• 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!

Would you quit your job?

If you were guaranteed a $25,000 income would you quit your job and stay unemployed?


  • Total voters
    103
I own my house. It is paid off. Why would I have to move out of my house, or sell my car, for that matter. If I quit my job I would keep them.

The only way I'd quit my job is if I suddenly became a multi millionaire. Fat chance in hell of that happening. :lol:
 
The ability to consider the future is already endemic in the individual being questioned. There is no addition, as it is pre-existent.

Considering the future within the parameters set. You add parameters, you alter the question.

Since no parameters for any of those items were included, there is no alteration occurring. It's as if you were to argue that if one were to take this deal, they could not then dye their hair a different color.

Since that would not impact the outcome, that's a non-sequitur.

The dispute is over what the rules are. Is this a trade that, unlike any other in human society, forever imprisons all action? Or is it one that is (what it obviously is) an addition/modification/proposal in the context of a welfare state, which does not unless explicitly drawn out.

There is a difference between a practical application and a philosophical question. Practically, anyone can do what they want. Philosophically, the OP asks a narrow question to understand an individual's personal philosophy.

Yeah. 0230 is too late to be arguing about this stuff.

The left/right breakdown I find interesting for two reasons:

1. As described above, the assumption about the nature of freedom of action - is all action free that is not restricted, or is all action restricted that is not freed?

2. There seems to be a need of some here on the left to deny people the ability to make rational decisions if those rational decisions then leave them taking advantage of the welfare state. Why can we not discuss how people interact with the welfare state honestly - that they do so based (most usually) on their own self-interest?

This actually has zero to do with what I am discussing. You are confusing the practical application of the situation (which I am NOT arguing) vs. the personal philosophy of the individual (which I am also not arguing, but AM processing). What I found interesting in the left/right break down is that those on the left are arguing for a rigid interpretation of the OP, whereas those on the right are arguing for a VERY loose interpretation of the OP. I found that rather interesting and contradictory.
 
Apparently not since I'm getting by just fine on not much more money than this.

I live here. I'm pretty sure of I'm aware of the costs, HERE. What they are for you where you live is irrelevant to my statement.
 
No - if you are unemployed, you have a job. Somewhere that you are going to show up to for some time and get paychecks from. If you took $50 from someone to mow their lawn, you are not employed, and not counted as employed. If you claim to be looking for work, and take $50 to mow a lawn, you still count as unemployed. The receipt of benefits (in this case, a $25K monetary transfer) is dependent upon a definition of unemployment different than the one you are seeking to have applied.

No, if you work you are employed. A check of $50 can be considered a paycheck and CAN be applied to your income tax return. Now we can keep going round and round about this, but I can tell you that I will not be altering my position. If you are in the same boat, it might be time to call it a draw.

PM? Threaten to speak sarcastically about him downstairs if he doesn't make a ruling?

Nah. Not REALLY that important.

Correct - and the OP sets two: 1. quit your current job and 2. remain unemployed. Those are the only restrictions.

No, those are the parameters. Anything additional goes beyond the parameters.

:shrug: it's very possible I'm projecting - as an ENTP, I love the variety and cut-and-thrust of the place, as well as the ability to develop expertise. But I had thought that introverts were also less likely to engage in conflict?

Depends on the venue. As an INTJ I have no issue in engaging in conflict.

In this poll yes - as I pointed out above, those on the left seem to have an ideological vested interest in demonstrating that people will not cheat a social welfare system, whereas those on the right have a vested interest in demonstrating precisely that fact. In RL, very few are trying to make that precise argument with their own individual choices, and those who morally or ideologically are suspicious or oppose a welfare state are less likely to seek to leverage it than those who approve and encourage it, which is one of the reasons why I argue that this place is not representative. Over the years I've given up thousands of dollars because I felt obliged to stick to my beliefs in my personal life.

