in my country then they will be paying a hefty tax bill because they have taken money out of the job market purely to make themselves more money.

 

but you realize that they left because of your policy in the first place, no?

 

Imagine you were given the choice to buy a $25 pair of shoes or a $100 pair, now the $100 pair once bought are yours transaction done, however the dollar pair you pay $25 dollars for but at the end of the tax year you have to pay $100 tax. That is how businesses that outsource should be fined.

 

but your policy sent them away in the first place?

 

lets change the example around a tad.

lets say you are buying shoes. you can buy them in your neighborhood for 100$. you can buy them in another neighborhood for 100$ but you have to pay a 100$ tax on every thing you buy. are you more likely to purchase goods in your neighborhood or in the neighborhood with the high taxes?

 

its the same in the US.

if people want gun freedom, they move to gun friendly states. if they want to be taxed less, they move to states with lower taxes. etc ad infinitum.

 

it is the height of silliness to enact a policy that drives business away, and then tax it another round. that is all the more reason for business to stay permanently AWAY.

[angelofdeath]

This is a major problem in America, cattle being fed steroids etc, all that sort of practise should be outright illegal but if you insist on having 20 ounce steaks and shit like that then you need huge cattle. The same goes for dairy etc. That is one thing that America has completely wrong, everything should be as natural as possible. America must be the only country that is happy to feed its population on shite like that. If you did that to the French they would string you up from a lamppost.

 

while i dont think it should be 'illegal' i think the mere competition of real food with factory food would completely undermine the factory food and make it insignificant. if people then still wanted the bad stuff, they are free to buy it, and if they want real stuff, they are also free to buy it.

 

however, sadly the biggest promoters of 'food freedom' are largely to blame for being the biggest supporters of the nanny state in general. the only way to get good food, cheap, is to deregulate and allow competitors to actually compete with cargill, tyson, etc.

 

if we had a real market for food, stopped subsidizing it, pastured chicken wouldnt be THAT much more expensive factory chicken. if we repealed raw milk laws, i'd be able to buy raw milk for dirt cheap from my neighbor right across the road. USDA says you cant sell an egg that hasnt been chlorine washed, yet i eat fresh non washed eggs everyday.

we must remember that it is because this good stuff is illegal is why we have the food situation in america today.

[Mercer]

I agree, if you wan't to/have to save money, buy the cheaper food or a mix of good vs. cheap.

I'd be pissed if everything in my meat isle doubled in price because of some blanket regulations.

 

If people want to eat better they pay for the organic, non genetically modified, healthier foods.

Not everyone can afford to eat organic and most who could afford it choose not to.

The key word here is choose, as opposed to having your personal decisions made by others.

[!@#$%]

!@#$%

 

Read some of the opposing views of those books before you read them. Those books are decent, but the critics of some of them have very real valid points.

 

will do.

i can see that politics have become so entrenched in economics it's nearly impossible to separate the two.

 

i also think the topic at hand went off the rails, and i think i'm done in here

CILONE i found your responses to be on point, as usual.

i was watching damages season 2 last night and they had a dinner conversation about greed and the free market. i found it to be timely.

[Decyferon]

good answer, but you are not adding in a few things.

namely, it didnt matter if anyone lost money, because the company would be bailed out at tax payer expense. this is called moral hazard. this is why the bail outs were bad. it creates the incentive to engage in otherwise risky behavior because you will be insulated from full liability.

 

 

 

but you realize that they left because of your policy in the first place, no?

 

 

 

but your policy sent them away in the first place?

 

lets change the example around a tad.

lets say you are buying shoes. you can buy them in your neighborhood for 100$. you can buy them in another neighborhood for 100$ but you have to pay a 100$ tax on every thing you buy. are you more likely to purchase goods in your neighborhood or in the neighborhood with the high taxes?

 

its the same in the US.

if people want gun freedom, they move to gun friendly states. if they want to be taxed less, they move to states with lower taxes. etc ad infinitum.

 

it is the height of silliness to enact a policy that drives business away, and then tax it another round. that is all the more reason for business to stay permanently AWAY.

 

Again Im not sure of the policy in the US, but companies over here that outsource do it primarily because it is cheaper for them to operate that way, it provides a worse service to the consumer (as invariably some call center that has indian staff). It is a solely profit driven decision and should be penalised accordingly. Another one of those loopholes that companies use to keep their profits up.

 

Also, with your other question surrounding making money, even if the government bails out the financial company that loses money it doesn't help the little man who hass invested in the deal and lost everything. Those are the people I would think about not the company that gets bailed out. As I said nothing is risk free someone always suffers. Generally it isnt the company that suffers it is the shareholder, the little man on the street, just like the recent economic problems.

 

I think it is hard to judge for me because there is 1 rule, local authority cant all of a sudden decide that laws dont apply. US state/federal divide seems to cause a lot of problems and I can imagine a whole lot more loopholes that companies and people can use to their advantage.

[angelofdeath]

i can see that politics have become so entrenched in economics it's nearly impossible to separate the two.

