passive_fist comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong

13 Post author: ChrisHallquist 27 November 2013 05:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (510)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: passive_fist 29 November 2013 12:22:35PM 2 points [-]

I just used charity as an example; the same argument applies to taxes as well. The only difference is that taxes are enforced. It's still a priority to ensure that taxes are given and used correctly. In many countries with welfare, for instance, to stay on welfare you are required to prove that you have been looking for a source of independent income. Now, scandals do happen, and they happen often, and I agree with you that it's an important priority to make sure that welfare is only used in a positive way. I would even support a limit on having children unless someone can prove they have the financial means to take care of them. This seems both humane and efficient.

Comment author: wwa 29 November 2013 08:35:14PM 1 point [-]

I just used charity as an example; the same argument applies to taxes as well.

That does not follow. Why would I care about money I have no control over? Why would a politician care about efficiency over publicity? Why wouldn't the recipient try to take more than he needs? There's no incentive for anyone to do anything right.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 29 November 2013 12:51:37PM 0 points [-]

How do prove your assets, when money in the bank is no longer money in the bank? And what you do with violators? Fine them? Sterilise them? Seize their children?

Comment author: [deleted] 29 November 2013 02:05:55PM 0 points [-]

How do prove your assets, when money in the bank is no longer money in the bank?

It would seem to me that discouraging people from hiding their money away would be a good thing?