I'm not libertarian, I just pretend to be. I'm really just a blue dog democrat; welcome to Virginia I suppose
And um, this system I'm promoting is already more or less in place. Massive educational grants, loans and scholarships? Business incentives for additional training?
edit: didn't see your above post arch, I'm responding more generally
shit, shit, shit get in the cellar. They're coming. They're coming. hide. ohgogohgodohgod.
I would argue that there's always going to be an incentive to work, even if it doesn't pay at all. People like to work, they like to brag about how important their job is, and people with no job are regarded as the dregs of society.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
You keep badgering me to provide specific numbers, and I really don't want to do that because I feel like it would just drag the conversation down into nitpicking about details. Like if I say it will phase-out at $30,000, someone will come along and say no, that's much too high, make it $25,000 instead, then I don't really have an argument for that because I just don't care very much what numbers are used. This isn't a real government proposal, I'm just some guy on the internet arguing for a basic idea. Does your opinion of this idea hinge on what specific numbers I use? If it does, then we can find some professional economists to weigh in.
I am an economist for a living, and everyone's support or opposition to the proposal should depend on those specific numbers. They make all the difference.
It's like saying "I propose an income tax." Whether that's a good or bad idea depends entirely on the numbers.
But you probably agree that there should be SOME income tax. Everyone should pay a percent of their income. After we agree on that, then we can debate whether that percent is 30%, 20%, or graduated with income level. Likewise, we can first debate whether there should be SOME basic income- if we agree on that point, then we can debate what the amount should be, and what form it shoudl take.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Lime, lime, lime. There's a reason many lower class (male youth in particular) would rather work for sub-minimum wage as a gang member, than work at McDonald's.
But if you didn't have to worry about where your next meal was coming from, or providing for your family, or paying your rent, suddenly it isn't such a bad thing to work in a low-paying service job ad infinitum.
Of course there will be people who would rather do something else, but some people just can't be bothered and would prefer to coast. I mean that is something that I think everyone accepts. My idea* would just keep those who don't really want more than clocking in at mcdonalds or whatever from harming themselves and their families.
*I admit, it is slightly naive and in many cases is a "perfect world" scenario what I am proposing. However, I am definitely interested in establishing something similar to my "ideal" society. But I think the same can be said about all political philosophies.
Thus, people who prefer to coast wouldn't benefit from educational opportunities or additional training. there is no tangible benefit for them to enter into either of those programs, unlike the flat $10,000 check they'd receive in the OP's perfect world.
People who enter into those programs do so knowing that it is a long-term investment into their future. After the initial investment, the government gets right the fuck out and lets you do what you want in life, whether it be continuing to work 80 hrs a week at a low paying job or trying to apply your degree into something better.
I completely agree with Modern Man though - if the government is going to start seriously funding things that benefit society, the priorities should absolutely be what he is calling for.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I would argue that there's always going to be an incentive to work, even if it doesn't pay at all. People like to work, they like to brag about how important their job is, and people with no job are regarded as the dregs of society.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
But you probably agree that there should be SOME income tax. Everyone should pay a percent of their income. After we agree on that, then we can debate whether that percent is 30%, 20%, or graduated with income level. Likewise, we can first debate whether there should be SOME basic income- if we agree on that point, then we can debate what the amount should be, and what form it shoudl take.
That's the point. We already do a negative income tax. It's been a very successful program. So if you want to propose a different negative income tax, we need numbers to evaluate this proposal.
Especially the "how are children counted?" questions. That will have huge incentive effects on family planning.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Lime, lime, lime. There's a reason many lower class (male youth in particular) would rather work for sub-minimum wage as a gang member, than work at McDonald's.
Maybe because McDonald's is a horrible job? and working as a gang member is still a job, even if it's an illegal one. At least in a gang, they can get some autonomy. I've never heard anyone brag about sitting at home watching TV.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Lime, lime, lime. There's a reason many lower class (male youth in particular) would rather work for sub-minimum wage as a gang member, than work at McDonald's.
