FPCFromClipboardUntitled.

txt
Posted on 2nd May 2015, 08:10 PM
People need to be provided basic necessi es like food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, transport, and
electricity. This goes doubly so for people who have to support other people such as children, the
inrm, and the elderly. Someone has to provide this. In my opinion, it should be provided by the
government, but since Americans seem to be convinced that that would turn the country into a
communist dystopia, then we're going to have to ask businesses to pay a living wage, otherwise there
will be people who cannot aord some por on of these basic necessi es.
If you don't think businesses paying a living wage is an op on, do you think we should increase
welfare, or do you think people should go without basic necessi es?
---Posted on 2nd May 2015, 11:43 PM
"the rich get their money o the backs of the poor"
No, they get it purely from their hard work. That's why the CEO of Exxon-Mobil spends his work days
manning the oil rigs, right? Are you really saying that CEOs work so hard that they deserve to make
hundreds of mes more than the laborers they employ? The CEO of Walmart makes 1033 mes as
much money as the average Walmart employee. The CEO of Walmart does not need that much money.
The CEO of Walmart does not work 1033 mes harder than the average Walmart employee.
h p://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income-2013/fortune-100
"the rich don't pay any taxes"
They do pay taxes. It's not a ma er of whether or not they pay taxes, it's a ma er of how much in taxes
they pay.
"the poor deserve welfare from redistribu on"
If by "redistribu on" you mean "spending tax dollars on welfare for the poor", then yes, they do.
Nobody deserves to go without basic necessi es, no ma er how li le they work.
"taxes don't aect economic growth"
They do. But this can go both ways. It all depends on what we tax and where the tax money goes.
Inves ng in infrastructure would be a great way to improve economic growth.
"raising the minimum wage will not aect job growth"
Page 1

FPCFromClipboardUntitled.txt
If we set the minimum wage to 10 cents an hour, job growth would drama cally increase. So would
poverty. Just because something is good for job growth doesn't mean it's a good idea, especially when
it comes at the expense of the people's wellbeing.
"the debt doesn't ma er spending trillions bankrup ng our children doesn't ma er"
Yes, it's not like we're spending trillions on an over-inated defense budget. It's welfare that's going to
bankrupt the na on. How much of a return on our investment does the defense budget give us, by the
way? I'm sure it can't be more than if we invested it in something stupid like infrastructure. Our bridges
might be crumbling, but at least we have another dozen shiny new ghter planes we can sell to Turkey
for some reason!
h p://www.cbsnews.com/news/falling-apart-america-neglected-infrastructure/
h p://sta c5.businessinsider.com/image/53ebc4766da811b23f1a32 -1200-2167/bi_graphics_usrussi
aarmsrace-3.png
Since it's welfare that's bankrup ng the country, and since senior care takes up most of the welfare
budget, the obvious thing to do is to euthanize the elderly! It's our scal responsibility to make sure
that we keep ignoring our failing infrastructure, the fact that there are more empty houses than
homeless people, the fact that as of 2013, 14% of US households were food-insecure, 60% of which
had an adult member who would avoid ea ng even when hungry in order to save money, 40% of
which had an adult member who lost weight because they could not aord enough food to eat, and
25% of which had an adult member who had at least one day in which they did not eat because they
could not aord to. That's more than 4.4 million households in which an adult member could not
aord to eat for at least one en re day. And you think we shouldn't raise the minimum wage or
increase welfare.
h p://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/more_vacant_homes_than_homeless_in_us_2011123
1
h p://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutri on-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-sta s cs-graphi
cs.aspx
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 10:08 AM
"Complete rubbish. If we cut welfare the poor would work more or spend less money. We don't have
to give them more welfare because of low paying jobs. We have to give them welfare because of the
Democrats"
Please, go tell the 4.4 million households that had at least one adult member who could not aord to
Page 2

