Way to go towards helping people help themselves, encouraging middle class values, responsibility, yadda yadda, all the usual stuff Republicans blather about but don't actually care about.
Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which reduces the ability for those poor and unemployed to gets jobs.
1. Poor people on welfare wouldn't be dis-incentivized to work more.
2. It reduces the cost of those programs like welfare that cost a lot in bureaucracy for no gain.
3. Lower income people have money velocity that stimulates the rest of the economy.
> Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which reduces the ability for those poor and unemployed to gets jobs
Illegal immigration doesn't do that... automation is a big factor in that. If your job is being taken away by an uneducated illegal immigrant then you are not competing for highly paid jobs.
> If I want to donate to charity, I will.
Charity has been shown to be less efficient than just giving money directly to poor people.
Can you provide sources for this? Also, what do you mean "efficient"? If you mean there's no overhead, sure, so long as you don't spend any time trying to determine where the need is and just hand cash to the homeless guy you see on the street, but I care about effectiveness, and that's very likely not going to be "give money to the guy on the street near my office".
GveDirectly is better than most charities (which is mostly just giving money to poor people, but is a charity that does it intelligently). Additionally, the Against Malaria Foundation probably has a higher effectiveness.
The problem with depending 100% on people giving to charity is not that it's worse than depending on them giving money to the poor. It's that it completely ignores the various externalities that can be corrected through taxes and government spending. Would the world be better off if we cut government spending in half and send that money to AMF, GiveDirectly, and similar programs? Sure. But would the world be better off if we just cut government spending and hoped rich people would become more altruistic? Probably not.
To answer your real point. You can never have full employment. There are always going to be people that can't have a job, whether that's due to health, lack of job availability, or a number of other issues. What do you do with these people? They have to eat or die.
The current system design is to provide a a safety net. The alternative is that people resort to crime to survive. Do you think that'd be a better country to live in? Do you have an alternative system?
>How many people have been deported under Obama?
>President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief."
>Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
>How does he compare to other presidents?
>According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president's administration in history.
>In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-num...
The way capitalism is designed is that not everyone can have a job. So you pay the poor not to starve and come loot your house.
Also, I believe, there was a study suggesting that more equal society is better for everyone involved, including you.
Poverty also inhibits education and I suppose you can figure out why uneducated or lowly educated society is bad.
Umm, because we don't want them to die? And society as a whole benefits from it?
> I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes.
What gave you the idea you get to decide what taxes are used for?
So some of your earning power really belongs to the community, and should be divided equally among the community, including yourself.
Modern day liberalism has become a religion, where "what should happen" and what's "morally right", and who has "advantage over others" replaces "God's commandments", "sin", and even in the case of affirmative action, "original sin" (being a white male, you are born having others more deserving than you).
And just like any other religion, it's all just a bunch of horse shit.
I'm pretty sure all the business owners who take advantage of illegal immigrants to violate labor laws, pay them pennies compared to what they'd have to pay those 'poor and unemployed' Americans, and generally abuse the heck out them... --all-- vote Republican.
If Trump actually builds a wall that works, a bunch of scummy Republican business owners are going to be screaming bloody murder. Illegal immigration is a problem, but there is a demand side to it and no one ever seems to bring that side up in discussions.
If it were such a great idea for a country, it would have already occurred at a smaller level.
It has. The Svanholm community in Denmark (http://svanholm.dk) raised taxes to 80% for all its members, but in return you free housing, food and all other essentials. They have been doing this successfully since the 70's.
Nothing except the humongous coordination problem involved in doing so. These are exactly the kind of problems that government exists to solve.