 

 

not necessarily so.

austrian economics for example is a normative science.

to elaborate further... austrian economics says central banks are responsible for the business cycle. it doesnt say that a government should do this or that, or people should support a government doing this or that.

 

the ideology of liberty would say, if you dont want the business cycle, you get rid of the central bank. while you could be an austrian economics quoting libertarian, you could also be an austrian economics quoting fascist, socialist or what have you

[CILONE/SK]

^you really do not know what you are talking about do you? To imply that charity will be able to effectively take care of the people who need help better then a government will is comical. I am sure that some people will provide charity, but to think that the quantity that will be needed will be provided, is not logical and a pipe dream from those of you who lack everything except book knowledge.

 

People will not even help their own relatives in a large portion of this country right now and you think charity will provide for them? hahahahaha

If that is the case down under, I will have to go there. hahaha

wikipedia article as proof hahahahah

 

Harold, you sure have a lot to learn about the world, maybe you should move out of your parents house before you start talking hahahaha

[Decyferon]

I never said that a charity isnt as well organised to provide charity, smaller charitable organisations are very effective as they tend to run on tiny budgets and handouts, so they have to be very effective. That isnt the issue. The issue is there would not be enough people giving to charity to support the needs of the people, while government may not be AS effective at helping, they have the budget to, which is something that most charitable organisations don't have.

 

I do not believe that the charitable donations of the public will equate to the amount of money needed to provide the help that comes through the government.

[CILONE/SK]

^well put.

[angelofdeath]

The issue is there would not be enough people giving to charity to support the needs of the people, while government may not be AS effective at helping, they have the budget to, which is something that most charitable organisations don't have.

 

I do not believe that the charitable donations of the public will equate to the amount of money needed to provide the help that comes through the government.

 

the one part you wont recognize is that if some how, we eliminated all the waste, and people who are capable of providing for themselves/family but simply wont, the actual number of the 'poor' would PLUMMET. your theory is based on the govts current numbers. and we all know the majority of people on assistance are capable of providing for themselves and i think we'd both agree that people do not need assistance who drive escalades or are lottery winning millionaires.

 

once you eliminate all this then you'll get an accurate picture of what the situation really is and we can have a rational conversation from there. right now, you are just including every single person that is on the rolls, whether they need it or not, including the millionaire lottery winner and the people driving escalades who dump out 2 gallons of milk a week in order to keep getting wic.

 

but with a government system, it is impossible to accurately allocate these resources because they are made on a bureaucratic level and not by the combined wisdom of millions of market actors.

if you some how disagree with this post, you are in effect supporting not simply helping the 'poor' or 'needy' but giving handouts to people who are quite capable of providing for themselves funded by stealing property from the productive members of society by force, without their consent.

[CILONE/SK]

AOD you make a good argument, but how do you know there is such a large portion of waste? Your argument seems to fall back on getting rid of the whole basket because one apple is bad. What I do not hear from you too, is what about the people who need help in the transistion time if America goes with that plan? Is it ok to write off those people as a acceptable loss because they needed help at a bad time?

[CILONE/SK]

if you some how disagree with this post, .

I love how people like you put stuff like this in your posts. You are trying to shape debates and make counter posts seem ineffective.

 

To me, it just means you can not debate your point with gimmicks.

[Decyferon]

But companies arent providing jobs at the moment AOD, what makes you think by giving them more free reign and taking away government welfare is going to benefit people?

 

I do really see your point and in an ideal world it would work, but the world is far from perfect and the reality of it is companies arent making anymore jobs, people's budgets are stretched as it is. By taking away welfare and leaving it in the hands of the public to provide will just leave many people destitute and homeless. I think it is a brilliant idea in theory (everyone working together to provide for everyone, shit that almost sounds communist lol) I just cannot see the real life application of it to work.

[angelofdeath]

its obvious you cannot eliminate handouts over night. why? because the government has literally created generations of people tied to the govt tit. they are dependent. it would have to be done over time with stricter standards, closing of loopholes and a re-writing of the entire welfare state. but this will never happen. politicians dont mind the waste, because throwing away money is what gets them re-elected.

 

its quite obvious to anyone paying attention there is more waste than not in these systems. when an average guy like myself who frequents rural areas, suburban areas and urban areas only finds people who are in essence 'abusing' the welfare system...i'd be willing to bet the actual number of 'poor' on the welfare system is 50% of what it currently is, at minimum. there is something seriously wrong when you have people on food stamps, not married, and wont get married (one of the keys to financial success for lower income people) in order to stay on food stamps. when you have the incentive to father as many kids as you can with as many different woman as you can in order to get more assistance, we have a problem. what the welfare state champions dont realize is that nearly any criteria they put forth for aid creates unintended consequences and incentives which in turn breed greater poverty and more dependence. which keeps the system going on and on and makes people stay poor. if people knew that they only had themselves to rely on, or their own families, they act completely different. they make different decisions.

 

do i have the perfect system? do i have the perfect transition? no, im not a policy maker and my business is not providing charity, it is in other fields. but i do know the market that is dynamic enough to satisfy every consumer demand it dynamic enough to funnel aid to those that truly need it. through various private institutions, charities, etc all funded by voluntarism.

 

do you think that if you were not taxed to support the welfare state, that you would voluntarily give your $ to an organization that makes it a habit to give assistance to people talking on iphones, driving escalades and wearing a different pair of 100$ shoes a day? or would you rather contribute to an organization that provides aid to poor rural or urban families who are incapable of working for instance? if given the choice, im sure the market would put the people giving aid to escalade drivers out of business, funneling more resources to the real providers of services consumers demand.

 

but the glaringly obvious thing everyone misses is that all the people who squawk about 'helping the poor'... that this very conversation and view point exists among so many...is indicative of an insane amount of demand for a service to help these people. whats wrong, do you feel that the proponents of the welfare state such as yourself and the millions of other who believe in helping the less fortunate who actually need help...would NOT be able or willing to handle this?

[angelofdeath]

But companies arent providing jobs at the moment AOD, what makes you think by giving them more free reign and taking away government welfare is going to benefit people?

 

I do really see your point and in an ideal world it would work, but the world is far from perfect and the reality of it is companies arent making anymore jobs, people's budgets are stretched as it is. By taking away welfare and leaving it in the hands of the public to provide will just leave many people destitute and homeless. I think it is a brilliant idea in theory (everyone working together to provide for everyone, shit that almost sounds communist lol) I just cannot see the real life application of it to work.

 

you must take into account that if some sort of solid strict standards were enacted, transitioned into place and allowed people the time to react to the incentives put forth, they would do so.

 

look at how people act with the welfare state. the incentive is to not get married/live together, have a bunch of kids, stay glued to the government for everything, then raise the next generation to do the same because they never had a bread winning father nor do they know anything else but receiving a check. imagine that we stopped rewarding this behavior with a hand out. suppose that there was no moral hazard in the situation. lets imagine that in order to have a child, you had to pay for it 100% yourself, with no implicit net to fall back on provided by the government. would you still have a bunch of kids with different fathers and not get married? or would you try to settle down and raise a family and make a living for yourself? its all about incentives. until you remove the incentives to be poor, you will always have a certain number of poor that will continually grow. how many times have you heard that people need to work under the table in order to keep collecting benefits. how many times have you heard people cant get a job because they'll lose their check? its all the time.

 

you must realize how people act with these incentives. unemployment insurance is the perfect example. you get laid off. it sure feels good to have somethign to fall back on. but lets imagine that you dont have the incentive in your head that if you lose your job you can lay around for 2 years and not work and receive a check. would you act the same way? would you not care as much if you lost your job? the stats and real world examples are pretty clear on this. no matter how long one draws unemployment insurance, they tend to always get a jump literally right before the checks stop coming. doesnt matter if its 6 months or 2 years.

 

right or wrong (i obviously think the system is wrong) but you cannot deny the incentives are in place to steer you to do certain things.

 

the reasons why jobs are scarce is a subject entirely to its self.

[Decyferon]

I actually agree with pretty much everything you have said, the abuse of the welfare system (both in the US and UK) is just stupid. I know I am currently getting welfare etc but you bet your life I have paid in more in tax than I will take out and as soon as I get a job I will come off it, I hate being on it. But people do abuse the system, especially child welfare payments. I see people over here just knocking kids out and getting £100s a month just in child tax credits and child benefit.

 

I agree there needs to be reform to the welfare system, I just dont think it should be gotten rid of completely due to some people will always be in a position that they need help and charity may not be able to provide for them so there needs to be that back up.

 

I would point out though for all the people that abuse the system there are genuine people that need help. It seems a lot easier to trick the system in the US and I admit I would be outraged to, but as outraged as I might get I still think the welfare state should be in place just stricter to people that abuse it.

 

How much do people get from the US government. Here on job seekers you get £135 every 2 weeks. housing bebenfit pays different rates depending on rents in your area but a married couple with one child get £103.50 per week towards rent. plus then with a child you get tax credits of maybe £200 a month and £85 every 2 weeks for child benefit. It sounds like a lot but for a 3 person household it isnt much, the housing benefits doesnt cover the actual rent and the other mooney doesn't cover bills and food etc. I dont really have much incentive to NOT work, although obviously I am slightly selective because there are jobs out there where I would earn less than I am getting on benefits working 40 hours a week, then I would be homeless and bankrupt in no time. I am not stupid so obviously am not going to take a job which doesnt pay a living wage.

[CILONE/SK]

You make alot of assumptions without proof and draw conclusions to them.

 

I do think your viewpoints would not survive on a national level and might survive at a county level depending on the county. The main reason it will fail is because it relies on people providing the help without no incentive. To an extent they will, but not anywhere close to the level that would be required nationally.

 

What I do not get with people like you, is why are you so against helping people or at least not wanting to help them because someone might get over, and in favor of giving business a free pass to do whatever they want, when they prove time and time again that they cannot be trusted and will screw the people every chance they get for more money.