Unpopular opinion: it's not a social safety net if people stay on it as a lifestyle.

I'll take the even more aggressive tack than the other people who have replied to you: it actually is still a social safety net. Even people who (supposedly) bilk social safety programs have dependents, and those dependents do not deserve privation because you disapprove of their guardian's behavior.

Have a little perspective and focus your ire on our ridiculous military budget (which is also a welfare program, mind you) instead.

Great, let's get those people off of it. Any company that doesn't pay their employees a living wage should have their taxes balloon to offset that safety net.

I think we disagree on the definition of social safety net. Social safety nets “improve lives of vulnerable families and individuals experiencing poverty and destitution.” Sure, temporary assistance is a subset, but duration isn’t part of the definition. For example, pensions are part of the social safety net as is social security. Both (in theory) continue in perpetuity to fund ones “lifestyle”

I think "people who stay on it as a lifestyle" (how many is that, really?) are far less of a concern than the people who are stuck on it because even working 2-3 jobs isn't enough to climb out of poverty. Kroger and Walmart employees rely heavily on the social safety net, for example, and some of them are even homeless despite working (https://www.businessinsider.com/1-in-7-kroger-workers-homele...)

the good old welfare queen argument?

Welfare queens are a rounding error. Manufacturing a persistent underclass is the problem.

There are tons of potentially productive members of society languishing because if they made any serious progress toward improving their lives they'd lose their benefits. The outcomes for children born into such households are... not great.

God forbid, we help 10 truly needful people at the cost of 1 person taking advantage.

Disallowing corporations from putting their earnings in off shore banks and then taking low interest loans to pay for stuff in the US against their off-shore holdings. As an example.

I.e. close all tax loopholes, and make the tax code more sensible, so that you're not forced to cheat or end up uncompetitive.

How much revenue is raised from income taxes on people making <$50k?

Napkin math, I'd guess avg $5k from 100m people. Are we really collecting half a trillion dollars a year from people earning subsistence wages?

I think you’re misunderstanding my post.

I’m not saying it come tax is oppressing lower socioeconomic classes or that they disproportionately pay into it.

My point is the opposite. The income tax system helps those classes by funding social programs and we would either need to pare back those programs or find alternative ways of funding them

I started writing my comment with the assumption that low income earners weren't paying that much in taxes, then napkin math pointed that they may be paying an order magnitude more than my expectation. Is my napkin math accurate?

I don’t know. Maybe I’ll have time later today to look for research on the topic. I believe it’s the typical case that low income earners pay less (in federal tax, at least) as that’s the point of a progressive tax structure