My definition is something like this: Taxes for running the government, public works, infrastructure, etc, are like a fee we pay for those services. Welfare, on the other hand, goes to individuals who perform no services and earn none of it. That's socialism.
Most welfare recipients work. Welfare fraud is very rare.
I can't dispute or verify your facts, but nevertheless the principle of welfare is that they are given money they didn't earn, whether they earn other money or not. It's a matter of definition.
And I'm changing my mind about this anyway thanks to the information about the tithe in ancient Israel going to the support of widows, orphans and strangers, and about the Roman Empire's giving of food to the poor. I'm also for the uses Tangle said the UK makes of their welfare money, education, health care etc.
The main problem with all of this is that there is far more need than there is money to support it, which is the economic argument from the conservative side. Ben Shapiro says for instance that even in the countries most often commended for their socialist programs, such as Norway, there are economic problems that aren't usually mentioned. I'm not in a position to argue this point, I'm just including it as necessary information. If the cause of our trillions of debt is the funding of such programs, they have to be declared a monumental failure, don't they?
No, the solution must be that we keep racking up the debt until we're owned and governed by Communist China. Obviously.
The debt is not caused by welfare programs.
The situation you have is a handful of people sitting on mountains of wealth while many others are homeless, hungry and sick. Charity does some good but it doesn't solve the problem.
Homelessness, hunger and sickness all detract from productivity. Taking care of the less fortunate is a good investment (not to mention being the right thing to do). It's not just shameful that some Christians oppose welfare programs, it's downright foolish.
Earlier I looked up what level of income is classed in the upper 1% category and was surprised. I was expecting huge incomes in the upper multiple millions at least and find that the 1% level starts at $386 thousand something and that the average is only $1.15 million. IIRC. While that is great riches to someone like me, it wouldn't just casually buy you seven houses and three yachts as you were claiming. It doesn't seem like enough to class them as a wealthy class who should be taxed to the bone to support everybody else, that is, if there is any real desire to promote freedom in this nation so that there CAN be a class of people who have the ability or the good fortune to make a lot of money without being punished for it.
To me it does look more like what the Right says the Left is about: envy of the rich rather than any real concern for the poor. You can counter that with the Left's view that the Right is fueled by greed, but both envy and greed are sins, one side isn't more righteous than the other if those terms are right at all. I think most wealth is earned by upright people myself, not greedy hoarders at all.
Poor, poor Faith. So easily confused by even the simplest of concepts. Income is not the same as wealth! My wealth is > 40 times my annual income (primarily because i own a fully paid off home in Silicon Valley that I bought 35 years ago - last year its increase in value (wealth) was 3 times my income that year. I could probably sell this house and buy seven houses in one of the s**thole (i. e., red) states.) Jeff Bezo’s income might well be below that $386K you mention. Or maybe you know this and that’s why you didn’t bother to link to your source. It’s actually possible for a person to have a multi $million income and negative wealth, if for example, their indebtedness (liabilities) exceeds their assets.
Also, and very importantly, many of the super wealth have very low income because they direct their income to personal corporations that purchase all their goodies for them. They do this, of course, as a tax avoidance maneuver. That’s why the Republican’s recent tax law changed the tax bracket on “pass through” income, again to aid their wealth supporters avoid more taxes.
Did you know that the treasury department is having to sell over 1 $trillion in bonds each year for the next several years to pay for the country’s deficits? One forth of that is just to pay the interest on outstanding debt. With the increasing fed interest rate and the rapidly growing debt (growing much faster than the Republican’s fantasy projections) interest payments alone will grow to 1 $trillion by 2030, just about the time you start wishing you were a Democrat. I’m also following your lead in not citing sources, but you can check it out on any fake news site.
It's true I have little knowledge of things economic, but I have no motive for not linking something or other except it's work once I've left the site behind, and I don't grasp it all anyway. I'm happy to be educated about these things but so far the difference doesn't really make a difference to me. A huge income is wealth by most ordinary thinking, but feel free to make whatever relevant points you'd like to make, though most of what you already said went over my head as it is.