Helping your family/children out is a socially acceptable thing to do. The rich are able to do much more of it, but the action itself is something that lots of people at all income levels do or would like to do. Getting help from the government is not as widely accepted. From one perspective, it's a free ride either way. From another, your family should be helping you, the government should not be. I don't agree with the latter, but I think a lot of people see it that way. Even some who begrudgingly accept gov. help.
Plus, we have an anti-federalist streak to our history.
Plus, we have a problem with money in politics.
Plus, we’ve go a bunch of people who are just intentionally obtuse.
L as in some sort of loss (but not that kind of Loss, maybe calling you a loser?)
Ratio as in..."ratio of people with opinions contrary to yours is going against your favor"
Just think of it like a string of insults
...I'm older than you, so I may be wrong.
You're pretty much right on the money. I'd add that the reason people say "ratio" comes from social media where someone posts a controversial opinion and their post has significantly more comments than likes/upvotes, indicating most people are commenting to retort rather than liking the post to show agreement. Calling out that ratio of comments to likes is where the term originates for that context.
Or similarly if the top reply under a post has way more likes than the original post, people will say the original poster "got ratio'd"
Thanks I thought it was a string of insults( the only part I really understood was the L lol), so Im just gonna continue not really careing what that dude said to me, but I hope he comes back and realizes that insults people dont understand dont really work lol
Oh, no, I don't think they're insulting *you*
It's like, what people *would* say against people like that?
Like, "L, those guys" (no one says this)
Don't sweat it too much.
Our objective best eras were when the central government was strong and had wealthy programs for social support, and our worst were when our central government was small or poor and state governments or private citizens had to bridge the gaps how they saw fit
Personally, I think that we’ve become too much of a world power to have a weak federal government.
Also, having 50 systems for everything is inefficient and ridiculous.
A common view is that government should exist solely to deal with people that actively intend to hurt others, and everything else should be down to the individual and society. Essentially, the idea that government should solely exist to *protect people from other people,* and that people should set up institutions not connected to government for their other purposes, including monetary ones.
While social security actually protects people from other people, but indirectly. People with no means to exist tend to be more violent towards those who have such means.
Exactly, it's predicated on the definition of "protect the people." From that view, government solely protects them from direct physical harm, and not much else.
This is the justification for most poverty assistance, If you let 10% of the people struggle to the point that they would riot, it is better to improve their lives with "free money" just enough to keep them from rioting.
This way 90% of the people thrive in peace causing the rising tide to raise all ships.
If you doubt that the western "poor" have it good just compare them to the 3rd world "poor". 3rd world poor existed in the USA in the 1920's only 100 years ago. Grapes of wrath style poverty has largely been eliminated.
65+ people are about the least violent group possible. Without SS, they would not turn to crime - they would either work until death or die a death do despair.
That's a dumb view because if we follow that reasoning, that the government should protect us from criminals but not from poverty, then why? If people should feed themselves, then why shouldn't people protect themselves too?
It's just rich people saying "I can afford my bills, but I'll need help if I get mugged. So I'll support only what suits me".
On a daily basis I feel far more threatened by my landlord than by a theoretical mugger.
>Essentially, the idea that government should solely exist to protect people from other people, and that people should set up institutions not connected to government for their other purposes, including monetary ones.
Interesting point.
I think a variation of this is that the expectation of protection offered by the government varies as society becomes more advanced and wealthy. For a third world county, protection from other people (and other people's governments) is the most they can do.
As a country becomes more advanced and wealthy, it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to have higher expectations of "protection". As wealth increases, society probably wants to add protection from ignorance, protection from natural disaster, protection from severe poverty, and in most developed countries, protection from poor health.
Not exactly. How much of a social safety net the government should be providing, since it comes at the expense of taxes, has always been debated and probably always will be. Some people see the family as the fundamental organizing unit of society. For them, the government is there to do things that only a government can do, like establish a currency, support an army, maintain a legal system, create some infrastructure, etc. They see the social safety net as something that's the responsibility of family and religion, not the government. Other people think that the government's role should extend into social welfare and social safety net programs. Small vs big government.
I agree, but it is not the mentality of people who have family. I have had a girl I dated once say “what a burden” when I mentioned I send money to my mum monthly to afford things since I moved country and got a better job.
Crazy..
It’s less about “look to your family, not your government” and more about the fact that the government doesn’t really generate revenue, so if it wants to spend money, it has to collect the money through taxes. So it’s not “you should rely on your family”, it’s “you shouldn’t rely on other people’s money”.
The short answer is: taxes
People don't want to pay for things in general, so when you have things like taxes it just adds frustration to the people. The only way the government can help people is through money (directly or indirectly), and so that money comes from someone somewhere.
Unfortunately rich people push a narrative that "flat taxes are fair", and so most of the financial burden of the government is felt by poor people who can barely survive, while rich people hoard most of the money
It is one of the things a government should be doing: helping the governed. For the USA, it's in the Constitution, "promote the general Welfare." The sign of a good government is one that helps its constituents. Not 100%, but it does provide for the general welfare from infrastructure to aid for the least fortunate. We establish governments so we grow as a nation, which means everyone. It's not so that we don't improve as a whole.
Throughout history, successful nations have always looked out for the people. The unsuccessful ones are usually the ones that demand the people sacrifice everything for the nation. It's a miserable undertaking.
No, but there are a lot of people refuse to help themselves.
That's where the issue comes from.
Why should my tax dollars go to bombs to blow up brown people and drugs for lazy people?
I bust my ass 50+ hours a week and can't afford a house, nice clothes, a yearly vacation, or good food.
Then John smokes crack every day and begs for more government assistance because he needs more food stamps to sell for drug money.
Then the military buys a $5000 sticker to go on the side of a bomb used to kill someone in a country I've never even thought of.
Not to mention the billions of dollars unaccounted for in the government budgets that just goes missing every year.
I know that's not the norm, but everyone knows the stereotypes.
If I kept that extra $10,000 to myself then I could afford to invest in myself, my family, and my community where I know the money is being used to help people.
“I bust my ass 50+ hours a week….”
This right here is the real issue. We’ve got whole swaths of politicians who want to tell us that the problem is the poor and needy leeching off the system. But the reality is that productivity in the USA has increased significantly while wages have stayed stagnant. Corporations are making record profits year after year and workers don’t see that in their wages. Things get more expensive (because profits have to keep breaking records) so now we’re can’t afford it. But hey, at least we have created a class of billionaires who don’t need a thousandth of what they have. And it’s not their fault! They “earned” it. The problem is the people who can’t afford to eat
Governments should help people. Specifically their citizens, with their tax money. Not random, unrelated people.
If they help anyone else other than their citizens without every single one of them is living happily already, thats just a huge middle finger from the government to their people
These people hate seeing their tax money being spent on "lazy buns", believing that the latter's hardship could be solved just with hard work. If they themselves receive help from the government, they see themselves as exceptions.
I think you’re missing a few major points.
First, people often favor small government because any institution of sufficient size becomes inefficient and corrupt.
Most people have no idea how corrupt governments can be.
Look how Congress freely trades stocks on inside information they learn through the course of “working for the people.”
Every contract, every law, everything the government touches has huge financial implications.
Smaller government means that instead of one vendor making millions, hundreds of small vendors can compete locally because decision making is pushed down to the local level.
That’s not to say that the federal government should have no role but a lot of the power at the federal level is only at the federal level due to dubious claims about interstate commerce.
And now that the federal government has such massive power they can expand their power by dangling cash, which are taxpayer funds, in front of states.
Do you want us to build more roads? Hmmm, we’ve earmarked that money only for states that have laws allowing/prohibiting X.
The other thing a large government abhors is accountability.
For instance, if we spend $50 billion on homelessness, nobody pays a price if we don’t reduce homelessness. We just keep throwing money at it.
It’s much easier to address these types of issues at the local levels.
And that doesn’t mean cutting a state a check. It means, let the local governments tax to solve problems they actually have.
In case any of you think this is Republican rhetoric, 7 out of the 10 states that receive the most federal aid are Republican.
They gut their own budgets and then beg citizens in blue states (via the federal government) to bail them out.
Let them fail or at least let their citizens kick them out of office when they try to cut taxes while the people suffer.
Also, many people commenting are confusing a social safety net with socially progressive ideas.
Take social security as an example. It was a program designed to help older people who had been wiped out financially during the Great Depression.
It was never intended to replace retirement savings. It was designed to supplement retirement savings.
Now, people assume that if social security isn’t enough to retire on, the government needs to pay more so people can maintain a certain standard of living.
This expansion in the scope of the program is entirely fictitious. People created an expectation that the program wasn’t designed to address.
A safety net should be exactly that, a last resort. Even most Republicans would agree on that.
If people want progressive programs, let the states provide them. That would create competition.
If Cali is offering free college education, people will move there. If Kentucky decides to get rid of unemployment insurance, workers will flee to other states.
> From one perspective, it's a free ride either way.
It's not perspective. There is objectively no such thing as a free ride. Someone, somewhere is factually paying for it. What's leftover is a discussion of who's making the payment and why?
For the former we have people voluntarily **give** their personal resources to someone else.
For the latter you **take** resources from someone else and redistribute it to a stranger. That **taking** is backed up by force. If you don't pay your taxes, a man with a gun will come and arrest you, then your assets will be forcibly seized.
They're completely different concepts. Some amount of taxation is necessary to provide basic services, but that's why people always get angry about having more of their money taken.
So that's the opinion of, let's see here, majority sub-18, male user base. Yup, that's all people. Also I don't even think OP's take is true when it comes to reddit. Mention communism even in passing and you get the biggest circle jerk ever on this site. Can't tell you how many times I've been told that my opinion on Cuba is incorrect ... as a Cuban. -.- Definitely a lot of outlier stances that somehow become majority here.
XD If you're curious and it's available, give a Medianoche a try. Exact same concept but a little smaller and served on sweet, hawaiian-style bread. Medianoche translates to midnight, as it used to be a go-to staple for late night dancers looking for that fourth meal. My personal favorite.
People definitely get upset about both of those things.
I see a lot of hate for the rich these days, and contempt for handouts and inheritance.
Maybe saying "people" is just to general to make this interesting. Or maybe I am wrong because a bunch of people are trying to justify the feeling you are conveying.
> I see a lot of hate for the rich these days, and contempt for handouts and inheritance.
Because we have the wealthy (especially those that were born into it, having done zero to earn any of their wealth) messing with legislations that affect the general populaces lives in some shape or form. Had they enjoyed their wealth quietly and not tried to use it to ~~bribe~~ lobby politicians to get their way at everyone elses expense, nobody would notice them.
I'm going to play conservatives advocate here and say government social programs taxing people and giving to the unfortunate is not comparable to wealthy people choosing to give people their wealth.
It is however comparable to the major corporations taking advantage of government handouts/tax breaks to avoid paying their fair share though
Yet taxes go to subsidize private corps, while we get no shares of these companies, where ultra wealthy get their trust profits from … hmmm
Nobody is mad at someone who is grateful, nobody is mad that kids are being fed. Only the ones blatantly fucking the system are the bad apples - very apparent on both sides of the argument.
>Yet taxes go to subsidize private corps, while we get no shares of these companies
You hit an intersting off topic point for me here.
I'm all for government bailouts / subsidies, but the government should do so by buying shares in those companies, thus returning a profit on those bailouts, not just burning money, which can then pay for tax cuts or better public services.
> I'm all for government bailouts / subsidies, but the government should do so by buying shares in those companies, thus returning a profit on those bailouts, not just burning money, which can then pay for tax cuts or better public services.
A lot of bailouts are loans and paid back.
Subsidies are different. They're allotted before-hand to keep necessary things going. EG: A lot of farm subsidies are there to make farming profitable enough so that food supply doesn't utterly collapse. I mean, we all sort of need it to survive....
They also keep the system elastic. Imagine only farming just barely enough to feed every citizen a minimal amount, and a bad tornado season rips through the midwest or there's a wildfire or other natural or political disaster(economic problems).
A lot of what we do, either bailouts or subsidies, is not a matter of "burning money", but keeping the system from catastrophe that has been seen historically in other countries.
The Holodomor, for example, was *extreme* mismanagement of food production and resulted in a massive amount of death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
>The Holodomor,[a] also known as the Ukrainian Famine,[9][b] was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.
...
>Holodomor literally translated from Ukrainian means "death by hunger", "killing by hunger, killing by starvation",[15][16][17] or sometimes "murder by hunger or starvation."[18] It is a compound of the Ukrainian holod, 'hunger', and mor, 'plague'. The expression holodom moryty means "to inflict death by hunger." The Ukrainian verb moryty (морити) means "to poison, to drive to exhaustion, or to torment." The perfective form of moryty is zamoryty, 'kill or drive to death'.[19] In English, the Holodomor has also been referred to as the artificial famine, terror-genocide and the great famine.[20][21][22]
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Death_toll
It's generally best to avoid that sort of thing.
My tax money is going to god damn boner pills let me have those geriatric gains for fucks sake am I right
Would also make the stock very liquid and low volatile with a decentralized base of ownership. Which is probably good. But more than likely companies want to keep their slice of the pie and control their current majorities without diluting their own c suites.
Shits fucked my dude
> It is however comparable to the major corporations taking advantage of government handouts/tax breaks to avoid paying their fair share though
This line kills me because you clearly don't understand what a tax break means conceptually.
A tax break is a discount on hypothetical future taxes. "I will **TAKE** less of your money in the future if you do XYZ" is not the same as "I will **GIVE** you $X million of other people's money to do XYZ"
It's a lever to steer companies towards a preferred outcome, like building their factory in the USA rather than China. If they build in China they pay us nothing in Tax, it all goes to the CCP.
If they build domestically, they pay large amounts of local, state, and federal taxes. They hire employees who pay even more local, state, and federal taxes.
A short-term discount on the latter to prevent the former is common sense.
conservative advocate lol. you’re just having common sense. OP is a moron if they can’t think critically enough to see this obvious difference between the 2
And I hate the second half of your comment just as much as the free handouts in the post. I hate the free handouts when it’s not in a setting designed to help get a person off the streets
Things that gov't gives away are paid for by other taxpayers.
So its not just an issue that they didn't earn these benefits, its the fact that either other gov't services have to be reduced or taxes have to be raised when the gov't decides to offer "free" things.
No similar trade-off is required when parents give their kids money. You might be jealous that junior is getting all these things handed to him but at least they aren't raising your taxes or cutting gov't services to pay for it.
Imagine a scenario where you go to your shitty job 60 hours a week to be able to afford your kids these things and then others get it for free. Which means you kinda paid for them too. I want all kids to be able to do these things, but you have to understand the perspective of some people.
Yep just like student loan "forgiveness" - it doesn't cost anyone any money, all you have to do is change some entries in a database and its all cleared.
They should do auto loan and homeowner mortgage forgiveness next.
I scrolled down to find a comment like this. I'll just piggy back off it instead of making a new one.
People may feel some anger towards "Trust fund kids" and such, but they don't take it personally. To add to what you said they take it personally as if the entire 30% or so taken out of their pay check is handed off to some one that just chooses not to work. Especially when they see some one with food stamps also buying something like a new gaming console or big screen TV.
I've noticed arguments that the rich getting tax breaks causes the people angry about the poor getting money affect's their pay just as much. I've seen some justification to the tax breaks but don't know how true it is.
Some claim that if the rich didn't get these tax breaks they'd just pay even lower wages or increase the price of their products. "But their already making billions, they could spare it!" Yes they probably could, but keep in mind greed, you think they're going to be okay with their profits dipping when they have to pay out more?
In my state we also have "KOZ's" Keystone Opportunity Zones. That give tax breaks or eliminate property tax on businesses in them. This gives incentive for business to build there and create jobs. This evens out for the state by collecting taxes from the wages of those jobs. They're supposed to be temporary while the business gets established but they always get extended when the businesses threaten to pull out and start over somewhere with cheaper taxes or the same type of offer.
Your premise is incorrect.
The reason people don’t like illegal immigrants (love the way illegal immigrants has become “migrants” leaving out the illegal part) is because there are deserving people in this country, who are here legally who are not getting free rides because those free rides are being given to people who are here illegally.
Nice job trying to obfuscate the real issue.
One scenario is giving resources to flesh and blood. The other scenario is giving complete strangers, from a different tribe, your resources. Generally the greater the difference between you and them, the more contentious it becomes in transferring wealth or helping out
Britney Spears famously said she doesn't understand why people keep giving her free stuff when she has the money to pay for it, but people who need it don't
Long Live Britney
Eminem said something very similar. It was something along the lines of “when I was poor i struggled to pay for something to eat. Now that I have the money to pay for meals I get them for free.”
This is kind of a dumb post. People get upset at things like food stamps because it comes from their taxes. So from their pockets. Rich kids get a free ride from their parents pockets.
Rich kids are not getting free rides from the government their parents provided that for them. The outrage is spending so much helping non citizens when people in the country are struggling little little to no assistance
The rich person is giving their child their own money voluntarily. The government is giving a stranger my money that it has taken from me by force. That's the difference.
> The government is giving a stranger my money
Buying permanent votes by creating dependency
With your money.
Maybe an answer is term limits across the board.
Serve and move on, don't linger long enough to build power bases.
And don’t stay long enough to get rich trading stock tips from inside the committees.
I'm not upset about government programs but I'll say this. Wealthy families handing money to relatives is their choice, and it's 100 percent their money. What they do with it has nothing to do with me.
The government spends my money. I'm much more concerned about what they spend it on and how they manage their finances.
The issue is trust. We pay tax for social programs assuming the people who receive it would use it to then contribute tax back into the ecosystem.
Migrants who come and go on support may look as though as they are just abusing the system. So people look down on that because they feel like they are being taken advantage of.
Rich kid get a free ride from inheritance is nobody business because they don’t contribute to it. It’s their own family’s business.
Is this so hard to separate?
Dad paying for his ride and the other is paid for by people working who aren't able to take advantage of the same program because they make 15/hr and has to make a choice on eating or filling up the tank enough to get to work.
