What would a socialist America look like?

[WinterBorn]

Increasing minimum wage is an argument to have.

Quitting a job and expecting to be paid by tax payers is not. Your expectation of getting paid by workers when you are unwilling to work for is not going to happen. Buck up, buttercup.

It is about solving for simple poverty. Yes, it is going to happen.

No, it is not going to happen. More and more gov't aid is about job training and helping people find jobs. You want to quit yours and leech off the tax payers. If you are able to work you will work for your pay.

Yes, it is. This is a left wing platform. It is going to happen, regardless of legislative, slackery.

The slackery is on the part of people like you who want money given to them by the gov't. And that money is taken, by force, from people who earn it.

The answer will be a resounding No. Why should others works while you do nothing and get the same benefits? Why do you deserve a part of the paychecks of those who earn their money.

People will accept that their taxes go to help those who are unable to work. But they will not accept that their taxes will go to pay people who quit their jobs to sit at home. If you want money, get a job and earn it.

the law is the law; why be illegal to the law, but blame kettles for being black?

Utter nonsense. I am not talking about anything illegal.

Equal protection under the law is completely in effect. An employer can fire you at will. You can quit at will. If you quit, you don't get paid. If they fire you, they don't get your labor or service. That is equal protection.

The difference is, if they fire you they do not stop working doing whatever they do to produce revenue. When you quit, you have to find another job to produce your own revenue.

In all these discussions, you have yet to give a single rational reason why you should be paid to sit at home after you chose to quit your job.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about solving for simple poverty. Yes, it is going to happen.

No, it is not going to happen. More and more gov't aid is about job training and helping people find jobs. You want to quit yours and leech off the tax payers. If you are able to work you will work for your pay.

Yes, it is. This is a left wing platform. It is going to happen, regardless of legislative, slackery.

The slackery is on the part of people like you who want money given to them by the gov't. And that money is taken, by force, from people who earn it.

The answer will be a resounding No. Why should others works while you do nothing and get the same benefits? Why do you deserve a part of the paychecks of those who earn their money.

People will accept that their taxes go to help those who are unable to work. But they will not accept that their taxes will go to pay people who quit their jobs to sit at home. If you want money, get a job and earn it.

the law is the law; why be illegal to the law, but blame kettles for being black?

Utter nonsense. I am not talking about anything illegal.

Equal protection under the law is completely in effect. An employer can fire you at will. You can quit at will. If you quit, you don't get paid. If they fire you, they don't get your labor or service. That is equal protection.

The difference is, if they fire you they do not stop working doing whatever they do to produce revenue. When you quit, you have to find another job to produce your own revenue.

In all these discussions, you have yet to give a single rational reason why you should be paid to sit at home after you chose to quit your job.

The law is, employment at the will of either party. Why condone, illegality in public policies that benefit No One, but Capitalists of wealth?

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it is not going to happen. More and more gov't aid is about job training and helping people find jobs. You want to quit yours and leech off the tax payers. If you are able to work you will work for your pay.

Yes, it is. This is a left wing platform. It is going to happen, regardless of legislative, slackery.

The slackery is on the part of people like you who want money given to them by the gov't. And that money is taken, by force, from people who earn it.

The answer will be a resounding No. Why should others works while you do nothing and get the same benefits? Why do you deserve a part of the paychecks of those who earn their money.

People will accept that their taxes go to help those who are unable to work. But they will not accept that their taxes will go to pay people who quit their jobs to sit at home. If you want money, get a job and earn it.

the law is the law; why be illegal to the law, but blame kettles for being black?

Utter nonsense. I am not talking about anything illegal.

Equal protection under the law is completely in effect. An employer can fire you at will. You can quit at will. If you quit, you don't get paid. If they fire you, they don't get your labor or service. That is equal protection.

The difference is, if they fire you they do not stop working doing whatever they do to produce revenue. When you quit, you have to find another job to produce your own revenue.

In all these discussions, you have yet to give a single rational reason why you should be paid to sit at home after you chose to quit your job.

The law is, employment at the will of either party. Why condone, illegality in public policies that benefit No One, but Capitalists of wealth?

I have not condoned anything illegal.

Just like you have not answered any questions.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. This is a left wing platform. It is going to happen, regardless of legislative, slackery.

The slackery is on the part of people like you who want money given to them by the gov't. And that money is taken, by force, from people who earn it.

