67 Replies to “Work: The Foolish Enterprise”

  3. I’m a conservative, but I also think many conservatives flippantly dismiss the plight of poor people or accuse them of high living, etc. What do you expect our society should do with the poor? Drive them into the street and let them fight over scraps?
    There are no easy solutions, but simple-minded assumptions that the poor are all just milking the system is no better than the tired old bullshit from the Left.

  5. I see theres a new kid with a blockhead. Troll Toews, these numbers are roughly the same in every state, and also here in Canada, but when you live in the first column, you will like a cornered rat, do anything to save your laziness from being exposed. In our small town there are 3 AISH recipients who could easily work but don;t because of bad back or sore whatever, only when someone is looking, numerous welfare surfers, with 6-8 little surfers, someone has to pay, and it sure won’t be an “occupier” like you.

  6. Victim @ 9:35:
    That’s what’s know as a “straw man fallacy”. You could look it up.
    You’re welcome.

  7. Steve, you are battling staw men. Many of us have been poor and we know what it takes leave that plantation. It takes determination and hardwork and it takes a belief that my hard work will be rewarded.
    I find those who would accuse me of “driving the poor into the street” are the worst offenders of trying to hold people back from achieving their potential.
    People like you clearly love the poor. That is why when you folks are in power there are many more of them.

  8. Steve Macdonald @ 9:47;
    Unfortunately the amount of compassion a society can exhibit is directly related to the wealth a society can create. Our history for many decades has been erroring on the unaffordable. Might I suggest that if we had a better idea of the true economic situation that we face that more realistic goals would be set. By the way if you visit any of our hospitals you will quickly see how well unproductive seniors are dealt with by our society. It is a ugly reality that $s do count.
    I have been involved in community volunteering for many years. My observation is that those that receive mostly have no desire to seriously change their plight. That sounds pretty brutal but I found it to be true. A case in point was the recent BS surrounding the 1%ers. In my opinion anyone in western Canada going without work is not seriously part of any solution. Thousands of jobs are going wanting in northern Alberta and BC.

  9. The numbers in that article speak for themselves, and quite loudly.
    In that area, someone making $14,500 has a higher ‘after tax’ income than someone making $60,000 and it’s worse in Canada because the tax rate is higher.
    I make 6 figures in the average year yet I see a couple making $10 or $12/hr each with much better homes, more disposable income and many more ‘toys’ because I pay over twice as much tax as a single-income family than a dual income ‘lower class’ family that ends up with more deductions, allowances and other programs..and more ‘take home’ money, period.
    Successive generations of “buy the poor vote at all costs” liebrals have ensured that the ‘middle class’ pays the vast majority of taxes..remember every budget when the liebrals would always say “this measure will ensure that thousands more Canadians will pay no tax” well…guess who paid their share for them ?
    When someone has the benefit of more disposable income from not working than working, your argument is completely irrelevant… ‘poor’ people should be assisted with living safely, not at the same standard as someone who works to support them… you are entitled to life and liberty, not economic equality.
    This is one of the major problems of today, people feeling that they are ‘entitled’ to a high standard of living with no effort on their part…or to be recompensed for bad decisions on their part by someone who made a wise decision and didn’t sign up for an $80,000 degree in Patagonian basket weaving or the social engineering equivalent or who didn’t decide to drop out of school and smoke dope on the street corner, but instead learned a trade that would pay them well.
    Another is the expectation of having the same amenities and luxuries at the start of their lives as someone who works and saves for many years has amassed.
    This can be traced to the ‘boomers’ who became parents and wanted their kids to have everything they didn’t have as children themselves and their children who decided they’d do the same thing but a lot faster…they fostered the belief in their children that if they didn’t have all of those nice things all the time then someone had to give them to them.
    The bottom line is…if you want more than a subsistance income, you should have to work for it instead of expecting it to be handed to you…but then the mindless moonbats come out and say that “no you don’t..we’ll take someone else’s stuf and give it to you instead” and thus ends society.

  10. “Many of us have been poor and we know what it takes leave that plantation.”
    Wasn’t the point of the article, that you can NOT leave the plantation?
    And oddly enough, a person who works diligently at staying poor can drastically reduce their living expenses.

