Another story came up here a few years ago. Some poor lady was profiled in the paper about getting benefits, and people were up in arms that she had a Canada Goose, $1000 parka in her pic. "If she can afford that, why does she need benefits?!" Then she calmly explained that she was working before, and used that money to buy the coat. So over some months she worked for a bit, made $1000 to buy a coat, saved nothing, and then got $1000 from the public so she could eat. People pointed out that essentially the public bought her a luxury coat, because had she not, she could hvae easily paid her own way. But again, that's how the system is set up. Better than scratch tickets maybe? Well I don't know, at least then a lot of the money would go back to the gov't.
For instance: 2 people make $250k over 10 years. How much tax should each pay, and what benefits should each get? The same? Seems reasonable to me. But, despite two people with identical long term incomes, you could literally have someone paying half their money in tax (if all earned in one year) then receiving no benefit as they responsibly make 125k last 10 years. The other works seasonally fishing, makes 25k/yr in 4 months, pays very little tax, spends it on hookers and blow, gets unemployment for 4 months, then welfare and food stamps for the next 4.
You can survive on $500 a month. $250 for a room, possible shared. $150 for food. No cell. No internet. No cable. No car. We're talking staving off death here. However, people would be up in arms if you expected them to live like that. Though I and many people here have done it, and immigrants by the bushel. Why can't these people?
One major premise of mustachianism is to delay gratification. But you sacrifice in the present, for the whole purpose of enjoying tomorrow. Then people see the fruits of your earlier sacrifice and demand you give them some. It's like that fable about the chicken who asks everyone to help her harvest grain, mill wheat, knead bread, then bake it, and they all refuse. Until they smell it cooking and then want in. She points out that they were no where to be found when work was to be done, so you're not welcome to enjoy the rewards. If the gov't were in that story. They would simply take the entire loaf and give it to others and tell her clearly she did it once on her own with no help, so it's within her ability to do it again.
Punishing savers. Be it this, rock bottoming interest rates when retarded over extended people bought homes they couldn't afford etc etc. But why should we expect the gov't to act differently than 98% of the populous who voted them in?
I think part of the problem is too that many people here are above average intelligence. They can disassemble and reassemble many moving parts to look at things from a bunch of perspectives (like the 10 yr income example above), whereas the rest of the public don't look or think beyond their nose. Splurge in boom months, windfalls are to be wasted! And think there's nothing wrong with the govt doing the same.
To that end though, I stand by my original point. You won't beat the gov't. Appeals to fairness or justness will be ignored. Play by the rules. But take what you can and give nothing back. Do you think Apple cares about fair? They literally pay teams of lawyers $100s of ks to do exactly this.
/cynical rant over.