How would you define moochers?
How would you define moochers? This was a question recently put to Dr. David Kelley. Here was his answer...
I would define them as takers on any scale who regard taking as their right, or at least as a legitimate activity. The qualification is important.
In our current mixedeconomy, welfarestate society, all of us are de facto takers. When the government runs education, retirement, and most of health care—supported by taxes on our earnings—we have little choice but to send our kids to public schools, take Social Security and Medicare when we get old, and get healthcare through a system riddled with government controls. However, the real takers are those who claim a right to such benefits and lobby to increase them. Like AARP.
By the same token, a poor person who wants to make an honest living is prevented from doing so by local regulations that prevent him or her from driving a cab, braiding hair, and similar jobs. These people may be forced to rely on welfare as a result. They are moochers in fact but not in spirit, by contrast with those who claim a right to support.
At the other end of the spectrum, no business can avoid dealing with government controls and subsidies. Still, there’s a difference between those who aim to create goods or services and succeed through market competition, for whom the struggle to navigate the shoals of regulations and permissions is a sideline, and those for whom deals with politicians and bureaucrats are the essence of what they do. They are the crony capitalists—moochers on a par with the most irresponsible welfare mother.
- - - - -
Read the full Dr. David Kelley interview here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...
- - - - -
I would define them as takers on any scale who regard taking as their right, or at least as a legitimate activity. The qualification is important.
In our current mixedeconomy, welfarestate society, all of us are de facto takers. When the government runs education, retirement, and most of health care—supported by taxes on our earnings—we have little choice but to send our kids to public schools, take Social Security and Medicare when we get old, and get healthcare through a system riddled with government controls. However, the real takers are those who claim a right to such benefits and lobby to increase them. Like AARP.
By the same token, a poor person who wants to make an honest living is prevented from doing so by local regulations that prevent him or her from driving a cab, braiding hair, and similar jobs. These people may be forced to rely on welfare as a result. They are moochers in fact but not in spirit, by contrast with those who claim a right to support.
At the other end of the spectrum, no business can avoid dealing with government controls and subsidies. Still, there’s a difference between those who aim to create goods or services and succeed through market competition, for whom the struggle to navigate the shoals of regulations and permissions is a sideline, and those for whom deals with politicians and bureaucrats are the essence of what they do. They are the crony capitalists—moochers on a par with the most irresponsible welfare mother.
- - - - -
Read the full Dr. David Kelley interview here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...
- - - - -
Parasites.
Vampires.
Suicidal.
Slaves.
In America, the quintessential useful idiot.
Jan
When I was re-reading Atlas Shrugged last year, I was posting a lot of my favorite comments on Facebook. A FB friend saw that I was using my birthday freebies and accused me of being a hypocrite: advocating Rand, but mooching off of freebies like this.
I tend to agree with most of the commentators here: mooching is a mindset of entitlement. I certainly don't feel entitled to a free meal. And it is a voluntary trade, an exchange of value: I get discounted food, and they get customers in the door (we buy sides, drinks, desserts, and tip).
who wants a free ride.
who expects your generosity because you're Christian.
who lives in the shadows of looters, gleaning value.
who deserves to be labeled "worthless" or worse, "value destroyer." -- j
.
.
.
Thus for instance, accepting welfare makes one a moocher (though it can be unavoidable for some, at least temporarily). On the other hand, using public roads does not make one a moocher (even though they are tax funded) because there is no practical alternative.
Note that this partly depends on the laws. In the US, someone who uses tax-funded health care is a moocher. But in Canada, buying your own is mostly not allowed, making it unavoidable.
When we are forced to pay in with our money (time) to a system that promises to give it back to you out of a collective "spiked punchbowl" there is a tendency to ... well, let's say: "Go to the well" for refills that you have long since consumed that you didn't dump into the WAPATOOLY BOWL.
At $10.00 per hour 29.4% is 2.94 per hour that they are getting. 2080 work hours in a year is $6115.20 a year on a 40 hour work week at $10.00 an hour. Over a 40 year basic job that's $244608.00 of investment capital. with a future value on only 6% interest of $1,014,863.68 assuming you start at 20 and average $10.00 an hour for 40 years. Average of 8% gains, a little harder but doable would be $1,779,017.59 for the future value.
It just makes you sick what these guys cost you.
FYI: Used excel FV (future value function) to determine the likely value of the investment based on the terms of 6115.20 a year and 40 years at the specified percentage.
I know someone that did that. He didn't want to touch his retirement fund and he was somehow eligible for state assistance. He claims he's fugal, I call him cheap.
The government takes it from you and passes it right out for something else...not even necessarily for someone else.
Protestations to the contrary it all goes into the General Revenue till. That change was made years ago.
Yes, Social Security is just a tax. There is no "trust fund", and the money isn't invested anywhere. There is no connection with what you put in and what you get out. Hence the "crisis" as society ages. people live longer, the younger have less kids: there aren't enough younger people paying in to really cover what's been promised to people living on SS, and the scam has been revealed.
Enough for now except for one last thing: if it sounded like I felt guilty, I don't. But angry at the whole mess? Definitely.
Lots of +'s
Load more comments...