FPCFromClipboardUntitled.txt
eat for at least one en re day that the reason they didn't have food on their plates was because they
just didn't work hard enough. That they just spent too much money and should have saved more.
There should never be a situa on where a person is unable to eat for an en re day. This is not a
ques on of scal responsibility. This is a ques on of ethical responsibility. It is unethical to allow
people to go hungry for any reason. It is unethical to allow people to go without food, shelter, water,
clothing, transport, or electricity for any reason.
Paying people a living wage is the moral thing to do. People shouldn't have to work 68+ hours a week
at 3+ jobs just to provide their family with basic necessi es. These people are unable to be lazy. These
people are unable to spend too much money. If they did either of those things, they could not aord
basic necessi es. As it stands, the people with 3+ jobs working 68+ hours a week are the lucky ones,
because they're able to eke out some horrible equivalent to a living wage. There are millions of people
who are unable to do that for various reasons.
h p://livingwage.mit.edu/
"A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to
work 125 hours per week, more hours than there are in a 5-day week, to earn a living wage."
125 hours. That's two children who need at the very least food, water, clothing, shelter, beds, and
healthcare. And to provide these basic necessi es, their mother would need to work more than 5 days
straight if she were subject to the federal minimum wage. This is not a ques on of working harder. This
is absolutely a ques on of how much people should be paid. People are not being paid nearly enough.
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 04:29 PM
"More rubbish, from because my study that I pulled out of my bu said so.
The minimum wage puts someone in the top 1% worldwide. If they don't like it they should leave. They
are coming over in droves and we need to cut o the spigot.
If you can't support kids then don't have any. How about some personal responsibilty?"
Most of the world is poor, yes. That doesn't mean we should treat poverty as something that we can't
prevent.
"The living wage he quotes is about 50K a year. This is the median wage of the american family right
now. Are half the families that live below this starving on the street?"
Page 3

FPCFromClipboardUntitled.txt
No. Only at least 610,042 people (as of 2013), 23% of which were children.
h ps://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf
"Yet half the country isn't starving last me I checked."
Of course not. But 14.3% of households are food-insecure.
h p://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutri on-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-sta s cs-graphi
cs.aspx
"I lived on 11K a year when I graduated college living in a $500 apartment
I thought life was great never got welfare"
You were lucky enough not to have anyone to support. You were lucky enough to be living in an area
where rent was only $500 a month. Assuming you were never seriously sick or injured, that's another
thing to be grateful for. A broken leg without insurance can cost anywhere between $17,000 to
$35,000, more than three mes your annual income at the me. If you had insurance, that's another
thing to be grateful for.
h p://health.costhelper.com/broken-leg.html
"Well adjus ng for ina on it would be about 13K today"
So around 2005?
h p://www.usina oncalculator.com/
"According to posters here I should have been starving"
No, but if you had to support more than your healthy self you would probably have been at the very
least food insecure. In 2005, a typical monthly food budget for an adult in their twen es, spending
thri ily, was around $140 per month. So between rent and food you've used up around 2/3 of your
monthly budget. Not a lot of wiggle room for any unforeseen events. If you have to support a child,
that's between $70 and $130 more per child, depending on their age. Oh, but according to you, people
on minimum wage shouldn't have children, so let's say you have an inrm rela ve living with you
instead. A grandparent who can't work, or a disabled sibling? That's around $120-$140 more per
month. Plus, with an inrm rela ve, there'd be medical costs. If they're elderly, they might be on
Medicare, but that's s ll at least another $100 per month, but could be up to $400 per month, plus
poten al copayments, which could easily cut into your savings, assuming you have any, which most
Americans don't.
Page 4