Maybe because McDonald's is a horrible job? and working as a gang member is still a job, even if it's an illegal one. At least in a gang, they can get some autonomy. I've never heard anyone brag about sitting at home watching TV.
Clearly you do not read the [chat] thread on this board.
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
You're incorrect. There are segments of the American underclass where working for a living (at least, non-criminal work) holds no real positive status.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Lime, lime, lime. There's a reason many lower class (male youth in particular) would rather work for sub-minimum wage as a gang member, than work at McDonald's.
Maybe because McDonald's is a horrible job? and working as a gang member is still a job, even if it's an illegal one. At least in a gang, they can get some autonomy. I've never heard anyone brag about sitting at home watching TV.
If you gave me $10,000 to watch TV I'd sure as hell brag about it.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
I think the reason I feel this discourages crime is that suddenly those things are more affordable if you don't have to pay for food.
So how many here have actually taken some economic courses? Because a lot of what you guys are talking about seems like awesome ways of destroying our savings rate, causing massive rises in the CPI, decreasing productivity, which lowers real wages and from that tax revenue. This welfare state would strangle itself.
Maybe because McDonald's is a horrible job? and working as a gang member is still a job, even if it's an illegal one. At least in a gang, they can get some autonomy. I've never heard anyone brag about sitting at home watching TV.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
Evidence?
Because I've got years and years of exposure to the poor, which is of course anecdotal but there you have it.
Its embarrassing to need hand outs. Go to a food bank. No one is looking each other in the eye for the most part.
Of course there are people willing to suck the system dry but social shame is a useful tool and it drives the unemployed to find work.
To what are you referring? There is no program that I can think of that emulates a negative income tax.
The EITC is a negative income tax.
Okay. Gotcha. I thought that's what you're talking about. It differs significantly from what we're talking about, though. You don't get the EITC unless you're working, and the maximum benefit amount for an individual without kids is just below $500.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So how many here have actually taken some economic courses? Because a lot of what you guys are talking about seems like awesome ways of destroying our savings rate, causing massive rises in the CPI, decreasing productivity, which lowers real wages and from that tax revenue. This welfare state would strangle itself.
I'm glad someone is here to share his ECON101 knowledge with us.
Please tell us how all the unemployed workers are saving money, and how the rising productivity from recent years has increases wages so much.
enc0re I am confused- are you arguing both sides here?
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
Maybe because McDonald's is a horrible job? and working as a gang member is still a job, even if it's an illegal one. At least in a gang, they can get some autonomy. I've never heard anyone brag about sitting at home watching TV.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
Under your moral scheme. I've worked those kinds of jobs though, and if you spend long enough in deep enough poverty gang activity is a relatable choice.
enc0re I am confused- are you arguing both sides here?
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
He's arguing that while working a low-pay job is morally preferable, there are a lot of people who wouldn't take the moral highroad.
I think that's a pretty reasonable position. The remaining questions are (1) how many slackers would there be, (2) do we care about the slackers, and (3) how do we minimize the number of slackers?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
Knowing and working with a lot of low-income people every day I can pretty confidently say this is not only extremely wrong but extremely classist.
The problem is that if you are a poor kid from the hood and talk like it people are going to take one look at you and hire whitey mcwhiteyson instead because they think exactly like what you just posted.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Maybe because McDonald's is a horrible job? and working as a gang member is still a job, even if it's an illegal one. At least in a gang, they can get some autonomy. I've never heard anyone brag about sitting at home watching TV.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
Well I should say I've never actually worked at McDonald's. I did work briefly at a different fast food restaurant though, and I hated it. Not because of the pay, but because everything about the job was so unpleasant. You're basically a robot, following exact orders all the time. It's not something that will boost your ego. If you try and think for yourself, you'll be punished. Gang members, on the other hand, are mostly independant salesmen who can use their personal contacts to sell drugs in whatever way they want to.
