The Poor Have the Highest Rate of Return
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
A man gives his servants different amounts of money to invest. To one, he gives 50,000. To the second, 20,000. And to the third, 10,000.
He leaves for a couple years, and comes back. The one he gave 50k now has 100k. He says, woohoo.
The one he gave 20k now has 40k. He says, great job.
The third had still 10k, because he buried it in a mayonaisse jar in the back yard.
So, he takes 20k from the first, 10k from the second, and gives 5k to the third. The remaining 25k is given to the high fructose corn syrup industry.
At least, that's what the government would do.
In the Bible version, the 10k was taken away from the servant and given to the richest.
This is pretty powerful proof that entitlements and welfare are not the way to go. Redistribution of wealth is great, as long as it's taking from those who do not know what to do with it and given to those who can handle it well.
Note that nothing was taken from or given to the middle servant.
We can't get rid of taxes altogether, because they are needed to take the money of many and pool it to solve common problems and provide for common needs. But that is ALL a government should be doing.
Giving money to people who can't handle it properly is bad news. It's already biting us in the butt. Often it's not even spent on food or housing, and goes to something else instead. If you give money to people for nothing, they will continue to give you nothing. It's the best return on investment ever. I give you nothing, and you give me something, is an infinite rate of return.
I think we need to make those on welfare do something for their food and housing, and give them food and housing instead of money. Community service hours springs to mind. I'm sure there are those who are able to work, but don't. If they had to do community service in exchange for living in a really bad place to live, perhaps they would rather get a job, so they could afford a better place.
Welfare for those who cannot work is still needed, but I think private charity can pick up the slack there, by doing their hours for them or some other way.
It should always be worse to be on welfare than to work, and it should always be worse to have additional children in this situation.
Currently we don't have the ability to put this system into place.
Please, let me know the pitfalls of this idea.
He leaves for a couple years, and comes back. The one he gave 50k now has 100k. He says, woohoo.
The one he gave 20k now has 40k. He says, great job.
The third had still 10k, because he buried it in a mayonaisse jar in the back yard.
So, he takes 20k from the first, 10k from the second, and gives 5k to the third. The remaining 25k is given to the high fructose corn syrup industry.
At least, that's what the government would do.
In the Bible version, the 10k was taken away from the servant and given to the richest.
This is pretty powerful proof that entitlements and welfare are not the way to go. Redistribution of wealth is great, as long as it's taking from those who do not know what to do with it and given to those who can handle it well.
Note that nothing was taken from or given to the middle servant.
We can't get rid of taxes altogether, because they are needed to take the money of many and pool it to solve common problems and provide for common needs. But that is ALL a government should be doing.
Giving money to people who can't handle it properly is bad news. It's already biting us in the butt. Often it's not even spent on food or housing, and goes to something else instead. If you give money to people for nothing, they will continue to give you nothing. It's the best return on investment ever. I give you nothing, and you give me something, is an infinite rate of return.
I think we need to make those on welfare do something for their food and housing, and give them food and housing instead of money. Community service hours springs to mind. I'm sure there are those who are able to work, but don't. If they had to do community service in exchange for living in a really bad place to live, perhaps they would rather get a job, so they could afford a better place.
Welfare for those who cannot work is still needed, but I think private charity can pick up the slack there, by doing their hours for them or some other way.
It should always be worse to be on welfare than to work, and it should always be worse to have additional children in this situation.
Currently we don't have the ability to put this system into place.
Please, let me know the pitfalls of this idea.
