Thread

1. autoexec · 1790448745 · focus · HN ↗

   Requiring proficiency in the language is reasonable, but requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane. That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.

   1. e2le · 1790463562 · focus · HN ↗

      > requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population

      In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors. I can't find what the same statistic is for Japan. I don't believe it's wrong for there to be an expectation that they be a net contributor.

      1. Gigachad · 1790465372 · focus · HN ↗

         Isn’t this just a reflection of wealth inequality though? A “net negative” tax payer is just working a job that makes one of the net positive payers richer thus still bringing in more income for the country.

         1. rendang · 1790466333 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

            1. techno-beetle · 1790466627 · focus · HN ↗

               The idea that 53% of people live off of welfare without contributing to society in any way seems pretty far-fetched.

               1. pojzon · 1790467238 · focus · HN ↗

                  But is populists wet dream
               2. bluefirebrand · 1790468231 · focus · HN ↗

                  What percentage of immigrants being dependents on welfare would you consider reasonable?

                  1. throwitaway222 · 1790470359 · focus · HN ↗

                     0
                  2. Gigachad · 1790471822 · focus · HN ↗

                     You've missed the original point. Someone can be working a job and realistically pulling their own weight, but the system we have distributes that money to the owners and investors, who then pay tax and give some part back to the worker through welfare.

                     The country is better off having this person even if they are receiving welfare. Of course that's not the situation for all people on welfare, but the idea that the top percent of earners are doing all the work while the majority of people sit around getting stuff for free is obviously untrue.

               3. sellmesoap · 1790468386 · focus · HN ↗

                  I think I heard a crazy high number for how many in the u.s. use foodstamps? 12.3% according to this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;usafacts.org&#x2F;answers&#x2F;how-many-people-receive-snap-benefits-in-the-us-every-month&#x2F;country&#x2F;united-states&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;usafacts.org&#x2F;answers&#x2F;how-many-people-receive-snap-be...

                  1. techdmn · 1790469290 · focus · HN ↗

                     That doesn&#x27;t necessarily mean recipients are unemployed. It could mean taxpayers are subsidizing low-wage employers through public assistance to their employees, with a minimum wage that hasn&#x27;t increased since 2009.
                  2. throwitaway222 · 1790470338 · focus · HN ↗

                     And in some communities it&#x27;s 90% and collected by people driving BMWs.

                     1. sellmesoap · 1790481738 · focus · HN ↗

                        Haha reminds me of the postal worker hinting that a lot of welfare cheques go to some affluent neighborhood in Vancouver. The business owns the house and the Lexus!
               4. kelseyfrog · 1790469833 · focus · HN ↗

                  The fact that we&#x27;re assuming the tax code is correct and that humans are faulty for not measuring up to it is wild.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.