Alright, I misread. It seemed to me he first argued that given the choice people would supplement government income with crime, and then went on to argue that working any job is preferable to crime.
I think I see the disconnect- the second quote isn't referring to his prediction of events, but rather his moral scheme.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
enc0re I am confused- are you arguing both sides here?
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
I'm saying that a large share of the lower class is sufficiently immoral to sit on government cheese even if they could do better for society by working. I'm not saying this immorality is unique to the lower class, but that's where it matters for this discussion.
My evidence is as anecdotal as anyone else's. Specifically, I come from a European country with something like a basic income and the high unemployment rate that results.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
That ignores the first two points, and I think we can generally agree that the brute-force approach is worse than the alternative.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
If we're taking about minimizing slacking than the best thing to do is put workers in chains and whip them, because nothing motivates a man like a good lashing.
Fortunately this isn't the 1850's and we have higher priorities than minimizing slacking.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
Do you honestly believe that people are on welfare just because they're lazy? If you do then yes, like PIH said, that's extremely prejudiced classist thinking.
with that I'm going to go take a break from this thread.
"work is slavery" is a political anarchist position with a rich and fascinating history.
The position is, to me, understandable and admirable. Work, for most people, involves Marxist alienation, life-shortening stress, physical trauma (even office jobs!) and massive time loss. It dominates and defines people's lives because it is necessary to continue their survival and what enjoyment they have of life, but most people hate their job or grimly tolerate it.
However, the anarchist position also seems either naive or premature. Every single society has had to work. Sure, a tribe grubbing for their own food isn't alienated from the products of their own labour, but they're also running on way less calories, or spending massive amounts of time just to subsist.
Market economy, industry, and service/knowledge economies grant us a higher standard of living and more free time, more opportunities for enjoyment of life, on average. It's still a horribly unfair system, one based on exploitation and one which constantly struggles with inequality, but work is still a necessary evil.
Incentive to work is a tough nut to crack without appealing to self interest like our society does. OG communism and anarchist proposals depend on a will to work that simply doesn't seem to exist - an idealist picture of people working for its own sake. I don't think this is a viable social system. We are not that good.
Instead I think the recognition that 1) work is largely suffering, and 2) we should mitigate that suffering - that would go a long way. I'm a pretty far-left socialist, but I think this is a situation where we have to suck it up. We can't really escape spending huge swaths of time engaged in production.
So how many here have actually taken some economic courses? Because a lot of what you guys are talking about seems like awesome ways of destroying our savings rate, causing massive rises in the CPI, decreasing productivity, which lowers real wages and from that tax revenue. This welfare state would strangle itself.
I'm glad someone is here to share his ECON101 knowledge with us.
Please tell us how all the unemployed workers are saving money, and how the rising productivity from recent years has increases wages so much.
In the US we haven't seen great climbs in productivity, hence a slow wage rate growth. However if you go look at China it has been experiencing some strong wage rate growth due to it's increased productivity.
Destruction of savings rate would come from this absurd redistribution of income that would normally be going into capital, but after the redistribution would likely go into consumption as the lower income generally have a much lower savings rate.
enc0re I am confused- are you arguing both sides here?
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
I'm saying that a large share of the lower class is sufficiently immoral to sit on government cheese even if they could do better for society by working. I'm not saying this immorality is unique to the lower class, but that's where it matters for this discussion.
My evidence is as anecdotal as anyone else's. Specifically, I come from a European country with something like a basic income and the high unemployment rate that results.
I am saying that this is alright. If they want more than cheese they have two options: work or crime.
I don't feel like crime is suddenly going to become the default, and it seemed to me that you were arguing it would.
The most obvious and brute-force way of minimizing slacking is to eliminate welfare in any form. And now we're getting back into the entitlement thread.
I disagree not just with the moral character of this statement, but with the factual content. Elimination of welfare doesn't necessarily mean everybody works - some poor people will turn to criminality, while some rich people will slack on inherited money, and some people will end up in a downward spiral of poverty until they're rendered unable to work.
