• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Higher-Incomes Work Harder than Lower-Incomes?

Do higher-incomes work harder than lower-incomes?

  • Yes, the higher-incomes work harder

    Votes: 7 15.9%
  • No, higher-incomes don't work harder

    Votes: 25 56.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 27.3%

  • Total voters
    44
That's precisely what I am saying.

They shouldn't be allowed to have a Porsche. They shouldn't be allowed to have a yacht. What makes this different?

Well, it doesn't sound like you grew up wealthy. Should your parents have had you?
 
Well, it doesn't sound like you grew up wealthy. Should your parents have had you?

People on the public dole (unless they are wounded soldiers or disabled firefighters etc) should not be able to consciously increase the costs they impose on others. Thus people on the dole should not be having children
 
People on the public dole (unless they are wounded soldiers or disabled firefighters etc) should not be able to consciously increase the costs they impose on others. Thus people on the dole should not be having children


ROFL....keep talking...teaparty will die alot faster than it would otherwise
 
Higher income earners don't necessarily "work harder." Some are just more intelligent, have developed skills that are more useful to more people, are more cunning, patient, socially competent, able to understand and play into the politics of the structures above their heads, took bigger risks that paid off. Possibilities are endless.

These days, I would say cunning is a good adjective. Some people just know how to play the system to their benefit. Typically, only those on welfare are seen as the types that "play the system" but plenty of people on the other side of the coin do the same. The system works for people like that.
 
ROFL....keep talking...teaparty will die alot faster than it would otherwise

yeah hundreds of millions of voters come here to get their opinions on the tea party-something I don't claim to speak for. Maybe you should Identify yourself as a Dem party supporter if that really happens.

Do you think people on welfare should spawn like trouts? Of course you do-that creates a ready supply of dem voters
 
People on the public dole (unless they are wounded soldiers or disabled firefighters etc) should not be able to consciously increase the costs they impose on others. Thus people on the dole should not be having children

You just fundamentally have values that I find completely ridiculous. A few bucks to help somebody out is a bigger deal to you than something as enormous as having a kid? It just strikes me as idiotically self engrossed... All you can see is what affects you I guess, I don't know how else to explain it.
 
So should there be an income requirement in order to have children?

people shouldn't voluntarily impose costs on others. Now I don't think kids attending public schools is a cost imposed on others. that is a community expenditure I approve of and I don't think those of us who send out kids to private schools should be able to opt out of funding public schools because that does benefit EVERYONE.

but those on the dole having kid after kid after kid is a drain on society
 
You just fundamentally have values that I find completely ridiculous. A few bucks to help somebody out is a bigger deal to you than something as enormous as having a kid? It just strikes me as idiotically self engrossed... All you can see is what affects you I guess, I don't know how else to explain it.

I guess when you raise a family and start having to pay for your kids you might get a different perspective than that of a law student. You seem to think that others have an unlimited claim on the wealth of the tax payers.
 
people shouldn't voluntarily impose costs on others. Now I don't think kids attending public schools is a cost imposed on others. that is a community expenditure I approve of and I don't think those of us who send out kids to private schools should be able to opt out of funding public schools because that does benefit EVERYONE.

but those on the dole having kid after kid after kid is a drain on society

i can't really disagree with that, but what can be done?
 
I guess when you raise a family and start having to pay for your kids you might get a different perspective than that of a law student. You seem to think that others have an unlimited claim on the wealth of the tax payers.

No, I don't think so. Do you not get that your concerns in this issue are insanely petty compared to the concerns of a parent in that situation? It is just flat out ridiculous. It's like if I was your neighbor and I argued that you shouldn't be allowed to have kids because I didn't like the sound of crying. Just petty and selfish.
 
i can't really disagree with that, but what can be done?

that is a good point but we have to stop encouraging irresponsible breeding by those unable or unwilling to provide for their children. If someone wants the freedom to say have 5 children with 6 different sex partners, they should not be on the public dole. I have no problem putting such children in foster care and penalizing the brood mare financially and perhaps-if its egregious, sterilize them
 
No, I don't think so. Do you not get that your concerns in this issue are insanely petty compared to the concerns of a parent in that situation? It is just flat out ridiculous. It's like if I was your neighbor and I argued that you shouldn't be allowed to have kids because I didn't like the sound of crying. Just petty and selfish.

so you think 17 year olds should have 4 kids by the time they hit 19?