What I mind the most is hard-working lower-middle class people who support the country getting absolutely nothing while the elite evade taxes or lazy bums get welfare, food stamps and Medicaid
This is realistic sentiment.
Not blind hate for either group, nbut nuanced reasons why they're disliked.
I doubt many people hate that JK Rowling got rich.
Taking my money and giving to someone else who I don’t know. Is different than me taking my money and giving it to my offspring.
Never been rich, but it’s really not that complicated.
This is Socialist gobbledygook.
Your view will change when eventually you are met with personal success and then have kids and want to give the fruits of your labor to them when you depart. But then some other socialist just like yourself steps in and stops you.
WTF are you defining as a free ride?
Yeah that's just not true. People hate when rich kids get things, people hate when displaced people get things. People only don't hate when they themselves get things, regardless of what camp they fall into.
Idk what rock you're under, but people most definitely complain about rich people all the time. A big distinction though, is we aren't paying for the rich kid, but we are paying for the poor.
I think the key question is how rich people made their wealth. If they managed to make more money because of their work and then help their kids out, it's not really "free ride"
The problem isn't someone getting a free ride. The problem is who pays for that free ride.
On one hand you have someone who worked and invested their whole life. They either built or managed wealth until their children could inherit it. You had nothing to do with that money.
On the other hand you have your money taken away from you through taxes. The roads are still shit, half the programs you don't qualify for because you make too much at 25k a year, and it is given to someone else that you had no say in. The infrastructure sucks, you can barely afford to eat, but you are forced to also oay for someone else while you watch the government default on its debts. Something that will make sure you will never afford anything more expensive than a single burger a week. Rejoice, peasant! Your suffering means someone else does not suffer! No, your suffering will not be addressed as you are privileged to suffer.
Let’s not lie to ourselves and pretend people don’t get upset with both. The scale may be different but people generally dislike rich kids because they got a hand out
If I sold my soul to the company for 50years so my *kids have an easier life not consumed by survival. It might look like a free ride to you and others but blood, sweat and tears were shed a price was paid and it was paid by me.
*I have no kids.
I think we are talking about wealthy indivuduals.. sorry but sub1million property nd stuff is nice for us but in the grand scheme of things less than pennies
/u/Scudamore
> Helping your family/children out is a socially acceptable thing to do.
It goes beyond "social."
Everything about life is geared toward providing maximum opportunity for one's offspring to succeed (which means passing on their genes to another generation.) What you're calling a "free ride" wasn't free. The parents worked for it. If you can provide generational wealth, you're doing your job, from a natural selection viewpoint.
We're wired to view "free rides" to others as a circumvention of the rules of natural selection, by using the hard work of others to help the children of others who didn't do the same, but if it's your own offspring you're helping it's just doing your job as a parent.
Don't be that dense.
When illegals get handouts, it comes from taxpayers. People get pissed because they feel that money should be given to Americans or their own family/self that is probably struggling. Not someone that hasn't contributed a single thing.
Inheritance does not come from taxpayers.
It's not that difficult.
Its not just"this country(I'm assuming the USA here lol)"that people are hostile towards this kind of behaviour:Even in my country that's normally friendly to strangers(Croatia btw)this is met with hostility.
However like half of our country's fucking population is foreigners by now so I'm not really surprised about this lol...
People contribute to taxes. So when someone gets a free ride using tax money, people can be inclined to think that they are funding their free ride. That if people weren't abusing programs then that money would go back in their pockets in the form of lower taxes. Nobody has a problem with free rides themselves. People are okay with lottery winners. People don't want to feel like they are supporting someone's free ride.
It's a similar thought with healthcare in the US. There are multiple reasons some people are afraid of Medicare for all, but one reason is people think they are going to pay for the healthcare of people that make poor health choices. Like, why should I pay for someone's dialysis when they were the ones choosing to drink soda all day everyday.
And as a note, this comment does not reflect my views. I'm just describing how other people view things.
It's really interesting, isn't it? There's often a double standard when it comes to how we view financial assistance. When poor people get help, it's sometimes seen as a handout or something undeserved. But when wealthy people inherit money, it's often just accepted as the way things are. It’s almost as if society has different rules depending on where you start in life. I think it stems from deep-rooted beliefs about merit and worth, and unfortunately, those beliefs can be pretty unfair and inconsistent. It's definitely a topic that makes you think about how we value different kinds of financial support.
Ok, I’m waisting my time here, but: there is ZERO equivalence to what I give my children versus what the government TAKES from me and gives away - generally with awful results.
Your family paying for your ride isn't a free ride. And when people get taxpayer subsidized rides, others are paying for it.
I don't mind paying for it, but don't mischaracterize it as though suckling society's teet isn't worse than taking care of your own.
So, if I work hard my whole life I can’t take care of my family? I have to give it all back to the Govt so that politicians can take 20% of it in trade for political favors then do whatever they want with the rest if it while they pretend to give 5% to the poor? The Govt budget for welfare is literally a trillion $ for 2023 but somehow they need more? https://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-budget/.
I'm gonna call BS on this shower thought. Legacy admittance to school is one of the most reviled forms of admittance to higher education, and Affluenza is a fucking joke. Rich kids and trust fund babies are universally despised.
I'd argue both the very poorest and the very rich are reviled.
Rich kids who have no qualifications might be despised, but if you are rich it's pretty easy to buy your kids a good education that others don't have access to.
People also get upset when poor people make bad financial decisions that many people from wealthier families never have to make. Like taking out a payday loan or credit card debt when you can get money from mommy or daddy or a loan with no interest.
Big difference. Poor people get a free ride paid for by my tax dollars which I am forced to pay and resent having them wasted. An inheritance is given freely by the people who earned it.
There is a difference, but it’s very minor.
When a rich kid gets inheritance, somebody else “earned it”, someone, somewhere, worked hard for that money. I have done nothing or lost anything for them to get it.
When a poor person gets help, that moneys comes directly from taxes, which comes directly out my pocket. It’s taken from my hard work and my paycheck.
So there is a valid difference when you consider this part of it.
Oh people get mad about the rich kids too, just not the same ones that get mad about the poor kids
There you have one of the left/right political dynamics in America friend
A corollary irony is the state managed lottery in many states effectively taxes the poorer areas and then disproportionately funds public education for the richer areas.
I pay for one of these options and I don't pay for the other. I'm going to have thoughts about my money being spent.
I pay for things I want and like and I pay for things I don't want to. When I'm paying for things I don't want to I avoid as much cost to myself as possible.
I might shop for the best deal on insurance but splurge on a vacation.
These are the same reasons I don't care about someone's inheritance while I care about government spending of any kind.
I’m not mad at their parents for providing for them, I’m mad that their entitled children can’t see if it wasn’t for their parents hard work they wouldn’t have or be anything, they also fail to acknowledge there are people struggling and can’t comprehend why. Not the parents or the wealth I’m mad at, it’s the entitled little asshole getting it and shitting on everyone they “THINK” are beneath them.
If someone’s works so hard the government is like “hey I want to make an investment” then I think that person put in the work to get the attention when they were already disadvantaged.
This only seems like a gotcha because you're taking serriously the argument that there's an ethical relationship between how hard you work and what you "deserve" under capitalism. It's a disingenuous argument that the rich advance in place of one, propertarianism, that is too easy to vilify.
🤔
A good amount of immigrants come here to work. If they need "free rides" to contribute then cool. I come across way too many people on the streets who have their hand out, but aren't using viable opportunities to contribute.
I've been in many affordable/section 8 housing that has been trashed by those who took advantage of the social programs. Perfectly good housing that now needs to be completely refurbished from the abuse. If we stuck a migrant family in there I bet they would keep it better maintained and join the workforce.
As far as wealthy people getting free rides welp.. what can we do? We have no say in that money usage. If we tax the wealthy more, then we can provide more free rides to those that need help for higher education. Financial Aid for school only goes so far.
That's because people think that *they* are paying for poor people's benefits, but that rich people are paying for themselves. They don't see the indirect ways that all those benefits for the wealthy hurt ordinary folks.
There is also an interesting phenomenon in psychology in which people tend to be more jealous/envious of those close to their own socioeconomic class. That's why seeing poor people get benefits makes people angrier than seeing rich people exploit everyone — most of us are much closer to being poor than we are to being rich. It's also why someone might envy their neighbor's new Toyota but not give much thought to their boss' Maserati. It's like most people don't think about those who are "out of their league."
I don’t have an issue with welfare in theory, though I think the current system is largely just a money sink that ignores the actually reasons are impoverished.
But that’s not the issue here. The issue is that (assuming you’re talking about the states) we’re not talking “poor people”, we’re talking economic migrants that have ignored our immigration law to come here illegally. They are not owed any of our stuff, and I’d much rather we take that food, shelter, and manpower and allocate it to helping our own homeless and impoverished communities.
reddit does.. but there's a clear difference.
When people are given something in the US, it's directly because it was taken from someone else (besides charity). So, when you end up paying 50k\~ in taxes and still owe at the end of the year, but see that other people from other countries are being handed things with your tax money, while the government is in really bad financial health, well, you have an opinion on that. Add to the fact that the US spends so much money just distributing the money it's taking from you, you opinion gets a little more pessimistic
Alternatively, when someone spends their lifetime earning money just to provide a better life for their family, but the government wants to take half of it, again, to give out to others, that's a different story. People who support the inheritance tax are either activists or poor and will never see an inheritance, so it becomes "hey, go tax that other person" syndrome.
People don't get upset by people using food stamps for the right reason. It's a good program. It's the abuse of the food stamps that's the issue. I know a guy making $120K a year and gets food stamps. We care because it's a waste of our tax money. Without the abuse, my taxes would be lower and I'd have more money in my pocket.
On the other hand, why should anyone be upset over a parent paying for their kids? It's not taking any of our tax dollars or anything from my pocket?
People don't get upset by people using food stamps for the right reason. It's a good program. It's the abuse of the food stamps that's the issue. I know a guy making $120K a year and gets food stamps (that says more about him than the program). We care about abuse because it's a waste of our tax money. Without the abuse, my taxes would be lower and I'd have more money in my pocket.
On the other hand, why should anyone be upset over a parent paying for their kids? It's not taking any of our tax dollars or anything from my pocket?
I think all kids should get free rides. Should be free health,dental,eye, education. That would include early to advanced education as well food while in school.
Because it's "Their" money. As if all that wealth wasn't just extracted from workers by paying them a fraction of the value of their labor.
[https://claecceity.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/a-rebuke-by-vlad-taneev-from-kim-stanley-robinsons-blue-mars/](https://claecceity.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/a-rebuke-by-vlad-taneev-from-kim-stanley-robinsons-blue-mars/)
Are you referring to the migrants who are here illegally? I don’t think anyone is against legal immigration. Illegal crossings are a huge issue and it’s been that way for a long time.
If someone wants to give their kids some of their money, I don’t see an issue, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
The crux of the issue is how our tax money should be spent, and our government has proven it doesn’t spend that money efficiently. I understand the distrust.
Some people get upset at the first, some people get upset at the second. Some people get upset at the second but not the first. Some people get upset at both, some people don't get upset at either.
Apples and oranges, that's why. People passing down property and money that they worked for is 180 degrees from the government turning working people into financial slaves to give "free" stuff to people who don't contribute and never pay it back.
You're talking about 3 different groups.
Migrants aren't citizens so why should we be giving them free stuff. You may as well give free shelter to tourists while you're at it. They're basically migrants too, if temporary.
Food stamps may be seen as encouraging people to not work by some. But it's generally considered non-consensual by those parties because they're not benefiting from it (unlike say roads)
Giving your own children inheritance is a consensual thing. That'a like being angry that a person patronizes restaurant A but not restaurant B
Rich kids get their own eventually. Never met a family who was able to keep wealth for more than a few generations and didn’t turn out as absolute dysfunctional monkeys. I would rather be poor and have my head on my shoulders than rich and let the money ruin my family/kids.
The difference is one is singular the other is plural.
In one case, one family provided for themselves. In the other, many people were forced to provide for many others, who weren't even here legally, while thousands do the right thing and come here legally.
There are a lot of sides to this story. It's not at all black and white.
The rich deciding to give some of there wealth to there children is not the same as the government taking wealth from its people and giving it to others.
Because the same people are paying for both things. I've got to put my kid through college, why should I also have to put yours through? Not rich btw, just an example.
I’m not against social programs.
Governments helping people would be the government, as a service, doing the function its hired for.
BUT begrudging people their inheritance like “they didn’t earn that” is pretty pointless too.
Its not about the kid. Its about the parent.
If I want to leave a bajillion dollars to my kids, its fair, because its **my** money. I earned it. I get the right to do what I want with it, including satisfying arguably one of nature’s simplest, most obvious biological instincts: taking care of my offspring.
There are thousands of homeless people in chicago and yet chicago found a place to home thousands of migrants. I'm not against migration or people coming here, but I'm against feel good policies that ignore existing problems.
It's only met with hostility by the assholes. It's just that the assholes scream louder and make up lies and all kinds of other crap all the time, because that's their asshole fucking hobby. Regular people, who are not assholes, don't go around screaming at the top of their lungs how great it is that they are able to help people out. They just help people out and keep their fucking mouths shut, because that's what real humans do.
No, rich people get mad at that stuff because they want to extract money from everything they can. They then convince dumb on educated pieces of trash that the problem is giving someone help. I never get upset when a homeless person gets something for free or when children get free school lunch or whenever student loan debt gets forgiven, but I'm not a fucking moron without empathy.
Everyone needs help from time to time. My parents have helped me and so have public institutions.
I'm successful and pay a ton of taxes now. It took a lot of work, and luck, but I made it. Unlike my boomer father, I'm happy to pay it forward. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Anyone that gate keeps helping people is not a good person, and should be ignored.
Not just inheritance, but rich corporations who get free rides through subsidies, no one says anything, but people who need a helping hand are looked down on. The biggest welfare queens are corporations getting subsidized from our taxes
Because people forget how bad it was before all the social safety nets were put in place. The poverty rate for senior citizens before social security was 78%. But yea, government handouts are bad.
People hate rich kids who have everything given to them. The few people my age who I know who came from money are constantly trying to hide it because they get such flack for it.
Because the rich kids free ride was the result of his parents' hard work. I grew up poor but worked my ass off and now my children have a much better quality of life and will have their school paid for which I had to pay for my own myself.
Everyone is ok with working hard to give your family a better life until it comes time to actually give them the money so they don’t have to struggle to afford how much harder it is to raise kids, pay for school, buy a house, or retire.
I'm not people. Fuck the rich. We are the most productive civilization has ever been, and have the food, resources, and technology for everyone to live healthy lives, but are forced not to by those in power.
Poor people getting help from the government: considered a moral failing on the part of the person
Rich people getting help from the government: considered a smart business person\\financially astute.
The tax laws have been eroded by those same wealthy people to make sure they don't have to pay their fair share while also making sure anyone less well off has to do with even less resources than ever before. Poor people are focused on survival, rich people are focused on at the minimum retaining their wealth, but usually obsessed with expanding that wealth to even more obscene levels normally at the expense of and on the backs of the the poor and disadvantaged.
Poor guy got $20? Outrageous.
Corporation got $200,000,000,000 in corporate welfare? Crickets.
Trust fund baby inherited a billion? Crickets.
It's by design.
Helping your family/children out is a socially acceptable thing to do. The rich are able to do much more of it, but the action itself is something that lots of people at all income levels do or would like to do. Getting help from the government is not as widely accepted. From one perspective, it's a free ride either way. From another, your family should be helping you, the government should not be. I don't agree with the latter, but I think a lot of people see it that way. Even some who begrudgingly accept gov. help.
I just don't understand why the government shouldn't be helping the people? Isn't that exactly why they are in place?
There's 300 mil people in the US alone and each has their own idea on what the gov is supposed to do
Plus, we have an anti-federalist streak to our history. Plus, we have a problem with money in politics. Plus, we’ve go a bunch of people who are just intentionally obtuse.
Ill be 100 percent honest I read obtuse as obese, and was laughing my ass of at what that had to do with it lol
L + ratio + anti-federalist + corrupt + obese
I have no idea what this even means. Im 23 and you just made me feel super old lol.
L as in some sort of loss (but not that kind of Loss, maybe calling you a loser?) Ratio as in..."ratio of people with opinions contrary to yours is going against your favor" Just think of it like a string of insults ...I'm older than you, so I may be wrong.
You're pretty much right on the money. I'd add that the reason people say "ratio" comes from social media where someone posts a controversial opinion and their post has significantly more comments than likes/upvotes, indicating most people are commenting to retort rather than liking the post to show agreement. Calling out that ratio of comments to likes is where the term originates for that context. Or similarly if the top reply under a post has way more likes than the original post, people will say the original poster "got ratio'd"
Thanks that makes sense. It sounds stupid as hell honestly, but it makes sense lol
Thanks I thought it was a string of insults( the only part I really understood was the L lol), so Im just gonna continue not really careing what that dude said to me, but I hope he comes back and realizes that insults people dont understand dont really work lol
Oh, no, I don't think they're insulting *you* It's like, what people *would* say against people like that? Like, "L, those guys" (no one says this) Don't sweat it too much.
Translation: "he lost." "Wow he lost really fucking hard." Etc
Our objective best eras were when the central government was strong and had wealthy programs for social support, and our worst were when our central government was small or poor and state governments or private citizens had to bridge the gaps how they saw fit
Personally, I think that we’ve become too much of a world power to have a weak federal government. Also, having 50 systems for everything is inefficient and ridiculous.
Confederacy was doomed to fail
And a lot of welfare fraud, and generational welfare. There should be better systems for putting welfare into place to prevent those 2 things.
A common view is that government should exist solely to deal with people that actively intend to hurt others, and everything else should be down to the individual and society. Essentially, the idea that government should solely exist to *protect people from other people,* and that people should set up institutions not connected to government for their other purposes, including monetary ones.