Or, perhaps the responses had nothing to do with this, but with what I stated in my previous post. Interpretation became reversed.


Wait - that wasn't clear from the first post?

Somewhat, but it became more clear when people started responding.

Or I am correct for the reasons described above - that DP is not representative of GP.

No, since the types of interpretation were reversed ideologically, this has nothing to do with whether DP is representative of GP.
 
Well that depends on your expenses. Do you have a car payment, credit cards, etc.? There are all kinds of variables that would effect your ability to survive on that amount of money, and I have to say it would be very difficult to survive in my part of the country on that small amount of money too.

That's the good part about living responsibly: no debt.
 
I live here. I'm pretty sure of I'm aware of the costs, HERE. What they are for you where you live is irrelevant to my statement.

You said here, so I figured you were implying that you live in Los Angeles also. Outside of San Francisco or Manhattan, there aren't many places more expensive than here.
 
Most people are carrying some kind of debt.

That's because most people make financially destructive decisions. Consumer debt isn't helpful, it's harmful.
 
If you were guaranteed a $25,000/year income by the government would you quit your job and stay unemployed?

I know I wouldn't, how about you?

No, I wouldn't. I am one who has to feel like I am doing something productive, in order to earn my keep. If I voluntarily depended on the government, and did not contribute to my own well-being, my conscience would bother me.
 
That's because most people make financially destructive decisions. Consumer debt isn't helpful, it's harmful.

Because some people wouldn't be able to have anything if they didn't take out loans because the price of things is out of reach, especially homes and vehicles. Did you pay cash for your home?
 
If you were guaranteed a $25,000/year income by the government would you quit your job and stay unemployed?

I know I wouldn't, how about you?

That's not even half of what I make now. Wouldn't take scraps from them anyway as a simple matter of principal and pride.
 
No, if you work you are employed. A check of $50 can be considered a paycheck and CAN be applied to your income tax return. Now we can keep going round and round about this, but I can tell you that I will not be altering my position. If you are in the same boat, it might be time to call it a draw.

Nah. Not REALLY that important.

No, those are the parameters. Anything additional goes beyond the parameters.

Depends on the venue. As an INTJ I have no issue in engaging in conflict.

Or, perhaps the responses had nothing to do with this, but with what I stated in my previous post. Interpretation became reversed.

Somewhat, but it became more clear when people started responding.

No, since the types of interpretation were reversed ideologically, this has nothing to do with whether DP is representative of GP.

We are kind of repeating ourselves - I'm not ignoring you, but I figured I would let you have the last word.
 
Because some people wouldn't be able to have anything if they didn't take out loans because the price of things is out of reach, especially homes and vehicles. Did you pay cash for your home?
Like me for example.

I recently purchased a car which will potentially last me for 5-10 years if I'm lucky.

Without financing, I would have had to settle for a car that might have lasted me 2 years...or possibly less.
 
Because some people wouldn't be able to have anything if they didn't take out loans because the price of things is out of reach, especially homes and vehicles. Did you pay cash for your home?

Home debt is not consumer debt - I can understand taking out a (shorter than typical) mortgage. We don't have one, when we do we will probably take out a 15 year and seek to pay it off in about 5-7. I'm open to the possibility of paying cash, but not sure if we would want to deploy enough to gain that ability. But cars, trips, etc? I buy with cash and I have since I was making enough to qualify for food stamps. If we were too poor to afford nice cars, we were sure as heck too poor to afford nice cars plus interest.
 
Home debt is not consumer debt - I can understand taking out a (shorter than typical) mortgage. We don't have one, when we do we will probably take out a 15 year and seek to pay it off in about 5-7. I'm open to the possibility of paying cash, but not sure if we would want to deploy enough to gain that ability. But cars, trips, etc? I buy with cash and I have since I was making enough to qualify for food stamps. If we were too poor to afford nice cars, we were sure as heck too poor to afford nice cars plus interest.