A well-designed welfare system would prevent a lot of criminality, and prevent such downward spirals. If combined with education programs, it's entirely reasonable to state that a society with an efficient welfare system would be overall more productive per capita than one without.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
Knowing and working with a lot of low-income people every day I can pretty confidently say this is not only extremely wrong but extremely classist.
The problem is that if you are a poor kid from the hood and talk like it people are going to take one look at you and hire whitey mcwhiteyson instead because they think exactly like what you just posted.
Small clarification: I don't think this behavior is unique to the lower class. That's just what we happen to discuss at the moment.
Posts
shit, shit, shit get in the cellar. They're coming. They're coming. hide. ohgogohgodohgod.
The segment of the population that has a good work ethic isn't really the issue here. This tax scheme would put free money in the hands of people who are much more likely to either not value work in general, or to be involved in crime.
Rigorous Scholarship
But you probably agree that there should be SOME income tax. Everyone should pay a percent of their income. After we agree on that, then we can debate whether that percent is 30%, 20%, or graduated with income level. Likewise, we can first debate whether there should be SOME basic income- if we agree on that point, then we can debate what the amount should be, and what form it shoudl take.
Lime, lime, lime. There's a reason many lower class (male youth in particular) would rather work for sub-minimum wage as a gang member, than work at McDonald's.
Thus, people who prefer to coast wouldn't benefit from educational opportunities or additional training. there is no tangible benefit for them to enter into either of those programs, unlike the flat $10,000 check they'd receive in the OP's perfect world.
People who enter into those programs do so knowing that it is a long-term investment into their future. After the initial investment, the government gets right the fuck out and lets you do what you want in life, whether it be continuing to work 80 hrs a week at a low paying job or trying to apply your degree into something better.
I completely agree with Modern Man though - if the government is going to start seriously funding things that benefit society, the priorities should absolutely be what he is calling for.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
He is right though in stating that the social shame of unemployment is sufficient to guarantee that most will not sit idly on government cheese.
That's the point. We already do a negative income tax. It's been a very successful program. So if you want to propose a different negative income tax, we need numbers to evaluate this proposal.
Especially the "how are children counted?" questions. That will have huge incentive effects on family planning.
But oh nooooo government spending
As a tangent I really dislike that government spending is what is coloring our political climate right now.
Maybe because McDonald's is a horrible job? and working as a gang member is still a job, even if it's an illegal one. At least in a gang, they can get some autonomy. I've never heard anyone brag about sitting at home watching TV.
To what are you referring? There is no program that I can think of that emulates a negative income tax.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Clearly you do not read the [chat] thread on this board.
I disagree quite a bit. I think there's a significant share of the lower class, perhaps even a majority, that would happily sit idly on sufficiently generous government cheese. Probably with a sidecar of criminal income to afford the XBOX and big screen TV.
If you gave me $10,000 to watch TV I'd sure as hell brag about it.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I think the reason I feel this discourages crime is that suddenly those things are more affordable if you don't have to pay for food.
The EITC is a negative income tax.
How so? Working at McDonald's may be low pay, but it's way better than working for a gang or getting government assistance under any reasonable moral scheme.
Evidence?
Because I've got years and years of exposure to the poor, which is of course anecdotal but there you have it.
Its embarrassing to need hand outs. Go to a food bank. No one is looking each other in the eye for the most part.
Of course there are people willing to suck the system dry but social shame is a useful tool and it drives the unemployed to find work.
Okay. Gotcha. I thought that's what you're talking about. It differs significantly from what we're talking about, though. You don't get the EITC unless you're working, and the maximum benefit amount for an individual without kids is just below $500.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm glad someone is here to share his ECON101 knowledge with us.
Please tell us how all the unemployed workers are saving money, and how the rising productivity from recent years has increases wages so much.
Under your moral scheme. I've worked those kinds of jobs though, and if you spend long enough in deep enough poverty gang activity is a relatable choice.
He's arguing that while working a low-pay job is morally preferable, there are a lot of people who wouldn't take the moral highroad.
I think that's a pretty reasonable position. The remaining questions are (1) how many slackers would there be, (2) do we care about the slackers, and (3) how do we minimize the number of slackers?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Knowing and working with a lot of low-income people every day I can pretty confidently say this is not only extremely wrong but extremely classist.
The problem is that if you are a poor kid from the hood and talk like it people are going to take one look at you and hire whitey mcwhiteyson instead because they think exactly like what you just posted.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Well I should say I've never actually worked at McDonald's. I did work briefly at a different fast food restaurant though, and I hated it. Not because of the pay, but because everything about the job was so unpleasant. You're basically a robot, following exact orders all the time. It's not something that will boost your ego. If you try and think for yourself, you'll be punished. Gang members, on the other hand, are mostly independant salesmen who can use their personal contacts to sell drugs in whatever way they want to.
I think I see the disconnect- the second quote isn't referring to his prediction of events, but rather his moral scheme.
You mean the worst way to minimize slacking.
I'm saying that a large share of the lower class is sufficiently immoral to sit on government cheese even if they could do better for society by working. I'm not saying this immorality is unique to the lower class, but that's where it matters for this discussion.
My evidence is as anecdotal as anyone else's. Specifically, I come from a European country with something like a basic income and the high unemployment rate that results.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
That ignores the first two points, and I think we can generally agree that the brute-force approach is worse than the alternative.
EDIT: nevermind
Welfare isn't a right.
If we're taking about minimizing slacking than the best thing to do is put workers in chains and whip them, because nothing motivates a man like a good lashing.
Fortunately this isn't the 1850's and we have higher priorities than minimizing slacking.
with that I'm going to go take a break from this thread.
The position is, to me, understandable and admirable. Work, for most people, involves Marxist alienation, life-shortening stress, physical trauma (even office jobs!) and massive time loss. It dominates and defines people's lives because it is necessary to continue their survival and what enjoyment they have of life, but most people hate their job or grimly tolerate it.
However, the anarchist position also seems either naive or premature. Every single society has had to work. Sure, a tribe grubbing for their own food isn't alienated from the products of their own labour, but they're also running on way less calories, or spending massive amounts of time just to subsist.
Market economy, industry, and service/knowledge economies grant us a higher standard of living and more free time, more opportunities for enjoyment of life, on average. It's still a horribly unfair system, one based on exploitation and one which constantly struggles with inequality, but work is still a necessary evil.
Incentive to work is a tough nut to crack without appealing to self interest like our society does. OG communism and anarchist proposals depend on a will to work that simply doesn't seem to exist - an idealist picture of people working for its own sake. I don't think this is a viable social system. We are not that good.
Instead I think the recognition that 1) work is largely suffering, and 2) we should mitigate that suffering - that would go a long way. I'm a pretty far-left socialist, but I think this is a situation where we have to suck it up. We can't really escape spending huge swaths of time engaged in production.
In the US we haven't seen great climbs in productivity, hence a slow wage rate growth. However if you go look at China it has been experiencing some strong wage rate growth due to it's increased productivity.
Destruction of savings rate would come from this absurd redistribution of income that would normally be going into capital, but after the redistribution would likely go into consumption as the lower income generally have a much lower savings rate.
I am saying that this is alright. If they want more than cheese they have two options: work or crime.
I don't feel like crime is suddenly going to become the default, and it seemed to me that you were arguing it would.
I disagree not just with the moral character of this statement, but with the factual content. Elimination of welfare doesn't necessarily mean everybody works - some poor people will turn to criminality, while some rich people will slack on inherited money, and some people will end up in a downward spiral of poverty until they're rendered unable to work.
A well-designed welfare system would prevent a lot of criminality, and prevent such downward spirals. If combined with education programs, it's entirely reasonable to state that a society with an efficient welfare system would be overall more productive per capita than one without.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Small clarification: I don't think this behavior is unique to the lower class. That's just what we happen to discuss at the moment.