Because that is common sense. If someone gets money for free, then they are deincentivised to work and become independent. In some states people would have to work full time at well above minimum wage to break even compared to welfare benefits they can receive.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
You've suddenly made a lot of really sweeping claims.B1rd wrote:
It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.
What do you mean by saying that redistribution of wealth makes the ones benefiting "less able, less independant", and "is immoral"? As citizens get more well-off, they have less kids, not more. This is an easily observable trend in every single country- the richer it is, the less kids they have. Why shouldn't the same apply to people of lower classes in one of the great first-world countries? You seem to feel very strongly about your position here, but I'm not entirely sure why things must be so black-and-white when it comes to topics like welfare or wealth redistribution in general.
It's immoral because firstly, using coercion to take someone's money is wrong. The other reason that it is immoral is it perpetuates welfare dependency and creates situations where kids are raised in welfare homes and are statistically likely to become welfare dependents as well. You're the one making sweeping statements if you are saying that a rough collaboration of birth rates and GDP means an absolute relation of personal income to birth rates regardless of other factors. It's just a correlation and it doesn't do anything to prove that welfare decreases birth rates. What's more, in a lot of cases women have children specifically because that's the easiest way to get welfare; it's not just a means, it's an incentive.
There will be children born into low-income families regardless of welfare programs, the important aspect though is that working class environments are much better at instilling children with the essential values of responsibility, aspiration and self-sufficiency. Welfare doesn't create opportunity, it does the opposite and entrenches poverty in multi-generational cycles. There is no justification for it, besides the means being immoral, it is not even effective, over 70% of money spent on welfare go to administration costs and even with all that money spent it is extremely bad at discerning the difference between genuine need and opportunism. Private charity can carry on the task of providing a social safety net much more efficiently without a gaggle of inefficient bureaucrats, and being what it is, charity, rather than a "right" to welfare or whatever, it instills cultural values of responsibility rather than entitlement which we see in these recent generations ("I'm entitled to free this, free that etc.").