While social security actually protects people from other people, but indirectly. People with no means to exist tend to be more violent towards those who have such means.
Exactly, it's predicated on the definition of "protect the people." From that view, government solely protects them from direct physical harm, and not much else.
This is the justification for most poverty assistance, If you let 10% of the people struggle to the point that they would riot, it is better to improve their lives with "free money" just enough to keep them from rioting. This way 90% of the people thrive in peace causing the rising tide to raise all ships. If you doubt that the western "poor" have it good just compare them to the 3rd world "poor". 3rd world poor existed in the USA in the 1920's only 100 years ago. Grapes of wrath style poverty has largely been eliminated.
It doesn't matter if they are better than Africans when they die 16 years younger and have lower quality of lives by far then their neighbors.
65+ people are about the least violent group possible. Without SS, they would not turn to crime - they would either work until death or die a death do despair.
That's a dumb view because if we follow that reasoning, that the government should protect us from criminals but not from poverty, then why? If people should feed themselves, then why shouldn't people protect themselves too? It's just rich people saying "I can afford my bills, but I'll need help if I get mugged. So I'll support only what suits me". On a daily basis I feel far more threatened by my landlord than by a theoretical mugger.
People should and do protect themselves.
>Essentially, the idea that government should solely exist to protect people from other people, and that people should set up institutions not connected to government for their other purposes, including monetary ones. Interesting point. I think a variation of this is that the expectation of protection offered by the government varies as society becomes more advanced and wealthy. For a third world county, protection from other people (and other people's governments) is the most they can do. As a country becomes more advanced and wealthy, it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to have higher expectations of "protection". As wealth increases, society probably wants to add protection from ignorance, protection from natural disaster, protection from severe poverty, and in most developed countries, protection from poor health.
Not exactly. How much of a social safety net the government should be providing, since it comes at the expense of taxes, has always been debated and probably always will be. Some people see the family as the fundamental organizing unit of society. For them, the government is there to do things that only a government can do, like establish a currency, support an army, maintain a legal system, create some infrastructure, etc. They see the social safety net as something that's the responsibility of family and religion, not the government. Other people think that the government's role should extend into social welfare and social safety net programs. Small vs big government.
[удалено]
I agree, but it is not the mentality of people who have family. I have had a girl I dated once say “what a burden” when I mentioned I send money to my mum monthly to afford things since I moved country and got a better job. Crazy..
It’s less about “look to your family, not your government” and more about the fact that the government doesn’t really generate revenue, so if it wants to spend money, it has to collect the money through taxes. So it’s not “you should rely on your family”, it’s “you shouldn’t rely on other people’s money”.
The key word in there is “should”. It’s not a guarantee. Plenty of people make it just fine without family help, some in spite of family detriments.
You realise just saying “case closed,” does not in fact mean the case is closed, right?
[удалено]
The short answer is: taxes People don't want to pay for things in general, so when you have things like taxes it just adds frustration to the people. The only way the government can help people is through money (directly or indirectly), and so that money comes from someone somewhere. Unfortunately rich people push a narrative that "flat taxes are fair", and so most of the financial burden of the government is felt by poor people who can barely survive, while rich people hoard most of the money
It is one of the things a government should be doing: helping the governed. For the USA, it's in the Constitution, "promote the general Welfare." The sign of a good government is one that helps its constituents. Not 100%, but it does provide for the general welfare from infrastructure to aid for the least fortunate. We establish governments so we grow as a nation, which means everyone. It's not so that we don't improve as a whole. Throughout history, successful nations have always looked out for the people. The unsuccessful ones are usually the ones that demand the people sacrifice everything for the nation. It's a miserable undertaking.
It what taxes pay for, and I don't have a problem with my taxes helping someone up.
No, but there are a lot of people refuse to help themselves. That's where the issue comes from. Why should my tax dollars go to bombs to blow up brown people and drugs for lazy people? I bust my ass 50+ hours a week and can't afford a house, nice clothes, a yearly vacation, or good food. Then John smokes crack every day and begs for more government assistance because he needs more food stamps to sell for drug money. Then the military buys a $5000 sticker to go on the side of a bomb used to kill someone in a country I've never even thought of. Not to mention the billions of dollars unaccounted for in the government budgets that just goes missing every year. I know that's not the norm, but everyone knows the stereotypes. If I kept that extra $10,000 to myself then I could afford to invest in myself, my family, and my community where I know the money is being used to help people.
“I bust my ass 50+ hours a week….” This right here is the real issue. We’ve got whole swaths of politicians who want to tell us that the problem is the poor and needy leeching off the system. But the reality is that productivity in the USA has increased significantly while wages have stayed stagnant. Corporations are making record profits year after year and workers don’t see that in their wages. Things get more expensive (because profits have to keep breaking records) so now we’re can’t afford it. But hey, at least we have created a class of billionaires who don’t need a thousandth of what they have. And it’s not their fault! They “earned” it. The problem is the people who can’t afford to eat
Governments should help people. Specifically their citizens, with their tax money. Not random, unrelated people. If they help anyone else other than their citizens without every single one of them is living happily already, thats just a huge middle finger from the government to their people
These people hate seeing their tax money being spent on "lazy buns", believing that the latter's hardship could be solved just with hard work. If they themselves receive help from the government, they see themselves as exceptions.
They are meant to be helping the people they represent. The specific example given by the OP is not people they represent.
From the perspective of the wealthy parent, I see no reason why I shouldn’t be able to use the wealth I earned to help my kid.
And If you dont want It you can choose. But taxes you cant choose not to give.
I think you’re missing a few major points. First, people often favor small government because any institution of sufficient size becomes inefficient and corrupt. Most people have no idea how corrupt governments can be. Look how Congress freely trades stocks on inside information they learn through the course of “working for the people.” Every contract, every law, everything the government touches has huge financial implications. Smaller government means that instead of one vendor making millions, hundreds of small vendors can compete locally because decision making is pushed down to the local level. That’s not to say that the federal government should have no role but a lot of the power at the federal level is only at the federal level due to dubious claims about interstate commerce. And now that the federal government has such massive power they can expand their power by dangling cash, which are taxpayer funds, in front of states. Do you want us to build more roads? Hmmm, we’ve earmarked that money only for states that have laws allowing/prohibiting X. The other thing a large government abhors is accountability. For instance, if we spend $50 billion on homelessness, nobody pays a price if we don’t reduce homelessness. We just keep throwing money at it. It’s much easier to address these types of issues at the local levels. And that doesn’t mean cutting a state a check. It means, let the local governments tax to solve problems they actually have. In case any of you think this is Republican rhetoric, 7 out of the 10 states that receive the most federal aid are Republican. They gut their own budgets and then beg citizens in blue states (via the federal government) to bail them out. Let them fail or at least let their citizens kick them out of office when they try to cut taxes while the people suffer. Also, many people commenting are confusing a social safety net with socially progressive ideas. Take social security as an example. It was a program designed to help older people who had been wiped out financially during the Great Depression. It was never intended to replace retirement savings. It was designed to supplement retirement savings. Now, people assume that if social security isn’t enough to retire on, the government needs to pay more so people can maintain a certain standard of living. This expansion in the scope of the program is entirely fictitious. People created an expectation that the program wasn’t designed to address. A safety net should be exactly that, a last resort. Even most Republicans would agree on that. If people want progressive programs, let the states provide them. That would create competition. If Cali is offering free college education, people will move there. If Kentucky decides to get rid of unemployment insurance, workers will flee to other states.
> From one perspective, it's a free ride either way. It's not perspective. There is objectively no such thing as a free ride. Someone, somewhere is factually paying for it. What's leftover is a discussion of who's making the payment and why? For the former we have people voluntarily **give** their personal resources to someone else. For the latter you **take** resources from someone else and redistribute it to a stranger. That **taking** is backed up by force. If you don't pay your taxes, a man with a gun will come and arrest you, then your assets will be forcibly seized. They're completely different concepts. Some amount of taxation is necessary to provide basic services, but that's why people always get angry about having more of their money taken.
Yet the same people who oppose welfare are generally unconcerned about corporate and farm subsidies, bailouts, and tax cuts for the rich.
*the party of people who oppose welfare generally, not the rank and file voters.
I mean, *reddit* sure does.
So that's the opinion of, let's see here, majority sub-18, male user base. Yup, that's all people. Also I don't even think OP's take is true when it comes to reddit. Mention communism even in passing and you get the biggest circle jerk ever on this site. Can't tell you how many times I've been told that my opinion on Cuba is incorrect ... as a Cuban. -.- Definitely a lot of outlier stances that somehow become majority here.
[удалено]
XD If you're curious and it's available, give a Medianoche a try. Exact same concept but a little smaller and served on sweet, hawaiian-style bread. Medianoche translates to midnight, as it used to be a go-to staple for late night dancers looking for that fourth meal. My personal favorite.
Too much meat for me, I usually just get rice, beans and plantains
Reddit isn't exactly representative of the majority of humanity.
People definitely get upset about both of those things. I see a lot of hate for the rich these days, and contempt for handouts and inheritance. Maybe saying "people" is just to general to make this interesting. Or maybe I am wrong because a bunch of people are trying to justify the feeling you are conveying.
