11/16/2006
Poor People
We previously had a conversation about why the government should or should not give money to poor people. One of the arguments, specifically countering my argument that a family of three can live just fine on 15,000, was that while I am sacrificing now, having to live like I live now for the rest of my life would be impossible. That kind of bothered me and now that I can I will tell you why. Going to movies, or out to eat, or Starbucks is not a right. You should not take money away from hardworking individuals so that poor people can go to movies. These spending items are a luxury. Not only were they not available for most of human existence (and humanity survived just fine I might add), but they are not even available for most of the world at this moment. Yeah poor people are sad, but taking the money I work hard for and earn in order that poor people can buy these luxuries is nothing more than robbery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If you give a man a fish he eats for a meal. If you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. I like this philosophy. Helping the poor without just throwing money at them.
Wait. Are you saying that you have managed to accumulate some taxable income in the past year? As a taxpayer (I file jointly with someone who makes money), the amount of tax we pay is miniscule. Something like 8-10%. As far as giving money to the poor being robbery, who exactly did you root for in Robin Hood? FYI, Robin Hood was the good guy.
Health insurance for the average family of four costs in excess of $10,000. (I can't get links to work here, but this statistic comes from a Kaiser Foundation Study that can be found by googling "health insurance costs for a family of four.")
Assuming rent, food, and clothing cost somewhere around $10k/year that leaves somewhere in the area of negitive $5,000 for Starbucks.
Post a Comment