Exactly!

I was at a family gathering a couple of years back and one of the nephews is dating a chick that was raised in a well to do family. She was going to Colorado University, and studying business. She had never had a job in her life, certainly never ran a business. Yet her plan was to get a MBA, and go into government and regulate businesses, and enforce her vision of how a business should be run. I told her that is like saying she should work as a airline pilot instead, it pays more. She looked puzzled, and then replied she does not know anything about airplanes. I said, what difference does that make, you don't know one single thing about working or running a business, yet you want to regulate how a business can operate.

She did not like me or my answer, and I really don't care. My nephew broke up with her when he got a job at a electric utility company, and suddenly he was destroying the earth with the electricity generation. He was just a lineman, as most of the new employees start off at the bottom as a lineman.

I don't understand what you are asking. I am perfectly fine with paying taxes for any purpose in the Constitution. Being taxed for forced charity/redistribution is not in there...nor is it moral in any way.

Avoiding work and receiving social welfare is essentially theft. Taxing people (taking their money) to redistribute to others that did not earn it is the same. Theft...if not essentially slavery.

A slave's time/work product is owned by others (without consent). My salary was essentially a return for giving up a good portion of my time/life (@16 hrs a day 5-7 days a week). If I do not own my time or the product of it (it is redistributed against my will to others without them providing any value to me in return) ...I am essentially a slave. The recipients are much more like free men than I... They (or at least the government) ...are essentially my owner (because they own the product of my life/time).

I could not find the article you reference. That said, you would need to link the article if you really wanted anyone to read/discuss.

I doubt very much the NYT beats almost any other news source...as it is far from balanced and very often very far from being accurate.... running with almost any nonsense that is politically correct.

Snarky (whiney and cynical) remarks like yours above lead me to believe that the article simply reinforces/agrees with what you already believe and that you wasted your time by reading it. Maybe read something that is contrary to what you already think/believe if you really want to learn something...and don't insult others if you want to convert them.

It is also theft to not pay your taxes.

But we are not speaking of theft. We are talking, in BOTH cases, about following the rules currently in place for one’s own benefit.

Choosing to minimize work preformed to meet a regulation is a choice. Just as investing assets in a given way to minimize tax outlay.

If someone is willing to live on peanuts to meet sub poverty level welfare requirements, good for them. That juice in my mind is not worth the squeeze. But it’s still legal.

Where you clearly have issue is that it is a moral failure for the individual. That is an opinion. Some might call it clever and smart. The ultimate tax avoidance. Don’t make anything, government can’t take anything.

If the person is not cheating or scamming the system, more power to them. Again, wouldn’t be my lifestyle, but I can appreciate the ability needed to live that way.

Neighbor has 550 acres. He has tied up a lot of that as forestry preservation. His tax bill is ~$500 a year. My small 7 acres is $6800. He uses the system to minimize his tax base legally following the rules. I don’t begrudge him that.

I am not sure how you got to people not paying their taxes from people who are given money by a government that takes it from others. They are not related in any way.

If someone is willing to work for peanuts to get welfare, they are essentially stealing...even if the government/regulation allows it (it is not the intent of the law). I am fine with one avoiding taxes by not working as long as they do not accept social welfare (and they should not be given any). They are cheating/scamming the system.

As far as your neighbor, I suspect his property taxes are largely based on use. Apparently, our local government has created tax breaks to incentivize behavior they find desirable. It seems that you find increased forest preservation of value as well. It is not unreasonable to subsidize behavior that benefits all taxpayers...but they are not taking money from you to give to him without your/community benefit as social welfare does for those that choose not to provide for themselves and be a burden on society. Of course, if your neighbor's taxes are not based on value as yours are, if you do not value the results, you should work to put someone in office that agrees...but there is no parallel here.

It did not.

I do.

Find the article yourself and cut back on the personal insults.

The intent of the law is very much to allow as many people as possible to become gov't-dependent. Build a permanent constituency, grow it and then the gov't. program must also grow in scope, authority and budget. None of this is by accident. It's sold to the public under the guise of "helping people" or "giving a leg up." It's no such thing. It's vote buying and a scheme to grow the gov't. Nothing more.

You made the preemptive strike. Don't ask for what you don't desire.

As noted, there doesn't seem to be such an article. If you wanted to discuss, you would post a link or something from it that you found fascinating. Telling folks you read an article that was enlightening and implying everyone was too biased or stupid to do so (and providing no link or information from the article) does not exactly reek of sharing/good will. Just sayin'

It certainly appears to be the case. No one would ever go do a low-level job every day if they could receive about the same amount of money (taken from someone else) and stay home and watch TV and drink beer. I have to admit that it would have been easy to get caught up in it (it is intended as such) when I was young and working 3 jobs. I would have played basketball or watched TV all day (if I had owned one) instead of working hard ...and went out partying at night instead of playing janitor and cleaning offices and toilets.

Seeing that searching for information can be daunting for the inexperienced, I put this phrase in the search box:

"labor market article new york times"

This was the third article that appeared:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/business/economy/labor-participation-covid.html

You made an insult, to which he responded without an insult. You post this in response, then continue on with the personal insults

Perfect
You do not understand what is going on.

He is forgoing the use of the property for consideration from the government.

Pretty unrecognizable from your description and the incorrect date posted. What exactly was the point you were trying to make with your vague description of this article (that resides behind a pay wall)?

Here is an article which, despite its topic being "child poverty" rather than "labor market," discusses a concept that in my mind goes right to the heart of the title of this thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/us/politics/child-poverty-analysis-safety-net.html?searchResultPosition=1

The article discusses different efforts by two different political parties pursuing agendas which were different, and including bipartisan efforts. One of those political parties had a strong preference for rewarding people for working. The article, which is a NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, praises the success of this feature (the rewarding of efforts by poor people to get jobs). Helping people who are willing to help themselves.

“It’s not just about the amount of dollars that flow into households from the program itself,” said Robert Doar, the president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “It’s about sending a message that going to work is the path out of poverty. That message got through.”

Mr. Doar said the welfare law, by encouraging work, made policymakers more inclined to support other aid expansions.

“If you work, we will help you — Americans like that message,” he said.

Personally, I have always agreed with this and been frustrated by programs which incentivize laziness. And here we have the main question raised by the title of this thread. How are these lazy people supporting themselves? What dysfunctional and damaging policies are making it possible, even convenient, for people to have lives, and whole familial generations, of unemployment? It is apparently possible, due to misguided policies and programs, to receive income and resources for sitting on one's couch. It was, I thought, rightful for the NEW YORK TIMES to raise this very question.

As an aside, something about the article frustrated me substantially. It gave information which would allow a discerning reader to figure out that a substantial portion of the decline in child poverty since the early '90s was simply due to fudging the numbers. Basically, redefining the term "poverty." Moving the goal posts. But the article did not point this out. This omission, I thought, was dishonest.

Anything that is subsidized, you will get more of.................