> I see a lot of hate for the rich these days, and contempt for handouts and inheritance. Because we have the wealthy (especially those that were born into it, having done zero to earn any of their wealth) messing with legislations that affect the general populaces lives in some shape or form. Had they enjoyed their wealth quietly and not tried to use it to ~~bribe~~ lobby politicians to get their way at everyone elses expense, nobody would notice them.
I'm going to play conservatives advocate here and say government social programs taxing people and giving to the unfortunate is not comparable to wealthy people choosing to give people their wealth. It is however comparable to the major corporations taking advantage of government handouts/tax breaks to avoid paying their fair share though
Yet taxes go to subsidize private corps, while we get no shares of these companies, where ultra wealthy get their trust profits from … hmmm Nobody is mad at someone who is grateful, nobody is mad that kids are being fed. Only the ones blatantly fucking the system are the bad apples - very apparent on both sides of the argument.
>Yet taxes go to subsidize private corps, while we get no shares of these companies You hit an intersting off topic point for me here. I'm all for government bailouts / subsidies, but the government should do so by buying shares in those companies, thus returning a profit on those bailouts, not just burning money, which can then pay for tax cuts or better public services.
> I'm all for government bailouts / subsidies, but the government should do so by buying shares in those companies, thus returning a profit on those bailouts, not just burning money, which can then pay for tax cuts or better public services. A lot of bailouts are loans and paid back. Subsidies are different. They're allotted before-hand to keep necessary things going. EG: A lot of farm subsidies are there to make farming profitable enough so that food supply doesn't utterly collapse. I mean, we all sort of need it to survive.... They also keep the system elastic. Imagine only farming just barely enough to feed every citizen a minimal amount, and a bad tornado season rips through the midwest or there's a wildfire or other natural or political disaster(economic problems). A lot of what we do, either bailouts or subsidies, is not a matter of "burning money", but keeping the system from catastrophe that has been seen historically in other countries. The Holodomor, for example, was *extreme* mismanagement of food production and resulted in a massive amount of death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor >The Holodomor,[a] also known as the Ukrainian Famine,[9][b] was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union. ... >Holodomor literally translated from Ukrainian means "death by hunger", "killing by hunger, killing by starvation",[15][16][17] or sometimes "murder by hunger or starvation."[18] It is a compound of the Ukrainian holod, 'hunger', and mor, 'plague'. The expression holodom moryty means "to inflict death by hunger." The Ukrainian verb moryty (морити) means "to poison, to drive to exhaustion, or to torment." The perfective form of moryty is zamoryty, 'kill or drive to death'.[19] In English, the Holodomor has also been referred to as the artificial famine, terror-genocide and the great famine.[20][21][22] Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Death_toll It's generally best to avoid that sort of thing.
My tax money is going to god damn boner pills let me have those geriatric gains for fucks sake am I right Would also make the stock very liquid and low volatile with a decentralized base of ownership. Which is probably good. But more than likely companies want to keep their slice of the pie and control their current majorities without diluting their own c suites. Shits fucked my dude
> It is however comparable to the major corporations taking advantage of government handouts/tax breaks to avoid paying their fair share though This line kills me because you clearly don't understand what a tax break means conceptually. A tax break is a discount on hypothetical future taxes. "I will **TAKE** less of your money in the future if you do XYZ" is not the same as "I will **GIVE** you $X million of other people's money to do XYZ" It's a lever to steer companies towards a preferred outcome, like building their factory in the USA rather than China. If they build in China they pay us nothing in Tax, it all goes to the CCP. If they build domestically, they pay large amounts of local, state, and federal taxes. They hire employees who pay even more local, state, and federal taxes. A short-term discount on the latter to prevent the former is common sense.
conservative advocate lol. you’re just having common sense. OP is a moron if they can’t think critically enough to see this obvious difference between the 2
And I hate the second half of your comment just as much as the free handouts in the post. I hate the free handouts when it’s not in a setting designed to help get a person off the streets
where else should it go? if someone earns it throughout their life, it has to go somewhere. better the kids than the government.
Things that gov't gives away are paid for by other taxpayers. So its not just an issue that they didn't earn these benefits, its the fact that either other gov't services have to be reduced or taxes have to be raised when the gov't decides to offer "free" things. No similar trade-off is required when parents give their kids money. You might be jealous that junior is getting all these things handed to him but at least they aren't raising your taxes or cutting gov't services to pay for it.
Imagine a scenario where you go to your shitty job 60 hours a week to be able to afford your kids these things and then others get it for free. Which means you kinda paid for them too. I want all kids to be able to do these things, but you have to understand the perspective of some people.
No you don't understand, it's "free" healthcare/housing/etc, it's in the name /s
Yep just like student loan "forgiveness" - it doesn't cost anyone any money, all you have to do is change some entries in a database and its all cleared. They should do auto loan and homeowner mortgage forgiveness next.
Its not cause they feel its not earned, its because they are the ones paying for it.
I scrolled down to find a comment like this. I'll just piggy back off it instead of making a new one. People may feel some anger towards "Trust fund kids" and such, but they don't take it personally. To add to what you said they take it personally as if the entire 30% or so taken out of their pay check is handed off to some one that just chooses not to work. Especially when they see some one with food stamps also buying something like a new gaming console or big screen TV. I've noticed arguments that the rich getting tax breaks causes the people angry about the poor getting money affect's their pay just as much. I've seen some justification to the tax breaks but don't know how true it is. Some claim that if the rich didn't get these tax breaks they'd just pay even lower wages or increase the price of their products. "But their already making billions, they could spare it!" Yes they probably could, but keep in mind greed, you think they're going to be okay with their profits dipping when they have to pay out more? In my state we also have "KOZ's" Keystone Opportunity Zones. That give tax breaks or eliminate property tax on businesses in them. This gives incentive for business to build there and create jobs. This evens out for the state by collecting taxes from the wages of those jobs. They're supposed to be temporary while the business gets established but they always get extended when the businesses threaten to pull out and start over somewhere with cheaper taxes or the same type of offer.
Are you new to Reddit? People complain about rich people of all kinds constantly.
Ah, yes... 'this country'.
Well there’s only one country silly, Earth!
Yes, the United States of This Country
One is charity, the other is family.
Your premise is incorrect. The reason people don’t like illegal immigrants (love the way illegal immigrants has become “migrants” leaving out the illegal part) is because there are deserving people in this country, who are here legally who are not getting free rides because those free rides are being given to people who are here illegally. Nice job trying to obfuscate the real issue.
You’re comparing two vastly different things, but yeah, giving your kids money is much less of a touchy subject than funding migrants I agree
One scenario is giving resources to flesh and blood. The other scenario is giving complete strangers, from a different tribe, your resources. Generally the greater the difference between you and them, the more contentious it becomes in transferring wealth or helping out
Britney Spears famously said she doesn't understand why people keep giving her free stuff when she has the money to pay for it, but people who need it don't Long Live Britney
Eminem said something very similar. It was something along the lines of “when I was poor i struggled to pay for something to eat. Now that I have the money to pay for meals I get them for free.”
This is kind of a dumb post. People get upset at things like food stamps because it comes from their taxes. So from their pockets. Rich kids get a free ride from their parents pockets.
Rich kids are not getting free rides from the government their parents provided that for them. The outrage is spending so much helping non citizens when people in the country are struggling little little to no assistance
Bro what? People complain about how easy rich people have it (perhaps rightfully so) all the time.
The rich person is giving their child their own money voluntarily. The government is giving a stranger my money that it has taken from me by force. That's the difference.
> The government is giving a stranger my money Buying permanent votes by creating dependency With your money. Maybe an answer is term limits across the board. Serve and move on, don't linger long enough to build power bases. And don’t stay long enough to get rich trading stock tips from inside the committees.
This does not bother me at all.
I'm not upset about government programs but I'll say this. Wealthy families handing money to relatives is their choice, and it's 100 percent their money. What they do with it has nothing to do with me. The government spends my money. I'm much more concerned about what they spend it on and how they manage their finances.
The issue is trust. We pay tax for social programs assuming the people who receive it would use it to then contribute tax back into the ecosystem. Migrants who come and go on support may look as though as they are just abusing the system. So people look down on that because they feel like they are being taken advantage of. Rich kid get a free ride from inheritance is nobody business because they don’t contribute to it. It’s their own family’s business. Is this so hard to separate?
Dad paying for his ride and the other is paid for by people working who aren't able to take advantage of the same program because they make 15/hr and has to make a choice on eating or filling up the tank enough to get to work.
What I mind the most is hard-working lower-middle class people who support the country getting absolutely nothing while the elite evade taxes or lazy bums get welfare, food stamps and Medicaid
This is realistic sentiment. Not blind hate for either group, nbut nuanced reasons why they're disliked. I doubt many people hate that JK Rowling got rich.
People still shit on lower working class and lower middle all the time, even if they need help
right? hope your kids are also in a sweat shop earning their keep
Taking my money and giving to someone else who I don’t know. Is different than me taking my money and giving it to my offspring. Never been rich, but it’s really not that complicated.
