‘Government is the solution for half of the population’
This is the real issue. I call them the land of misfit toys. I wouldn’t hire any of them, and no one else will either. That’s why they vote to have a government in place that will completely provide for everything they need in life.
I believe we must address how we handle this segment of our population. Without a solution, we’ll remain just one election cycle away from more grift and fraud by the next wave of communist-leaning politicians who occupy the White House.
Yep, many philosophers have defended this. If you don't contribute you cannot decide. You could even go further.... if you live from the State (public salaries) you cannot decide on it due to conflict of interests.
Some people and circumstances may want to give a leg up - but that money should be temporary, NOT a lifestyle. And certainly not a lifestyle from generation to generation. Your career or job should not be learning how to game the system for your livelihood. Which is what it's turned into.
It would definitely help with the perennial problem of democracies voting for their own financial destruction, eventually setting themselves up for dictators.
Even with the slashing of government, we have a large percentage of the population with no productive job skills, and this is just as true for the white-collar apparatchik as the urban welfare recipient. We've outsourced productive industries and reemployed people as non-productive paper pushers. Does the DEI officer make the employees more productive? the company more profitable? the world a better place? Or does it just make people angrier, everything more complex, and our work less efficient? The answer is pretty obvious.
I think unless you are retired or in receipt of disability benefit, you should only be able to vote if you pay tax. Anyone employed by the government or receiving benefits should be disqualified from voting on the basis of conflict of interest.
Only people who work at least 30 hours a week, file taxes, and are gainfully employed should get to vote. If you meet those criteria, you shouldn’t pay any taxes and should qualify for government benefits—call it a worker’s stipend. Everyone else? No entitlements, no exceptions. This riffs on Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, a twist on universal basic income. Instead of mailing every breathing soul a check, you target it: only employed folks below a set income threshold get it. Step one, though—scrap the minimum wage.
The stipend would guarantee a baseline—say, $20 an hour equivalent for your time. In struggling, underdeveloped areas, it could scale up to $25 or $30 an hour. Here’s the kicker: employers in those places might even charge workers to take jobs—think apprenticeships or training gigs—because the government check more than covers it. People would still come out ahead.
Minimum wage sounds noble, but it’s a hidden tax on the poor. It jacks up costs, kills entry-level jobs, and locks low-skill workers out of the market. Ditch it, replace it with this stipend, and watch people flood into “undesirable” jobs—janitors, farmhands, whatever—because the pay’s effectively sorted. In dead-end towns, you’d spark work instead of welfare. Friedman saw it: don’t hand out fish, rig the system so people can fish and eat.
So...people who are disabled shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or mothers who stay home with their children? I think this is a slippery slope- remember, not that long ago, only male landowners could vote. I'd hate to end up back there.
Our educational institutions are numerically swollen via government subsidized student loans, have lax academic standards and are politically overheated. They're incubators for a surplus of graduates that are only fit to be bureaucrats and activists.
‘Government is the solution for half of the population’
This is the real issue. I call them the land of misfit toys. I wouldn’t hire any of them, and no one else will either. That’s why they vote to have a government in place that will completely provide for everything they need in life.
I believe we must address how we handle this segment of our population. Without a solution, we’ll remain just one election cycle away from more grift and fraud by the next wave of communist-leaning politicians who occupy the White House.
Should people lose the right to vote if dependent on government to support them?
I am beginning to think so.
Dependents should not have the right to vote. If you're not responsible enough to provide for yourself, how can you choose a responsible government?
Yep, many philosophers have defended this. If you don't contribute you cannot decide. You could even go further.... if you live from the State (public salaries) you cannot decide on it due to conflict of interests.
I wonder if a flat tax would solve that so everyone pays for the privilege of living here. Half of Americans don’t pay taxes.
https://youtu.be/Zk5Il6KQrd8?si=theT1NQsROyPmcD4
LOL!
There is some value in having some skin in the game but I think the answer is to stop giving out the money.
Or scale it way back. DOGE might be just the Guy.
If, "stop giving out the money", is the answer - then, "Cui bono?", must be the question.
It sure is.
And I love it when you speak French!
Wait, what's Sonny Bono's sister have to do with it?
Cui. Short for... Cui... I got nuthin'
Some people and circumstances may want to give a leg up - but that money should be temporary, NOT a lifestyle. And certainly not a lifestyle from generation to generation. Your career or job should not be learning how to game the system for your livelihood. Which is what it's turned into.
It would definitely help with the perennial problem of democracies voting for their own financial destruction, eventually setting themselves up for dictators.
Even with the slashing of government, we have a large percentage of the population with no productive job skills, and this is just as true for the white-collar apparatchik as the urban welfare recipient. We've outsourced productive industries and reemployed people as non-productive paper pushers. Does the DEI officer make the employees more productive? the company more profitable? the world a better place? Or does it just make people angrier, everything more complex, and our work less efficient? The answer is pretty obvious.
Make work jobs for women. Feminism has been the most destructive social program ever devised, both societally and economically.
I think unless you are retired or in receipt of disability benefit, you should only be able to vote if you pay tax. Anyone employed by the government or receiving benefits should be disqualified from voting on the basis of conflict of interest.
Only people who work at least 30 hours a week, file taxes, and are gainfully employed should get to vote. If you meet those criteria, you shouldn’t pay any taxes and should qualify for government benefits—call it a worker’s stipend. Everyone else? No entitlements, no exceptions. This riffs on Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, a twist on universal basic income. Instead of mailing every breathing soul a check, you target it: only employed folks below a set income threshold get it. Step one, though—scrap the minimum wage.
The stipend would guarantee a baseline—say, $20 an hour equivalent for your time. In struggling, underdeveloped areas, it could scale up to $25 or $30 an hour. Here’s the kicker: employers in those places might even charge workers to take jobs—think apprenticeships or training gigs—because the government check more than covers it. People would still come out ahead.
Minimum wage sounds noble, but it’s a hidden tax on the poor. It jacks up costs, kills entry-level jobs, and locks low-skill workers out of the market. Ditch it, replace it with this stipend, and watch people flood into “undesirable” jobs—janitors, farmhands, whatever—because the pay’s effectively sorted. In dead-end towns, you’d spark work instead of welfare. Friedman saw it: don’t hand out fish, rig the system so people can fish and eat.
So...people who are disabled shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or mothers who stay home with their children? I think this is a slippery slope- remember, not that long ago, only male landowners could vote. I'd hate to end up back there.
Universal suffrage was the biggest mistake the world ever made.
Please explain...
If you don't understand what I said you shouldn't be voting.
If only........
Our educational institutions are numerically swollen via government subsidized student loans, have lax academic standards and are politically overheated. They're incubators for a surplus of graduates that are only fit to be bureaucrats and activists.
“Lax academic standards” is an understatement
How about if you file a tax return you get a voucher to vote