[parrotdoxical]

Someone REALLY likes the sound of their own empty rhetoric. While that's all fine and dandy, you should probably be aware that you don't necessarily get a choice as to "subsidize" people who contribute nothing to society because it is possible for people to actually negate things from society, all the way down from petty thugs all the way up to crooked, lawyered-up execs and/or politicians. The difference is that the latter gets to pay their way out of their transgressions to society (often times at a rate that still makes it profitable to rob society) while the former get the societal brunt and blame for society's ills.

That's not to say that the former group are saints, but 1) they have systematic disadvantages that actually prevent any current legal implementations of a free market from providing for them and 2) once incarcerated, they actually end up costing society in a far more permanent way (up to $167k/yr in NYC).

So, even if you disregarded how totally wrongheaded your argument on a sociopolitical level, it also shows a pretty flimsy lack of substance on a quantitative level. You WILL pay for poverty one way or another. You can't magically incentivize it out of existence with a free market, so don't whine about it by thinking about it as subsidization. Think of it more as insurance, at the very least.

[aaronem]

Empty rhetoric, indeed! You seem to have attended little, and understood less, of what I've written today. Perhaps you'll unhook the stimulus-response apparatus that sits in front of your language parser, and actually read my comments, or at least a few of the shorter ones? Should you decide to do so, I'll be glad to engage you in discussion.

[parrotdoxical]

Nah, I understand all of what you've written, I just find it sophomoric and pretty poorly thought out. I'll be glad to engage you in discussion once YOU mentally mature past the age of fourteen.