Actually long term you would have less money for yourself due to your bachelor party having underfinanced infrastructure and poor education and whatnot. Nobody likes a stripper with potholes. It's no coincidence that most countries with lower taxes also have lower living standards.

Right about what? You just want to look at the subject as cynically as possible.

Paying the poor to be poor so they'll stay poor? Man, must suck seeing the world that way. Glad it works so well for you though.

Do you have a framed photo of Reagan hanging above your bed by any chance?

I do^..... Dick.

Tell that to Old Dirty Bastard.

A fun, visual way to look at society and taxes could be like this (though it requires some imagination) :

Think of a large square representing society. In this square, you have lots of smaller areas, tiny circles, representing private stuff (property etc). One of these tiny circles represents your stuff. In your day to day life - if you go to work or to a cafè or something, you step out of your circle and spend time in the space between circles - or perhaps into another small circle. You probably spend a significant amount of your life outside your own circle.

If everyone pays less taxes, the space between the circles is gonna get shittier. If that also means everyone has more money to spend, that would mean the circles might get a little bigger and nicer. You'd still have the problem that whenever you step out of your somewhat nicer circle, the area between circles is shittier. The money tied up in other people's circles is won't do you as much good as money in the space between circles because you got no direct access to it.

BUT the reality of it might be that you pay less taxes AND people don't get more money. In a society that creates winners and losers, the money aggregates with a rich minority. They will have bigger, nicer little circles and they will be completely cut off from you. The smaller circles shrink to feed the few big ones. Now the area between circles is shittier and the median circle is also shittier.

It's just a big square of shit dotted with little shit circles.

the funny thing is i didn't claim that was my stance, i was trying to play devil's advocate in hopes that you might actually try to flesh out your views on the subject

instead you do this

edit - i'm right about the fact that you think you can reword something and make it seem better, instead of just answering the question, which has more to do with the nature of incentive than which phrase we should use to describe welfare.

That's rich.

I told you my views on the subject mirror what I quoted.

And we should all be thankful for Old Dirty Bastard. His thug arrogant video was the straw that broke the camels back and got congress off of their stonewalling asses to get behind Clinton's welfare reform policies.

it's not rich, i was the one who initially asked batlord what to do with the starving family? it was all devil's advocate. i actually think it's a pretty complex and hard to answer question, which is why i'm trying to get people who are set in their views to think about it more. or perhaps enlighten me. because i certainly don't see it so clearly.

you quoted a list of demographics that you think we should give welfare to....

that's not an all encompassing answer to any welfare related questions...

like it doesn't specifically answer my question about incentive

Your questions are too framed and biased to warrant any attempt at answers. You wear it plainly on your sleeve dude. Stay away from Vegas.