FPCFromClipboardUntitled.txt
h p://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutri on-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/deni ons-of-foodsecurity.aspx
h p://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/les/CostofFoodAug05.pdf
h ps://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html
h p://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/07/60-percent-of-americans-cant-cover-unexpected-expenses.html
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 05:47 PM
"Welfare doesn't prevent poverty it encourages it. The poverty rate hasn't dropped since 1965 when
the war on poverty started
I had insurance through work, but insurance for a young person in their 20's is only about $50 per
month. Its cheap thats why Obama increased the age to 26 for parents to keep their kids on their
health policy. The cost is negligible.
It wasn't luck that I didn't have children before marriage, it was a choice I made. Its called personal
responsibility."
$50 per month to have insurance for a healthy 20-year-old. You'd s ll have to pay money if you were
sick or injured. Plus, if you had to take me o work, your employer might have been able to dock your
pay, even if you were sick or injured. Depending on where you worked, there may have been no law
requiring your employer to even oer sick leave.
h ps://www.tracksmart.com/advice-center/pages/payroll-benets/docking-employee-pay.aspx
h p://www.workplacefairness.org/sick-leave
I didn't say you were lucky not to have children, I said you were lucky not to have anyone to support.
Please tell me how someone as "personally responsible" as you would handle taking on a disabled
rela ve with only $13,000 a year.
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 05:54 PM
"I made about 60K coming straight out of college, so no I wouldn't of starved.
The point is its extremely easy to live on your own on less than 12K dollars a year. I even went to vegas
for vaca on so the budget included that as well.
Page 5

FPCFromClipboardUntitled.txt
The narra ve that we will starve unless government pays for everything is crazy."
If you had tens of thousands of dollars saved up, you were very lucky. 6 out of 10 Americans do not
have more than $500 in savings.
h p://www.cnbc.com/id/102317918
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 06:25 PM
"So what? Some people choose not to save.
I have a net worth of just under 2 million"
Good for you. You wouldn't have saved that much if you lived on minimum wage, especially if you had
to support other people or suered from illness or injury. It's not a ma er of choosing to save, it's a
ma er of earning enough that you have money to save. If someone spends their en re paycheck on
basic necessi es (which will easily happen if you're on minimum wage and you have people to support
or you're suering from illness or injury), there will be no money le over to save. They will be unable
to choose whether or not to save their money.
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 06:38 PM
"Yes exactly, call me crazy but I earned my money and don't want it stolen from me.
Liberals on this board are chomping at the bit to steal it and redistribute it. Its not your money, if you
want 2 million dollars get a job and earn it on your own."
People aren't just giving away jobs that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. You were lucky enough
to have parents that could aord to put you through college. You were lucky enough to be able to pay
o any debts you incurred due to college. If you didn't incur any debts, you were lucky enough to be
able to pay out of pocket for your educa on. You were lucky enough to be able to climb to a posi on in
which you were able to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. You won't nd that kind of opportunity
in just any line of work.
You did not pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You and your family pay taxes that build the roads and
bridges and infrastructure, that pay the police and the military and the re department and the
regulatory agencies that keep your food and water clean, your house from burning down or collapsing,
your schools from being bombed, and your economy from imploding. And even a er all those
Page 6

FPCFromClipboardUntitled.txt
oppressive tax burdens, your family had enough money le over to feed you, clothe you, and put you
through college so you'd be able to get to a point where you earn hundreds of thousands of dollars.
You are so incredibly fortunate, and you are incredibly ignorant of what society has gone through and
what it con nues to go through to allow you the luxury of complaining about taxes on an Internet
forum.
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 09:48 PM
"People survived without welfare prior to 1965. Note that wages were on average lower back then.
They wouldn't starve
But even if some did run into dicul es it isn't right for the government to mandate we pay for their
well being."
People survived in the feudal era too. Doesn't mean we should go back to it.
Why should the government protect you from thieves, food poisoning, and war, and not protect the
poor from hunger, disease, and homelessness?
---Posted on 3rd May 2015, 11:14 PM
"Food - 300/month"
Wrong. The USDA es mates the average food budget for a family of four following the USDA Thri y
Food Plan to be between $550 and $650, depending on the ages of the children. The Thri y Food Plan
is the USDA's guideline to maintaining a healthy, balanced diet while on a low budget. Unless you want
that hypothe cal family of four to subsist on mac and cheese and bologna sandwiches, you need to
allow for a proper diet. The Thri y Food Plan is also used as the basis for maximum food stamp
allotments, so this is welfare-level food. Your budget is literally advising a family of four to spend less
on food than they would if they were on food stamps.
h p://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/les/CostofFoodMar2015.pdf
h p://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/les/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/TFP2006Report.pdf

Page 7