  11. ct: … and many more in Saskatchewan.
    I’ve owned revenue properties in Saskatoon. Some of my tenants were young adults. They had all the furniture they wanted; a full fridge; nice clothing; older vehicle to drive around in; and enough cash to party occasionally and smoke pot regularly. None had jobs nor ever intended to.
    They did, however, attend a community college program now and then to gain access to baby-sitting services and even more perks.
    Hell, they even managed to pay the high rent I charged … and cover the damage deposit which was most definitely needed for repairs when they moved out. And of course, they enjoyed the same healthcare coverage we all do.
    Work, for them, was a foolish enterprise. Sure, if they wanted to expand beyond what they had, they needed to get a job or take advantage of the government paid for education programs … but for many there was no desire whatsoever to move upwards even though they were surrounded by the fastest growing city and most robust economy in the G8.

  13. “I find those who would accuse me of “driving the poor into the street” are the worst offenders of trying to hold people back from achieving their potential”.
    VERY well said, Rick.
    Helping the poor is SUPPOSED to be about inspiring people to see that they can provide for themselves, creating opportunities for people to take advantage of this inspiration and education to show how NOT to squander the opportunity when it is taken.
    What we have is a feel good system that encourages the status quo, rewards sloth while discouraging effort-based reward and maintains the victim mentality of the participants.
    The easy answer IS to drive them into the streets and let them fight it out themselves. It is the only way that you can ensure the best survive. But create a system that allows the best to leave streets and prosper while leaving the rest to wallow in their self-pity and deal with the other realities that THEIR LACK OF EFFORT has created.

  15. @Steve
    You call yourself conservative, but I suspect the term ‘concern troll’ is more accurate.
    I assume as a ‘conservative’, you’re aware that on average, conservatives give more time and money to charity than those who identify as liberal. Does that sound like “many conservatives flippantly dismiss[ing] the plight of poor people” to you?
    “Drive them into the street and let them fight over scraps?”
    Nice straw man.
    By the way, I assume you’re also aware that America’s and Canada’s ‘poor’ have an obesity problem, not a starvation one.

  16. andycanuck “To quote a famous Canadian, “The ‘poor’ are the rich Jesus warned you about.”
    Why do you think doctors from third world countries fight for jobs driving cabs in Canada? Who is poor is relative.

  18. It’s supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock. When you fall into the net you are supposed to immediately get back on the ladder and climb back up onto the highwire with the productive people.

  19. Now factor in that around 50% of the population doesn’t pay taxes.
    The problem is only going to grow as more and more earners are forced into the poor zone through over taxation to pay for all this. While at the same time being denied the same benefits that the entitled poor receive.

  21. I think what the table is trying to say is that the marginal taxes one pays when one starts earning are not just the fairly low 10-15% that the IRS tax tables would indicate, but actually much higher due to the loss of low income “entitlements,” and I use that term in a sarcastic sense, but that’s another issue.
    If tax rates were blended downwards, compensating for benefit losses as one’s income increases, so as to avoid the step jumps in tax liability, then that would seem to be a better way to encourage people to work and pay taxes, rather than penalizing them to work.
    How come no one is talking about this?

  22. victim toews – you are showing your ignorance of both the nature of poverty and wealth production in an economy. Your focus on ‘pity the poor’ is patronizing and ignorant of both the poor and the wealthy.
    First, most of us on this thread are not talking about the genuinely poor, those who are poor by virtue of being unable to work due to a valid, not fraudulent cause – a real medical or psychological illness. We all acknowledge the gift of compassion and charity in these cases.
    We are talking about something that you seem to ignore. Are you aware that the net income of all these people is relatively the same? Why and how?
    We are talking about the growing entrance into the economy of people who CHOOSE not to work and to instead, live off the govt. Got that?
    We acknowledge that not all people are intellectually equal; we can’t all be mathematical physicists. We must also acknowledge that not all of us have the intellectual capacity or will or financial or family support to go to university, or know the colleague who will help us get the public service job or…
    This means that someone who has spent many years and money in education, to be, let’s say, a researcher in biomedical engineering, and, due to his hard work, makes a high salary – sees it reduced more and more by the govt to fund, more and more, people who have CHOSEN not to work. Do you think this is fair to expect this of that hard-working biomedical worker?
    Then, there’s something else you ignore. That’s the nature of wealth production in an economy. Wealth, which simply means surplus-above-basic-consumption, is vital in an economy.
    This wealth is not stored in old socks by the rich – as the Occupiers and Left seem to firmly believe. It doesn’t emerge out of a Magic Cauldron which seems to be the theme of the left. It emerges from the profits of PRIVATE small and medium businesses. What’s the point of wealth?
    Well, all economies operate within a triadic set of three phases: Investment. Production. Consumption.
    Wealth must be INVESTED in long term projects – the factory, developing raw resources, roads, trains, the research for new drugs and technologies… This money is invested for the long term.
    Then, this enables PRODUCTION of goods, hiring of workers, transporting goods etc. This is medium term, ie, budgets for the month and year.
    To be CONSUMED. This is short term.
    Now, if an economy focuses only on CONSUMPTION, which is short term, and doesn’t enable the production of surplus wealth for Investment and Production…guess what? The economy screeches to a halt.
    A govt that taxes the wealth away from those who could invest that money…and instead distributes to those who don’t make wealth..has set up an economy that cannot generate new jobs, can’t invest in new factories. All its wealth is taken by the govt and used for CONSUMPTION.
    Disastrous. Do you understand? This has zilch to do with ‘compassion for the poor’ but with a hard look at the results of transforming more and more of the population from working, and creating wealth..to becoming dependent on govt distribution.

  23. Too few folks seem to understand that pain is a good thing… it makes you want to NOT do stupid stuff.
    The poor should suffer, so they won’t want to be poor any more. Yes, a compassionate society will strive to diminish the pain a little, but only a little.
    The main goal of society with respect to the poor is to provide a path for them to lift themselves out of poverty, not to make them comfortable there.

  24. Posted by: Victim Toews at February 21, 2012 10:13 AM..Lord, there are some cold, cruel, angry people here. Jesus would weep to read these comments.
    Not cold, cruel or angry. Just realistic and pragmatic. When you have economic policies that profess to help the poor, by making more poor, how does this help anyone. It is a downward spiral that usually results in upheaval and violence. This chart is a perfect example. People who produce have the fruits of their labour taken away to pay for the entitlements the unproductive receive. How does this help anyone. The productive become less productive, this is a fact. The productive ones start gauging the system, balancing their productivity so as to receive the most entitlements. So more money is transferred from an ever dwindling pot. So government is forced to raise taxes, or invent new revenue streams, such as fees. It really is quite that simple. I am all about empowering the individual. Get rid of Income tax, reduce government to bare bones, reduce wages and benefits for the public sector, nobody is supposed to be well off working for the taxpayer. Charities would well fill the gap in the absence of a government imposed one. This poll is enlightening…People who said they were “very conservative” gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; “conservatives” gave 3.6%; “moderates” gave 3%; “liberals” gave 1.5%; and “very liberal” folks gave 1.2%. That poll explains everything I need to know about why the system is the way it is and what we are up against.

  25. Posted by: theredsuit at 10:55 AM
    “The problem is only going to grow as more and more earners are forced into the poor zone through over taxation to pay for all this”
    And compare the reproduction rates; the productive save, plan, adjust for risk.
    The others, well, not so much.
    Overtaxation is eliminating the middle class.
    Indexed pension job-for-life gubmint ‘workers’, and their clientele have no such need for caution.
    This would make an interesting study for a faculty of social studies, but it will not happen due to it’s unwanted outcome.

  26. ET, well said. As usual.
    Unfortunately, even if the new Resident Troll were to agree with you 100% he wouldn’t admit it or engage in an honest, productive discussion.
    Lest we forget, the wonderful thing about being on the Left is never having to apologize … for anything … ever.