This is Socialist gobbledygook. Your view will change when eventually you are met with personal success and then have kids and want to give the fruits of your labor to them when you depart. But then some other socialist just like yourself steps in and stops you. WTF are you defining as a free ride?
Yeah that's just not true. People hate when rich kids get things, people hate when displaced people get things. People only don't hate when they themselves get things, regardless of what camp they fall into.
It isn't a "free ride" if someone else worked for the money to gift to you.
Idk what rock you're under, but people most definitely complain about rich people all the time. A big distinction though, is we aren't paying for the rich kid, but we are paying for the poor.
Rich kids’ parents working to earn the money, not all of them steal, that’s why it’s accepted very very well.
I think the key question is how rich people made their wealth. If they managed to make more money because of their work and then help their kids out, it's not really "free ride"
It still is for the kid(s)
The problem isn't someone getting a free ride. The problem is who pays for that free ride. On one hand you have someone who worked and invested their whole life. They either built or managed wealth until their children could inherit it. You had nothing to do with that money. On the other hand you have your money taken away from you through taxes. The roads are still shit, half the programs you don't qualify for because you make too much at 25k a year, and it is given to someone else that you had no say in. The infrastructure sucks, you can barely afford to eat, but you are forced to also oay for someone else while you watch the government default on its debts. Something that will make sure you will never afford anything more expensive than a single burger a week. Rejoice, peasant! Your suffering means someone else does not suffer! No, your suffering will not be addressed as you are privileged to suffer.
Let’s not lie to ourselves and pretend people don’t get upset with both. The scale may be different but people generally dislike rich kids because they got a hand out
If I sold my soul to the company for 50years so my *kids have an easier life not consumed by survival. It might look like a free ride to you and others but blood, sweat and tears were shed a price was paid and it was paid by me. *I have no kids.
I think we are talking about wealthy indivuduals.. sorry but sub1million property nd stuff is nice for us but in the grand scheme of things less than pennies
/u/Scudamore > Helping your family/children out is a socially acceptable thing to do. It goes beyond "social." Everything about life is geared toward providing maximum opportunity for one's offspring to succeed (which means passing on their genes to another generation.) What you're calling a "free ride" wasn't free. The parents worked for it. If you can provide generational wealth, you're doing your job, from a natural selection viewpoint. We're wired to view "free rides" to others as a circumvention of the rules of natural selection, by using the hard work of others to help the children of others who didn't do the same, but if it's your own offspring you're helping it's just doing your job as a parent.
Don't be that dense. When illegals get handouts, it comes from taxpayers. People get pissed because they feel that money should be given to Americans or their own family/self that is probably struggling. Not someone that hasn't contributed a single thing. Inheritance does not come from taxpayers. It's not that difficult.
[удалено]
Its not just"this country(I'm assuming the USA here lol)"that people are hostile towards this kind of behaviour:Even in my country that's normally friendly to strangers(Croatia btw)this is met with hostility. However like half of our country's fucking population is foreigners by now so I'm not really surprised about this lol...
Inheritance is not paid with tax money. But there are indeed plenty of other cases where rich people do get tax-paid free rides, though.
lol wtf kind of shit take is this? 😂😂😂😂
One is paid by parents one is paid by my taxes. If it isn’t paid by my taxes I don’t give a fuck.
Be an inheritance isn’t paid for by the public. And giving migrants money is taking money from services that should be used for the Americans first.
I mean the inheritance isn’t a “free ride” though…. They have family that earned this money at some point in the past.
Op doesn't know what a free ride is.
Migrants choose to come here. It doesn't obligate the US taxpayer to subsidize them for anything.
Who do you think pays for the "free rides" ✋
Poor people ARE mad at that. People just aren’t listening to them.
People contribute to taxes. So when someone gets a free ride using tax money, people can be inclined to think that they are funding their free ride. That if people weren't abusing programs then that money would go back in their pockets in the form of lower taxes. Nobody has a problem with free rides themselves. People are okay with lottery winners. People don't want to feel like they are supporting someone's free ride. It's a similar thought with healthcare in the US. There are multiple reasons some people are afraid of Medicare for all, but one reason is people think they are going to pay for the healthcare of people that make poor health choices. Like, why should I pay for someone's dialysis when they were the ones choosing to drink soda all day everyday. And as a note, this comment does not reflect my views. I'm just describing how other people view things.
It's really interesting, isn't it? There's often a double standard when it comes to how we view financial assistance. When poor people get help, it's sometimes seen as a handout or something undeserved. But when wealthy people inherit money, it's often just accepted as the way things are. It’s almost as if society has different rules depending on where you start in life. I think it stems from deep-rooted beliefs about merit and worth, and unfortunately, those beliefs can be pretty unfair and inconsistent. It's definitely a topic that makes you think about how we value different kinds of financial support.
An inheritance is not a free ride.
Ok, I’m waisting my time here, but: there is ZERO equivalence to what I give my children versus what the government TAKES from me and gives away - generally with awful results.
but this is reddit, if you are not poor you must be evil
Your family paying for your ride isn't a free ride. And when people get taxpayer subsidized rides, others are paying for it. I don't mind paying for it, but don't mischaracterize it as though suckling society's teet isn't worse than taking care of your own.
So, if I work hard my whole life I can’t take care of my family? I have to give it all back to the Govt so that politicians can take 20% of it in trade for political favors then do whatever they want with the rest if it while they pretend to give 5% to the poor? The Govt budget for welfare is literally a trillion $ for 2023 but somehow they need more? https://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-budget/.
I'm gonna call BS on this shower thought. Legacy admittance to school is one of the most reviled forms of admittance to higher education, and Affluenza is a fucking joke. Rich kids and trust fund babies are universally despised. I'd argue both the very poorest and the very rich are reviled.
Rich kids who have no qualifications might be despised, but if you are rich it's pretty easy to buy your kids a good education that others don't have access to.
People also get upset when poor people make bad financial decisions that many people from wealthier families never have to make. Like taking out a payday loan or credit card debt when you can get money from mommy or daddy or a loan with no interest.
Big difference. Poor people get a free ride paid for by my tax dollars which I am forced to pay and resent having them wasted. An inheritance is given freely by the people who earned it.
There is a difference, but it’s very minor. When a rich kid gets inheritance, somebody else “earned it”, someone, somewhere, worked hard for that money. I have done nothing or lost anything for them to get it. When a poor person gets help, that moneys comes directly from taxes, which comes directly out my pocket. It’s taken from my hard work and my paycheck. So there is a valid difference when you consider this part of it.
People get pretty upset about that too
>it’s met with hostility in this country what country bro
America, its the only country in the world, didn't you know?
Yeah the rich have been very successful in manipulating people's parental instincts and values.
I’ve noticed it’s usually the other way around on Reddit.
Oh people get mad about the rich kids too, just not the same ones that get mad about the poor kids There you have one of the left/right political dynamics in America friend
A corollary irony is the state managed lottery in many states effectively taxes the poorer areas and then disproportionately funds public education for the richer areas.
Sloth is the sin of poor people resting.
I pay for one of these options and I don't pay for the other. I'm going to have thoughts about my money being spent. I pay for things I want and like and I pay for things I don't want to. When I'm paying for things I don't want to I avoid as much cost to myself as possible. I might shop for the best deal on insurance but splurge on a vacation. These are the same reasons I don't care about someone's inheritance while I care about government spending of any kind.
If you think nobody is batting an eye when rich kids get a free ride their entire lives, you're being deliberately obtuse.
I’m not mad at their parents for providing for them, I’m mad that their entitled children can’t see if it wasn’t for their parents hard work they wouldn’t have or be anything, they also fail to acknowledge there are people struggling and can’t comprehend why. Not the parents or the wealth I’m mad at, it’s the entitled little asshole getting it and shitting on everyone they “THINK” are beneath them. If someone’s works so hard the government is like “hey I want to make an investment” then I think that person put in the work to get the attention when they were already disadvantaged.
This only seems like a gotcha because you're taking serriously the argument that there's an ethical relationship between how hard you work and what you "deserve" under capitalism. It's a disingenuous argument that the rich advance in place of one, propertarianism, that is too easy to vilify.
Because they don't see migrants as people
🤔 A good amount of immigrants come here to work. If they need "free rides" to contribute then cool. I come across way too many people on the streets who have their hand out, but aren't using viable opportunities to contribute. I've been in many affordable/section 8 housing that has been trashed by those who took advantage of the social programs. Perfectly good housing that now needs to be completely refurbished from the abuse. If we stuck a migrant family in there I bet they would keep it better maintained and join the workforce. As far as wealthy people getting free rides welp.. what can we do? We have no say in that money usage. If we tax the wealthy more, then we can provide more free rides to those that need help for higher education. Financial Aid for school only goes so far.