The answer will be a resounding No. Why should others works while you do nothing and get the same benefits? Why do you deserve a part of the paychecks of those who earn their money.

People will accept that their taxes go to help those who are unable to work. But they will not accept that their taxes will go to pay people who quit their jobs to sit at home. If you want money, get a job and earn it.

the law is the law; why be illegal to the law, but blame kettles for being black?

Utter nonsense. I am not talking about anything illegal.

Equal protection under the law is completely in effect. An employer can fire you at will. You can quit at will. If you quit, you don't get paid. If they fire you, they don't get your labor or service. That is equal protection.

The difference is, if they fire you they do not stop working doing whatever they do to produce revenue. When you quit, you have to find another job to produce your own revenue.

In all these discussions, you have yet to give a single rational reason why you should be paid to sit at home after you chose to quit your job.

The law is, employment at the will of either party. Why condone, illegality in public policies that benefit No One, but Capitalists of wealth?

I have not condoned anything illegal.

Just like you have not answered any questions.

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

[WinterBorn]

The slackery is on the part of people like you who want money given to them by the gov't. And that money is taken, by force, from people who earn it.

The answer will be a resounding No. Why should others works while you do nothing and get the same benefits? Why do you deserve a part of the paychecks of those who earn their money.

People will accept that their taxes go to help those who are unable to work. But they will not accept that their taxes will go to pay people who quit their jobs to sit at home. If you want money, get a job and earn it.

the law is the law; why be illegal to the law, but blame kettles for being black?

Utter nonsense. I am not talking about anything illegal.

Equal protection under the law is completely in effect. An employer can fire you at will. You can quit at will. If you quit, you don't get paid. If they fire you, they don't get your labor or service. That is equal protection.

The difference is, if they fire you they do not stop working doing whatever they do to produce revenue. When you quit, you have to find another job to produce your own revenue.

In all these discussions, you have yet to give a single rational reason why you should be paid to sit at home after you chose to quit your job.

The law is, employment at the will of either party. Why condone, illegality in public policies that benefit No One, but Capitalists of wealth?

I have not condoned anything illegal.

Just like you have not answered any questions.

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

the law is the law; why be illegal to the law, but blame kettles for being black?

Utter nonsense. I am not talking about anything illegal.

Equal protection under the law is completely in effect. An employer can fire you at will. You can quit at will. If you quit, you don't get paid. If they fire you, they don't get your labor or service. That is equal protection.

The difference is, if they fire you they do not stop working doing whatever they do to produce revenue. When you quit, you have to find another job to produce your own revenue.

In all these discussions, you have yet to give a single rational reason why you should be paid to sit at home after you chose to quit your job.

The law is, employment at the will of either party. Why condone, illegality in public policies that benefit No One, but Capitalists of wealth?

I have not condoned anything illegal.

Just like you have not answered any questions.

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Utter nonsense. I am not talking about anything illegal.

Equal protection under the law is completely in effect. An employer can fire you at will. You can quit at will. If you quit, you don't get paid. If they fire you, they don't get your labor or service. That is equal protection.

The difference is, if they fire you they do not stop working doing whatever they do to produce revenue. When you quit, you have to find another job to produce your own revenue.

In all these discussions, you have yet to give a single rational reason why you should be paid to sit at home after you chose to quit your job.

The law is, employment at the will of either party. Why condone, illegality in public policies that benefit No One, but Capitalists of wealth?

I have not condoned anything illegal.

Just like you have not answered any questions.

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

 

[danielpalos]

The law is, employment at the will of either party. Why condone, illegality in public policies that benefit No One, but Capitalists of wealth?

I have not condoned anything illegal.

Just like you have not answered any questions.

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have not condoned anything illegal.

Just like you have not answered any questions.

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

 

[danielpalos]

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

Cognitive dissonance? How does that work under our form of Capitalism where a medium of exchange is a requirement in our institution of money based markets?

 

[danielpalos]

Full employment of capital resources in our mixed market economy is what I am discussing, not your faux morality regarding a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

They don't have to work; stop whining.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

Cognitive dissonance? How does that work under our form of Capitalism where a medium of exchange is a requirement in our institution of money based markets?

Nothing I posted fits the definition of "cognative dissonance".

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you are discussing people getting paid for quitting a job. You are wanting tax payers to pay you to do nothing.

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

They don't have to work; stop whining.

No, they don't have to work. But then, they don't get paid either.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

Cognitive dissonance? How does that work under our form of Capitalism where a medium of exchange is a requirement in our institution of money based markets?

Nothing I posted fits the definition of "cognative dissonance".

What part of simply paying people not to work is less expensive than means tested welfare, do you not understand? That is where the cost savings will be coming from; the more people on unemployment the less need for means tested welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxpayers won't need to pay for it for very long; it would be self-sustaining in most cases; and, a general tax could be placed on Firms, for any other expenses.

It is an "upgrade to social infrastructure".

The point is, more people will be circulating more capital in our markets; that will result in an increase in capital liquidity, for Individuals. It solves simple poverty in a more cost effective manner. So, from a purely moral perspective, yes; if that is what it takes, to get results instead of more excuses regarding a social safety net in our First World economy.

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

They don't have to work; stop whining.

No, they don't have to work. But then, they don't get paid either.

slaves have to work; that means, no capitalism, only socialism.

 

[WinterBorn]

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

Cognitive dissonance? How does that work under our form of Capitalism where a medium of exchange is a requirement in our institution of money based markets?

Nothing I posted fits the definition of "cognative dissonance".

What part of simply paying people not to work is less expensive than means tested welfare, do you not understand? That is where the cost savings will be coming from; the more people on unemployment the less need for means tested welfare.

Welfare is for people who cannot work or cannot find work. That is not the same as someone who quit their job.

You talk of savings, but not having to pay unemployment compensation for people who voluntarily quit a job would save even more.

And you still haven't answered my question.

 

[WinterBorn]

It would work even better and faster if people were not paid for quitting their job. That way we could support the people who cannot support themselves, as opposed to those who simply elect to not support themselves.

Plus, if you kept your job you would be adding to the tax base and increase what could be done in favor of the unwilling poor.

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

They don't have to work; stop whining.

No, they don't have to work. But then, they don't get paid either.

slaves have to work; that means, no capitalism, only socialism.

Slaves are forced to work for no pay. You do not have to work. But you will have to find an alternate source of income. Expecting others to support you when you are capable of supporting yourself but choose not to is ridiculous. You complain about being forced. And yet you want to force people to surrender their hard earned money to you so you can do nothing. No.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

Cognitive dissonance? How does that work under our form of Capitalism where a medium of exchange is a requirement in our institution of money based markets?

Nothing I posted fits the definition of "cognative dissonance".

What part of simply paying people not to work is less expensive than means tested welfare, do you not understand? That is where the cost savings will be coming from; the more people on unemployment the less need for means tested welfare.

Welfare is for people who cannot work or cannot find work. That is not the same as someone who quit their job.

You talk of savings, but not having to pay unemployment compensation for people who voluntarily quit a job would save even more.

And you still haven't answered my question.

People spending money is what Causes a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor or potential labor with an income, pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party. Why do you believe in forcing the socialism of Your social values upon others, on a potentially national basis? We allege to subscribe to capitalism; our First World labor force is a Volunteer labor force.

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

They don't have to work; stop whining.

No, they don't have to work. But then, they don't get paid either.

slaves have to work; that means, no capitalism, only socialism.

Slaves are forced to work for no pay. You do not have to work. But you will have to find an alternate source of income. Expecting others to support you when you are capable of supporting yourself but choose not to is ridiculous. You complain about being forced. And yet you want to force people to surrender their hard earned money to you so you can do nothing. No.

Solving simple poverty is a moral virtue. And, improving the efficiency of our economy will mean a lower tax burden over all since more people will be paying more taxes.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

Cognitive dissonance? How does that work under our form of Capitalism where a medium of exchange is a requirement in our institution of money based markets?

Nothing I posted fits the definition of "cognative dissonance".

What part of simply paying people not to work is less expensive than means tested welfare, do you not understand? That is where the cost savings will be coming from; the more people on unemployment the less need for means tested welfare.

Welfare is for people who cannot work or cannot find work. That is not the same as someone who quit their job.

You talk of savings, but not having to pay unemployment compensation for people who voluntarily quit a job would save even more.

And you still haven't answered my question.

People spending money is what Causes a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor or potential labor with an income, pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand.

This is true. But you want to take people’s money away from them to support you. Let them spend it on themselves and what they want.

Why do you deserve to be supported by the sweat of someone else’s brow? You can work so work.