Not many people can shell out more than $20,000 for a decent vehicle, and that's not even a "nice" car, just an average car.
 
Oh, and the going rate for a home in my area is like $300,000, and that's for an average sized home too.

Massachusetts home prices keep rising as demand continues to outstrip supply - Business - The Boston Globe'

The median price for a single-family home in Massachusetts rose to $313,000 last month, nearly 14 percent higher than during April 2012 as increasingly eager buyers and a limited inventory of houses on the market combined to push up values, data released Wednesday show.
 
Not many people can shell out more than $20,000 for a decent vehicle, and that's not even a "nice" car, just an average car.

Dude if you are paying 20K for a car you better be getting a nice car. I'm about to pay out 3x more than I have ever paid for a vehicle, and I'm shelling out 15,000.


Another point - new cars devalue by ~60-70% in the first three years. Buying brand new at current prices is also not fiscally wise for those with constrained budgets.
 
Oh, and the going rate for a home in my area is like $300,000, and that's for an average sized home too.

Yup. I'm not going to say that getting a mortgage per se is fiscally unwise (it can be if you get too much mortgage, or pay it off over 30 years, or get an adjustable rate). But if I were going to buy a 300,000 home, I would want to have minimum $60,000 downpayment, $20,000 emergency fund, no other debt, and an income high enough so that the rest of my monthly mortgage was about 25% of my take-home pay. 30ish%.... maybe. If it was a house in a good place likely to keep value and I really liked it. So I would need an income in my 80s.
 
Yup. I'm not going to say that getting a mortgage per se is fiscally unwise (it can be if you get too much mortgage, or pay it off over 30 years, or get an adjustable rate). But if I were going to buy a 300,000 home, I would want to have minimum $60,000 downpayment, $20,000 emergency fund, no other debt, and an income high enough so that the rest of my monthly mortgage was about 25% of my take-home pay. 30ish%.... maybe. If it was a house in a good place likely to keep value and I really liked it. So I would need an income in my 80s.

Good, then you admit that you couldn't live here in Massachusetts as a home owner on only $25,000 a year income.
 
Good, then you admit that you couldn't live here in Massachusetts as a home owner on only $25,000 a year income.

:shrug: I never claimed I could or could not live in Mass on 25K a year. Certainly I wouldn't be so foolish as to attempt to buy a $300K house on 25K a year unless I was basically buying it with cash. I imagine those living on 25K are probably not usually purchasing "median" homes.
 
:shrug: I never claimed I could or could not live in Mass on 25K a year. Certainly I wouldn't be so foolish as to attempt to buy a $300K house on 25K a year unless I was basically buying it with cash. I imagine those living on 25K are probably not usually purchasing "median" homes.

Well, in the city where I live the average price of a home is about 250,000, and that is for a modest home. Some places in the country are obviously much more expensive to live than others, so it all depends on where you live.
 
Well, in the city where I live the average price of a home is about 250,000, and that is for a modest home. Some places in the country are obviously much more expensive to live than others, so it all depends on where you live.

True story. That is why I fully intend to stay out of the DC/NorVA/MD area, despite the fact that pay is somewhat better there. Cost of living and driving is just too much insaneness.
 
True story. That is why I fully intend to stay out of the DC/NorVA/MD area, despite the fact that pay is somewhat better there. Cost of living and driving is just too much insaneness.

Lol! And I'm looking to get the heck out of this part of the country to try to save some money! Heating too is outrageously expensive here, and winters are loooong. :lol:
 
Lol! And I'm looking to get the heck out of this part of the country to try to save some money! Heating too is outrageously expensive here, and winters are loooong. :lol:

:shakes finger: that's what you get for living in the North East, instead of the South, where the civilized people are :mrgreen:
 
:shakes finger: that's what you get for living in the North East, instead of the South, where the civilized people are :mrgreen:

Us Massholes are plenty civilized, thank you very much! :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom