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.
> 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.
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.
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://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-people-receive-snap-benefits-in-the-us-every-month/country/united-states/" rel="nofollow">https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-people-receive-snap-be...
That doesn'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't increased since 2009.
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!
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
e2le · · focus · HN ↗
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.
Gigachad · · focus · HN ↗
rendang · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
techno-beetle · · focus · HN ↗
sellmesoap · · focus · HN ↗
techdmn · · focus · HN ↗
throwitaway222 · · focus · HN ↗
sellmesoap · · focus · HN ↗