  27. Posted by: ET at 11:29 AM
    “Now, if an economy focuses only on CONSUMPTION, which is short term, and doesn’t enable the production of surplus wealth for Investment and Production…guess what? The economy screeches to a halt”
    ET, quite right! The essential condition to create wealth is for the ability of an individual to advance themselves through effort and ingenuity to go unpunished.
    Eliminating the capacity to create wealth will result in the inevitable decline of that society
    ET, you gave a perfect description of:
    Greece, Obamastan, Quebec, Ontario…

  28. As ET and others have pointed out – it is all about productivity.
    But that ‘prize-winning’ nut case, Paul Krugman cannot even grasp that productivity eliminates poverty in a society. So what hope is there for those who read the NY Times?

  29. I used to give a lot of money to charity and then I looked at the tax tables and said wow the government is doing it for me now. So I stopped. Just part of the unseen consequences I guess.

  30. To the concerned copy and paste obama twooth squad. If you “give” a person a fish you feed them for a day. If you “teach” a person to fish you feed them for life. Now take your time and think about that w/o running to obama for quotes to copy and paste. Key words are give and teach. Sometimes the only cure for laziness is a good swift kick to the posterior. Its a teaching tool.

  31. trapped in trudopia – yes, that’s exactly what has happened in Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain etc), and in Quebec (which relies on the ROC to make up for its own refusal to enable wealth production)..and now, Ontario.
    When an economy removes the capacity-to-produce wealth from its population, by disabling the private business system with high taxes and regulations, and by disabling investment capacity by high personal taxes – the economy collapses.
    When a govt removes this wealth from the private sector for consumption distribution, it doesn’t enable more wealth production. More and more of this wealth goes for daily consumption not for investment. Then, as investment funds dry up, businesses flee the country. They go to China, to India, to places where their wealth remains for them to use in expanding business, hiring more workers. Small businesses go bankrupt or reduce their operations.
    And, as tax wealth dries up, govts resort to borrowing. So, you see the US in debt for trillions because the public is used to ‘their entitlements’. You see the riots in Greece, because they are used to retiring at the age of 59, to low productivity, to many entitlements…and the economy can’t sustain this.
    This is the problem in the native Reserve system (a particular focus of Victim Toew’s posts) – which also only focus on Consumption and ignore any capacity for their own production of wealth.
    Living in a fictional world of consumption, where you only focus on money-for-consumption, without thinking that the other two facets of the economy – Investment and Production – also require funding….is extremely naive.

  32. Rick, ditto here. Lunch was sparse on occasion forty-eight years ago.
    ET, well said and thank you.
    Using the name “Jesus” is a code word for Marx in an attempt to instill guilt and is part of the new Leftianity terminology.

  33. Overtaxation is eliminating the middle class…
    I couldn’t agree with you more!
    What can we do about it? As a first step, I propose a surtax on government salaries sufficient to bring them in line with the private sector. Call it a clawback, if you will, but seeing that their salaries are 100% paid for through your taxes, that seems only fair. Posit a surtax rate of 25% (to equalize the take home pay) and that would satisfy me for the short term.
    We need to cut entitlements by linking them to work as a prereequeisite and level the tax code so that there are no step functions or dirac delta functions embedded therein. The welfare reform act of the 1990’s went a little bit towards that goal…we need to go further.
    No one should have their lifestyle supported by taxation, except in the case of true and verified disability. Drug abuse is not a disability. Neither is running out of unemployment benefits. Nor being a government drone.

  34. I’m a conservative…yada yada, What do you expect our society should do with the poor?
    ~Steve Macdonald
    Conservatives don’t think “society” should do anything with the poor.
    That there is “socialist/collectivist” thinking, which you’d understand if you were a conservative.
    When the global economic collapse comes because of socialism#and it’s just around the corner#, there are going to be more poor than ever in human history and they are going to be worse off than ever with few people having anything surplus to help them out.
    You be sure to thank socialists and their forcing “society” to provide these last 7 or so decades.

  35. It looks like “Victim Toews” decided to squat at SDA and set up his own dirty little OWS tent after finding it the other day. Remember he became incensed when rational people pointed out that he was allowing special interest groups to mentally abuse and physically use his children.
    The trolls keep coming around here don’t they?
    The humorous part is that they think they’re unique and have some sort of special incite to offer other than their reeking mental illness.

