This mentality is exactly the problem. The idea that people with more money should get to decide how people with less money get to spend it. And if they don't sped it the way they want, Its waste.
This is a straw man. Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps so they can pull them selves up with them. Reducing poverty reduces crime and health care costs as well.
> Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps
If it isn’t funding subsistence it isn’t basic income. Whether we flourish that as welfare or bootstraps is rhetorical dressing.
"The idea that people with more money should get to decide how people with less money get to spend it."
If it's my tax money, I get to say how it's spent. This is yet another example of the incredibly sad and stupid, "whoever is weakest is rightest", "morality" that's becoming more and more prevalent in the west.
> If it's my tax money, I get to say how it's spent.
No? This has never been how it works.
We all get to decide how it’s spent by voting. You don’t get to individually decide because, obviously, you’re always just gonna choose yourself. In which case - why bother taxing you?
There’s really two camps here: people who think taxation goes towards freeloaders, and people who think taxation goes towards the community.
I’m in the second camp. I believe these things are mutually beneficial. I want to live in a country with less homelessness, less drugs, less violence, less crimes, more education. That costs money, and I’m happy to give it up because I think I DO benefit, just not directly.
You "get a say" when voting, but you do not "get to say" where your money goes exactly. Those phrases have very different meanings, maybe you got them confused
If you were being ironic/sarcastic in your initial comment, that didn't come through for me.
Given the degree of political friction on this (and other) sites, and the fact that for any "obviously" exaggerated point of view you are quite likely to find absolutely sincere adherents ... it would benefit your writing to be clear when you are or aren't being sarcastic.
And to reply in a positive rather than antagonistic tone, particularly if someone's supporting your own viewpoint.
(I'm not certain even this take of mine is valid. However your writing doesn't make your viewpoint clear as it can be read two ways. Which itself raises the temperature within the thread. Avoid that if possible.)
reminds me a lot of Innuendo Studios "Always a bigger fish" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs