So what if they can’t work? Or won’t work? Just let 'em die?
I agree that we want to avoid disincentive to work. But not at the cost of those who truly need our help.
See a response to that article, written by Neal Boortz,here. His reply is the section with the green background.
How much money has the film generated so far? If it’s going to clear $1 billion, for example, the old “you have to spend money to make money” adage might be well applicable here.
There are people who, as you say, can’t work because of some condition. Maybe they lost their legs. Maybe they lack the mental capacity. These are the people who truly need our help. In a society as wealthy as ours, there is no reason why these people should starve on the street. Of course the question is always how much should they recieve?
As for people who won’t work but are perfectly capable, why should the rest of us support someone who is unwilling to do their share? What if all of us decided we didn’t want to work?
Originally posted by Mr. Blue Sky
I also know that the people who have $350 million dollars to spend making three movies aren’t likely to give it away. They want to invest their money and make even more money. Yes, it would be nice to help thousands of needy people, there’s just no money in it. At least in the short run.
Opinions?
Those of us with $3.50 in our pocket are also unlikely to just give it away. If we can’t invest it, we would at least like to purchase some sort of goods or service.