Why do I have a duty to fund that sort of breeding?
 
You want to encourage a better work ethic, get rid of the hourly wage and give everyone a salary with bonus potential. Right now, its better for poor people to slack off to squeeze out a few hours extra a work to have that extra $20/week or so.
 
that is a good point but we have to stop encouraging irresponsible breeding by those unable or unwilling to provide for their children. If someone wants the freedom to say have 5 children with 6 different sex partners, they should not be on the public dole. I have no problem putting such children in foster care and penalizing the brood mare financially and perhaps-if its egregious, sterilize them

I know of someone who has seven kids and is pregnant with her eighth. And yes, she's on the dole. Which is ridiculous. But I can't support government mandated sterilization. It is a horribly dangerous precedent to set, and one that I will never support no matter what happens. I originally wanted Andrea Yates sterilized, but someone pointed out that even though it wouldn't be wrong in her case, the precedent it would set in law would be terribly dangerous. I agree. I also hesitate to take kids away from their natural parents and put them into foster care. Foster care is already overrun with unwanted kids and abuse. It's a tough problem, and I admit that I have no answer for it.
 
I know of someone who has seven kids and is pregnant with her eighth. And yes, she's on the dole. Which is ridiculous. But I can't support government mandated sterilization. It is a horribly dangerous precedent to set, and one that I will never support no matter what happens. I originally wanted Andrea Yates sterilized, but someone pointed out that even though it wouldn't be wrong in her case, the precedent it would set in law would be terribly dangerous. I agree. I also hesitate to take kids away from their natural parents and put them into foster care. Foster care is already overrun with unwanted kids and abuse. It's a tough problem, and I admit that I have no answer for it.
fair enough

I support freedom but when you start engaging in voluntary activities that cost other people money I believe either those you cost have a right to stop giving you money or to prevent you from costing them more
 
to quote my good friend John McEnroe

You cannot be SERIOUS

Obviously 17 year olds shouldn't have kids. In fact, people should plan to try to have kids when they can support them. But the notion that it is the government's job to try to force people to have kids when you want them to is repulsive. And, again, whatever petty concerns you have about the few pennies a day you pay in taxes for welfare just doesn't even register as a consideration whatsoever in a serious topic like that.
 
Obviously 17 year olds shouldn't have kids. In fact, people should plan to try to have kids when they can support them. But the notion that it is the government's job to try to force people to have kids when you want them to is repulsive. And, again, whatever petty concerns you have about the few pennies a day you pay in taxes for welfare just doesn't even register as a consideration whatsoever in a serious topic like that.

You didn't read what I said. The government currently has welfare policies that encourage the poor to breed. People should only bear children after they have established the ability to properly pay for the children they want to have
 
You didn't read what I said. The government currently has welfare policies that encourage the poor to breed. People should only bear children after they have established the ability to properly pay for the children they want to have

It doesn't encourage people to breed unless they don't feed their kids. Its meant to be kept proportionally the same
 
It doesn't encourage people to breed unless they don't feed their kids. Its meant to be kept proportionally the same

Modern welfare systems have encouraged the poor to have more children
 
You didn't read what I said. The government currently has welfare policies that encourage the poor to breed. People should only bear children after they have established the ability to properly pay for the children they want to have

So you believe that the few dollars in welfare people get is enough to make them have kids they wouldn't otherwise have? Do you realize how idiotic that notion is? They're people, man. With brains. Not animals. Besides, the cost of raising a kid for 18 years is way higher than the welfare benefits you get for 5 years.
 
Modern welfare systems have encouraged the poor to have more children

You do know that you aren't given more money percentage wise for having more kids right (that might not be the case in all states)? You are given "enough" to sustain the kids you have, not over and above that. So you are only rewarded if you don't use that money on your kids.

I'd rather have a reverse income tax though.
 
You do know that you aren't given more money percentage wise for having more kids right (that might not be the case in all states)? You are given "enough" to sustain the kids you have, not over and above that. So you are only rewarded if you don't use that money on your kids.

I'd rather have a reverse income tax though.

exactly dude
 
Back
Top Bottom