• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

5 points of welfare........ You agree?

1sickpuppy II

Alfrescian
Loyal
Hiya everybody:smile: I would like to share with you chaps out there these 5 points of welfare and find out if you agree with it or not. I know some of you might have read or seen these before so bare with me:biggrin:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the rich out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receving.

3. The goverment have nothing and cannot give to anybody anything that the goverment does not first take from somebody.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ( The commies tried in the 50s and see where they ended up)

5. When half the people gets the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else going to get what they work for. That is the beginning of the end of the nation.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
I've been preaching this message for years. However, many morons in this forum still don't get it.
 

Cruxx

Alfrescian
Loyal
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the rich out of prosperity.

Good for nothings in Sweden are enjoying some of the highest standards of living in the world while their rich are richer than the richest in Singapore.

2. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receving.

It's immoral to a right-wing libertarian like me but it's a system that they voted for out of their own volition. It's not exactly that the rich in those countries are working without receiving. They've decided to take care of the weak and sick at their own expense because it's a system they find rewarding.

3. The goverment have nothing and cannot give to anybody anything that the goverment does not first take from somebody.

Businesses have nothing and cannot give to anybody anything that they do not take from consumers. Government is just another service provider. The only difference is that they call their payments "taxation". They can sell off public assets for profits too.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ( The commies tried in the 50s and see where they ended up)

Welfare states such as Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway are all richer than Singapore despite their penchant for redistributing wealth. The rich in these countries have a vested interest in giving up portions of their wealth to the common good. It's not really a liability to them. Different cultures, different mindsets. Just think, where would you be today if money wasn't taken from the rich to pay for your free education? You can multiply wealth by dividing it and maximising it by investing in the people and their children.

5. When half the people gets the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else going to get what they work for. That is the beginning of the end of the nation.

For those whose rewards from working are fewer than not working, yes. But how many of them are there in first world countries? If you're earning a high executive salary, would the pittance of welfare entitlements incentivise you to quit your job? It makes sense for Singapore to not provide incentives for not working because Sinkies are just too unproductive, too useless to take home big pay packages. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Top