  37. @ Knight 99 at February 21, 2012 12:51 PM
    “The trolls keep coming around here don’t they?”
    All true, but to debate anything we need opposing views. Even some trolls have interesting perspectives. Cheap entertainment. Beats the garbage on TV 🙂

  38. “God what hateful people”. I know people living off another persons effort are the worst. Hoser

  39. Peterj >
    I’ll give you the entertainment value with these clowns but not the opposing views. For most of them it’s simply arguing against the prevailing logic for the sake of argument until it eventually descends into infantile name calling and ad hominem attacks.
    ‘Victim Toews” trolling proved this on the last thread with text book accuracy.
    It’s like a peek into madness. I suppose it is good to know what kind of societal mental illness we are up against, but in all reality it is not at all complicated when you see the parroted language and tactics drawn from their leftist echo chambers.
    Sheeple with far too much time on their hands, kindly breaks it down to the lowest common denominator.

  40. victim – stop with the personal insults and stick to the issues. You are totally missing the point.
    What you are ignoring, is the growth of a massive ratio, within an economy, of a dependent class. It’s up to 45% and higher. No economy can maintain such a ratio.
    These people are defined as ‘poor’ but the economy doesn’t examine how it is generating such a high ratio of people defined as poor and thus as dependent on govt funds.
    This is a serious economic issue – what kind of economy sets up such a high ratio of its population unable to produce wealth, even enough to maintain themselves? Why, even a non-industrial local agricultural economy doesn’t have such a high ratio of non-producers.
    Why is this happening here – in an industrial economy? And understand this – no economy can sustain such an unbalanced ratio of non-producers to producers.
    You are ignoring this – and are instead, CHOOSING (ah, gosh, there’s that emphatic word again!) to focus only on your feelings of pity. That’s rather sanctimonious – to pity them rather than examining what is going on in the economy.
    And when one does examine the economy, we find that the genuinely poor are a small ratio but the high ratio is because a large proportion of these people have CHOSEN (!!!) to live this way, have removed themselves from the work market – because they actually, financially, benefit from this.
    They get housing, food, medical care etc – without work. And many of them supplement this with black market activities. So – they do just fine. You can see this in the chart; the guys who work, net almost the same as those who don’t work. Hmmm. Why are you ignoring this?
    You refuse to examine the serious problems – economic problems – when an economy has removed its capacity-for-INVESTMENT and PRODUCTION and has instead, focused only on CONSUMPTION.
    Now – without the insults, try again. Focus on the issues.

  41. Some poor hate the life so much even their children’s children,live in the same style.
    We provide a helping hand. What where not supposed to do is give them the whole hand to kill any ambition. Just ask an Indian or those who dwell in the wastelands of Detroit. Lot of good thats done them for generations.
    Indolence will do that.
    For the truly sick & Infirm I have no problems with.
    Its the guy who can work that drives people nuts.

  43. I ran into a similar phenomenon when my income started rising quickly after we moved to Alberta. Prior to this time, we were getting a large amount through Child Tax Credits (monthly children’s government ‘allowance’). At the time, I was working on the side with my uncles framing houses. In good conscience, I couldn’t not claim these earnings, but I found that through a combination of income tax and clawbacks from the child tax credit amounts, that I was only earning 3$/hour building houses, instead of the $15/hour I was being paid. My solution: quit the framing. Our society has to quit these perverse disincentives if we want people, including poor people, to have the will to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

  44. You know, I really love it when another of these Lefty righteous imbeciles gets on here and starts in telling us how heartless we all are.
    Two things, trolltoes. First, and most deliciously, I must remind you that the Liberals LOST the last election. So your views are no longer steering this country. Sucks to be you.
    Second, a question. What are the poor in Greece going to do after the gubmint money stops? After the rioting part, I mean.

  45. Victim Toews >
    “BTW, I am not talking feelings………. …………. Step back and think about it: would you really want to be poor in Mississippi?” – Victim Toews.
    LOL – The Victim 🙂
    “Now I am far from poor” – Victim Toews.
    Great, give your money away not ours. A little like Warren Buffet whining about his secretary paying more income tax than him, yet no one is stopping him from donating money to the IRS. In fact you can find a “click button” to donate at nearly every government website. Knock yourself out.