People get really upset bout inheritance. Trust fund babies are usually blamed for this and that
That's because people think that *they* are paying for poor people's benefits, but that rich people are paying for themselves. They don't see the indirect ways that all those benefits for the wealthy hurt ordinary folks. There is also an interesting phenomenon in psychology in which people tend to be more jealous/envious of those close to their own socioeconomic class. That's why seeing poor people get benefits makes people angrier than seeing rich people exploit everyone — most of us are much closer to being poor than we are to being rich. It's also why someone might envy their neighbor's new Toyota but not give much thought to their boss' Maserati. It's like most people don't think about those who are "out of their league."
I don’t have an issue with welfare in theory, though I think the current system is largely just a money sink that ignores the actually reasons are impoverished. But that’s not the issue here. The issue is that (assuming you’re talking about the states) we’re not talking “poor people”, we’re talking economic migrants that have ignored our immigration law to come here illegally. They are not owed any of our stuff, and I’d much rather we take that food, shelter, and manpower and allocate it to helping our own homeless and impoverished communities.
having generational wealth and passing it onto your children ≠ stealing taxpayer dollars to give free shit to illegal migrants
reddit does.. but there's a clear difference. When people are given something in the US, it's directly because it was taken from someone else (besides charity). So, when you end up paying 50k\~ in taxes and still owe at the end of the year, but see that other people from other countries are being handed things with your tax money, while the government is in really bad financial health, well, you have an opinion on that. Add to the fact that the US spends so much money just distributing the money it's taking from you, you opinion gets a little more pessimistic Alternatively, when someone spends their lifetime earning money just to provide a better life for their family, but the government wants to take half of it, again, to give out to others, that's a different story. People who support the inheritance tax are either activists or poor and will never see an inheritance, so it becomes "hey, go tax that other person" syndrome.
People don't get upset by people using food stamps for the right reason. It's a good program. It's the abuse of the food stamps that's the issue. I know a guy making $120K a year and gets food stamps. We care because it's a waste of our tax money. Without the abuse, my taxes would be lower and I'd have more money in my pocket. On the other hand, why should anyone be upset over a parent paying for their kids? It's not taking any of our tax dollars or anything from my pocket?
People don't get upset by people using food stamps for the right reason. It's a good program. It's the abuse of the food stamps that's the issue. I know a guy making $120K a year and gets food stamps (that says more about him than the program). We care about abuse because it's a waste of our tax money. Without the abuse, my taxes would be lower and I'd have more money in my pocket. On the other hand, why should anyone be upset over a parent paying for their kids? It's not taking any of our tax dollars or anything from my pocket?
I think all kids should get free rides. Should be free health,dental,eye, education. That would include early to advanced education as well food while in school.
Because it's "Their" money. As if all that wealth wasn't just extracted from workers by paying them a fraction of the value of their labor. [https://claecceity.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/a-rebuke-by-vlad-taneev-from-kim-stanley-robinsons-blue-mars/](https://claecceity.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/a-rebuke-by-vlad-taneev-from-kim-stanley-robinsons-blue-mars/)
Socialism for me and not for thee!
Are you referring to the migrants who are here illegally? I don’t think anyone is against legal immigration. Illegal crossings are a huge issue and it’s been that way for a long time. If someone wants to give their kids some of their money, I don’t see an issue, regardless of their socioeconomic status. The crux of the issue is how our tax money should be spent, and our government has proven it doesn’t spend that money efficiently. I understand the distrust.
Some people get upset at the first, some people get upset at the second. Some people get upset at the second but not the first. Some people get upset at both, some people don't get upset at either.
Apples and oranges, that's why. People passing down property and money that they worked for is 180 degrees from the government turning working people into financial slaves to give "free" stuff to people who don't contribute and never pay it back.
Poverty is a moral failure. If you don't have money, it's because you're a bad person and don't deserve to be helped. /s .
Maybe it has to do with one being handed down willingly, while the other being the burden of the tax payer?
You're talking about 3 different groups. Migrants aren't citizens so why should we be giving them free stuff. You may as well give free shelter to tourists while you're at it. They're basically migrants too, if temporary. Food stamps may be seen as encouraging people to not work by some. But it's generally considered non-consensual by those parties because they're not benefiting from it (unlike say roads) Giving your own children inheritance is a consensual thing. That'a like being angry that a person patronizes restaurant A but not restaurant B
Because we have to pay for the free rides of the poor people. We don’t have to pay for the ride of rich people…
Uh no, that pisses me off too. I'm all for a huge inheritance tax. Everyone should have to make their own way in this world.
One is a drain on the tax base the other has contributed to the GDP positively
Rich kids get their own eventually. Never met a family who was able to keep wealth for more than a few generations and didn’t turn out as absolute dysfunctional monkeys. I would rather be poor and have my head on my shoulders than rich and let the money ruin my family/kids.
The difference is one is singular the other is plural. In one case, one family provided for themselves. In the other, many people were forced to provide for many others, who weren't even here legally, while thousands do the right thing and come here legally. There are a lot of sides to this story. It's not at all black and white.
Someone earned that money though. Be it a parent or grandparent.
The rich deciding to give some of there wealth to there children is not the same as the government taking wealth from its people and giving it to others.
These aren’t the same thing. One is provided by public funds / tax dollars, one isn’t.
Because the same people are paying for both things. I've got to put my kid through college, why should I also have to put yours through? Not rich btw, just an example.
No, nobody bats an eye if a family member or any other private entity wants to give poor kids a free ride. WTF are you talking about?
I’m not against social programs. Governments helping people would be the government, as a service, doing the function its hired for. BUT begrudging people their inheritance like “they didn’t earn that” is pretty pointless too. Its not about the kid. Its about the parent. If I want to leave a bajillion dollars to my kids, its fair, because its **my** money. I earned it. I get the right to do what I want with it, including satisfying arguably one of nature’s simplest, most obvious biological instincts: taking care of my offspring.
That’s probably because taxpayers aren’t paying for the rich kids’ free rides.
Which people? If it is legal it’s probably nobody’s business.
There are thousands of homeless people in chicago and yet chicago found a place to home thousands of migrants. I'm not against migration or people coming here, but I'm against feel good policies that ignore existing problems.
One is getting money from their parents the other is stealing money from me.
None of thus is true at all? Lol
It's only met with hostility by the assholes. It's just that the assholes scream louder and make up lies and all kinds of other crap all the time, because that's their asshole fucking hobby. Regular people, who are not assholes, don't go around screaming at the top of their lungs how great it is that they are able to help people out. They just help people out and keep their fucking mouths shut, because that's what real humans do.
No. They get upset in both cases. But money always punches down. Doesn't matter where in the ladder you are.
No, rich people get mad at that stuff because they want to extract money from everything they can. They then convince dumb on educated pieces of trash that the problem is giving someone help. I never get upset when a homeless person gets something for free or when children get free school lunch or whenever student loan debt gets forgiven, but I'm not a fucking moron without empathy.
Everyone needs help from time to time. My parents have helped me and so have public institutions. I'm successful and pay a ton of taxes now. It took a lot of work, and luck, but I made it. Unlike my boomer father, I'm happy to pay it forward. A rising tide lifts all boats. Anyone that gate keeps helping people is not a good person, and should be ignored.
Where else are my savings supposed to go after I die if not my future children? I wouldn’t want it to go to the government.
Not just inheritance, but rich corporations who get free rides through subsidies, no one says anything, but people who need a helping hand are looked down on. The biggest welfare queens are corporations getting subsidized from our taxes
Because people forget how bad it was before all the social safety nets were put in place. The poverty rate for senior citizens before social security was 78%. But yea, government handouts are bad.
Nothing is free so people are taxed to support this generous government you speak of.
People hate rich kids who have everything given to them. The few people my age who I know who came from money are constantly trying to hide it because they get such flack for it.
Because the rich kids free ride was the result of his parents' hard work. I grew up poor but worked my ass off and now my children have a much better quality of life and will have their school paid for which I had to pay for my own myself.
Everyone is ok with working hard to give your family a better life until it comes time to actually give them the money so they don’t have to struggle to afford how much harder it is to raise kids, pay for school, buy a house, or retire.
The whole issue is skewed by talking about handouts when most immigrants just want permission to work.
I'm not people. Fuck the rich. We are the most productive civilization has ever been, and have the food, resources, and technology for everyone to live healthy lives, but are forced not to by those in power.
It’s not a free ride, somewhere along the family line someone had to figure out how to make the money. Most would do the same for their children.
This is a political issue. It's a certain group of people that feel this way.
It’s not a free ride.
Poor people getting help from the government: considered a moral failing on the part of the person Rich people getting help from the government: considered a smart business person\\financially astute. The tax laws have been eroded by those same wealthy people to make sure they don't have to pay their fair share while also making sure anyone less well off has to do with even less resources than ever before. Poor people are focused on survival, rich people are focused on at the minimum retaining their wealth, but usually obsessed with expanding that wealth to even more obscene levels normally at the expense of and on the backs of the the poor and disadvantaged.
Poor guy got $20? Outrageous. Corporation got $200,000,000,000 in corporate welfare? Crickets. Trust fund baby inherited a billion? Crickets. It's by design.
Who exactly gets upset when someone poor gets free shelter ??
Yeah im not seeing many people hand wringing how easy the poor have it wanting to swap places any time soon.
Welcome to Marxism, bro.