03-06-2007, 07:44 PM
Quote:Now lets add Bob to the mix. He doesn't like to work and has no education. So the government gives him 15 apples. Where does this leave Joe? Hes working 40+ hours a week to make ends meet, and Bob (who also has trouble making ends meet) gets to sleep in every day and enjoy his favorite hobbies instead of working. Sure he could get a job, but he would probably only make 15-20 apples and he would lose the free ones from the government, so he just collects the free ones and slides by.
Also just because someone can afford to give up 50 apples, why should they? They went to school, got an education, and worked to earn those (entertainment industry would be the exception).
This is too much a generalization. Just like if I would say that all rich people inherited their money.
Swiss mercenary made a good point. Unless what you might think, the government does far more for rich people than for poor people. Is it normal that somebody because he has the talent to trick people into buying things for a high prize as an estate agent can make millions? Or a stock broker? That is very good in using other peoples money,move it around a bit and gets rich? Well on one hand yes, that is our society but the more money you have the more you profit from a good economy and from a good infrastructure.
I don´t think a workless guy profits from it when a local government pays millions to an airport just to grow so that planes will land and don't go to the next city. (and there are hundreds of other examples).
Of course there are always lazy people that 'don't deserve to get welfare' but just naming a few examples is just a useless way of discussing. There are many more people that do have a lot of money and according to the same standards 'don't deserve it'. But we are not making laws for these examples. We should have controllers that filter out the bad apples (to stay in the line of this discussion).