  46. What a maroon. How about referring to Steve Jobs about why manufacturing is moving out of the US. As he told face to face with Obama it is almost impossible to set up a factory in the US due to unnecessary costs and regulations.
    And by the way, you ignorant clown, ET is a great lady and doesn’t deserve to be insulted by a fool like you. Why she bothers to even waste her time explaining the real world to you is beyond my understanding.

  47. So what is wrong with workhouses? A sensible and humane alternative to starvation.
    Bring back workhouses!

  48. victim – I said – STOP the insults. Are you unable to have a mature discussion? Insults are juvenile; why do you resort to them? You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your insults and name-calling.
    What do you mean – ‘as usual I am bluffing’. Kindly provide evidence of my ever bluffing about my arguments and comments.
    “Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data.”
    That is, CONSUMPTION wealth, for 35% of the total ‘income’ of the population, is provided by the govt.
    “A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And 63 percent of all federal spending this year will consist of checks written to individuals for which the government receives currently no services, the White House budget office estimates. That’s up from 46 percent in 1975 and 18 percent in 1940.”
    “The census figure showing 49 percent of Americans, or about 147 million people, live in households where someone gets a federal benefit, is from the first quarter of 2010, the most recent numbers available, according to the bureau. ”
    Got that? 49% of Americans live in a household where someone receives a govt benefit.
    “In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, the percentage increased to 10%.[19] In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system.[20] Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government.[21] In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.[22]”Wiki)
    Thus, almost 29% in 2008 of women-headed families were using govt services, and we know that this has increased under Obama.
    Those who do NOT contribute, tax wise, to the economy in the US, are about 47% of the population. Therefore, my point about 45% of the population being DEPENDENT on the govt, which gets its funds from elsewhere – is a valid point.
    No economy can function with those ratios, which includes the 47% who do not contribute taxes for any govt services (education, roads, hospitals, security etc), and the 30% who receive personal household benefits and the 45% of families where someone receives a benefit.
    I will not, ever, bring in my own lifestyle or life history. I operate within facts, logic, reason, so, your attempt to belittle me with ‘obviously you’ve never been poor’ betrays an arrogant and ignorant attitude.
    You state that we delcare that “all poor people are lazy and forever in poverty”. That’s a lie; if you would bother to read the posts, no-one is, even once, using the Universal. We are all referring to the rise in the ratio of the population dependent on govt subsidies. This rise is economically unsound and requires explanation.
    You refuse to consider this question.
    Your reference to the military strength of the US is irrelevant to this issue. Totally irrelevant. We can have a debate about the value of the US military to world peace (and I think that there IS such a value) at another time.
    I agree that the housing mortgage fiasco in the US was a disaster – brought in by the Democrats and the ‘bleeding heart’ perspective that insisted that mortgage loans be made, on pain of penalty to the bank, to people who were totally unable to fund a mortgage. That’s part of the patronizing attitude of the left – and it leads to economic disaster.
    Again, what you refuse to consider, with your short-sighted, shallow and irrational focus on ‘being poor’ – is the economic infrastructure of a society where such a great proportion of its population is not contributing to the wealth capacity of the society but is instead, ‘consuming’ that wealth. NO economy can sustain such a mode of operation; NO economy can function when such a large proportion of its wealth is, rather than being invested,…is consumed for daily needs.
    Such an economy, that exists only within daily needs requirements, loses its capacity to sustain itself in the future. The US and other countries, with their increasing focus on an ‘entitlement economy’ (which is focused only around CONSUMPTION) – are losing their Investment and Production capacities. To keep up with Consumption, they have moved into massive debt.
    Disastrous. Now, Victim, how about some ‘feelings’ for the disastrous state of the economy? Oh- and again, grow up; stop with the insults.

  49. Robbing Peter to pay Paul to get elected or re-elected works until you run out Peters, like Greece and eventually the whole EU. That will be Obamas’, Pelosi and Reid’s legacy in the US: running the Peters out of Dodge.

  50. Vic T. said:
    “Lord, there are some cold, cruel, angry people here. Jesus would weep to read these comments.”
    Vic T. again:
    “BTW, I am not talking feelings.”
    If you can’t be a dispassionate, honest, and consistent poster for your cause, I have no reason to trust the rest of your emotional outbursts.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation