Then we have to do this across the board - to everyone.
Sometimes companies fail, sometimes it’s through mis-managment, sometimes through changes in laws, other times due to circumstances outside of the company’s direct control.
If we are going to force Peter to sell his home, then that same law should apply equally to everyone. If we are basing Welfare on CURRENT INCOME, then if you earned a home, and own some nice things; you can leverage what you own in order to re-start your business. Home ownership (and existing home values) will remain more static, and there is an incentive to build and grow.
However, if you punish the achievers more than the unachievers; you will not only quash busiensses, you will quash their motivation to try. If I don’t try, and stay on the Gov’t dole; I have nothing to lose. However, if I tried and my company fails, my punishment is greater than those who have never tried; why should I even try?
I submit that basing Welfare on your current income, is the fairest way to do this. This allows me a safe harbor if my business fails; but also allows me the opportunity to re-start my business after the ash has cleared; and isn’t the reason we are enjoying the current economy is due to Obama’s war on the small businesses?
i think that allowing the person with assets to retain their assets gives them more incentive to stay on the government dole. hey, he has his toys now, so why go back to working when the gov’t pays him to do nothing?
but it’s the across the board thing that is more my intent, if we make welfare unattractive- like i said, take away the incentive to have the gov’t pay for everything- people will try harder to get off it.
also, so here’s a scenario for you. if you want it based solely on income, then the unemployed guy who won a couple million dollars in the lottery should be allowed to keep his food stamps, since lotto winnings are not considered income, correct?