Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:KK what is your personal opinion of Norway's current state?

In general very good.

They seem to have achieved a strong democratic constitutional monarchy with a liberal modern society, an excellent economic base in several different sectors, largely carbon neutral power generation, and a high degree of security and income for the whole population.

Their booze tax looks rather high, though.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

Mmm...no. [

What, this?:

On the positive I need stuff. Give me your money so I can pay for it. If not you're oppressing me, you One Percenter!!

That is an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate interpretation what social welfare is.

This is better, but not by much...:

Its like saying chocolate. No one is against chocolate - what are you a Commie? But then you have to define how much chocolate? Who gets chocolate? Who has to pay for the chocolate? Who decides any of that and whats going to keep them from misallocating, fraud, or using their power to reward friends and punish enemies? (I would)

Now for the advanced class the question should really be: who's gets the chocolate contracts with the government and what is their relationship with the politicians pushing for everyone to have cholocate?

It is simplistic. Its also accurate. It6s not my fault you still haven't addressed the questions related to that, but proponents of welfare never do.

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

On the other hand I've not seen your exhaustive economic surveys in defense of your claims - whatever they may be.

Yeah, social safety nets are a good idea.

Ultimately, however, it's a balancing act.

Unemployment insurance? Good idea. Unemployment insurance for more than a year? Two years? Eventually you're just prolonging the inevitable; that individual's skills have badly decayed or the market has changed for that skill set and they will have to accept a significantly worse role than what they had before.

sourclams wrote:
Ultimately, however, it's a balancing act.

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

You're right. Now that you you've defined it as saints vs. Genghis Khan you're completely right. I'm shocked anyone would have a different view. Frankly those people are evil and should be sterilized so that the rest of the enlightened can make the world a better place.

Kumbiya m'Lord, kumbiya...

I'm out of this thread. I'll leave it to the happy friends network to agree with each other.

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

You're right. Now that you you've defined it as saints vs. Genghis Khan you're completely right. I'm shocked anyone would have a different view. Frankly those people are evil and should be sterilized so that the rest of the enlightened can make the world a better place.

Kumbiya m'Lord, kumbiya...

I'm out of this thread. I'll leave it to the happy friends network to agree with each other.

You mad bro?

Frazzled wrote:It is simplistic. Its also accurate. It6s not my fault you still haven't addressed the questions related to that, but proponents of welfare never do.

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

That is excellently expressed by your country's military spending. Presumably there are people (drug-dealers, paedophiles, Hispanics etc.) that you don't consider deserving of defence? Ah, but then welfare isn't as effective as a proxy cock, is it?

See, there are things that all nations collectively spend money on - ensuring that people don't starve to death in what is a very wealthy country, is a logical thing to spend public money on. It makes for a stable country.

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

Except you're the exception (i.e. a taxpayer who receives less from the federal government than he pays in). 50% of American society receives more benefit from federal taxes than they pay into the system. Thus they do not have a real incentive to do anything but raise taxes because ultimately somebody else's money gets indirectly funneled to them. Then there's the whole issue of corruption and cronyism, and bureaucratic inefficiency...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:See, there are things that all nations collectively spend money on - ensuring that people don't starve to death in what is a very wealthy country, is a logical thing to spend public money on. It makes for a stable country.

It's virtually impossible to starve to death in the US. Between food stamps, local and national charities, and various food subsidization programs, not to mention the Dollar Menu, food remains incredibly cheap and easily accessed. I am literally within walking distance of at least 3 places that I know of where I could get free meals or groceries without any sort of background or eligibility requirements.

And I'm in Kansas. A solidly Republican, borderline Libertarian, religiously conservative state.

sourclams wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

Except you're the exception (i.e. a taxpayer who receives less from the federal government than he pays in). 50% of American society receives more benefit from federal taxes than they pay into the system. Thus they do not have a real incentive to do anything but raise taxes because ultimately somebody else's money gets indirectly funneled to them. Then there's the whole issue of corruption and cronyism, and bureaucratic inefficiency...

but your thinking of it in very simplistic terms tbh.

Am I annoyed that some lazy sod might game the system to get money for nothing instead of working? Absolutely.

However I am more worried about the fact that if he isn't given the money that the trickle down effect is that his kids don't eat or get adequate medical care. Many children and those not able to care for themselves shouldn't be made to suffer due to the fact that they are born into such situations.

The issue is bigger and more complex then what some want to make it out to be.

@all:

Before (intentionally or otherwise) ratcheting up the intensity of this thread any further, please consider that this is just a toy soldier forum on internet and getting suspended from an internet toy soldier forum for being rude isn't exactly a red badge of courage.

Thanks!

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

Not sure I totally understand your question.

I spend more then $100 on US based charitable endevours annually currently out of pocket.

I also make various donations of goods/items throughout the year.

In addition, I support as much as I can afford a medical climic active in Hati set up and funded by my step-father, and to which various family memebrs go to annually to volunteer.

I do all of this on a teacher's salary and despite having three kids of my own to feed and support. I still wish I could do more...

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

Not sure I totally understand your question.

If your tax bill was $100 less, would you spend $100 more on charity?

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

Not sure I totally understand your question.

If your tax bill was $100 less, would you spend $100 more on charity?

Not sure given that i already spend a fair amount (as a percentage of my total post-tax income) on such things, but it might translate...

Sonophos wrote:My personal opinion is that there should be a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all citizens that can can be withdrawn by agencies for repeated anti social actions.
Should a person demonstrate a complete lack of interest in society (through work or social action) then this minimum should be withdrawn by increments. There MUST be some way of avoiding moral hazard within the social system.

I like this idea. And I definitively agree that some form of social welfare is required as a balancing factor in today's economies.

I notice a number of people criticizing it, but I can only imagine it is easy to do so as long as oneself isn't affected by bad fortune. I'm sure it was quite cool living in medieval Europe as well if you happened to be of noble blood.

A discussion to abolish social welfare is but the fruit of the upper classes' efforts to pit the middle and the lower classes against each other, in turn securing their own hold on society. Our nations are not short on money, it just gets spent on the wrong end. When a CEO earns enough that his salary/bonus might pay for 1.000 workers, but his corporation then announces it has to fire said workers because the company is out of money, and then looks to the government for a bail-out with the taxpayer's money, and then still fires the workers ... I'm sorry, I cannot fathom how people can defend this practice. And it gets repeated again and again. Look to the financing sector right now - have the banks learned anything from the previous years? No. The next crash is coming, and again it'll be the small man who will bleed for it.

"Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago. [...] In both Israel and the United States inequality has increased further from already high levels."

Enjoy your future, I guess. Maybe we will get to see a Shadowrun'esque society with corporate wage slaves arise in a few decades after all. For what it's worth, this will at least remove a few layers of inefficiency from modern day governance, as well as the petty bickering between individual politicians.

Lynata, I *think* what many are proposing, is not an absolute abolishment of various welfare programs, but at the very least significant reforms, that would tighten down on those who are getting but shouldn't.

In the states, there has been some "outrage" over certain federal welfare reform bills that included mandatory drug testing for those seeking aid of government welfare programs. I would think that, if you are living on government dime, however permanently (or not), it is a duty of the recipient to ensure that they maintain themselves in such a manner. This means that they should not be using government funds to procure illegal substances. They should not be morbidly obese, especially if they have children.

If a person on any government subsidy cannot "adequately provide" for their children, well most 1st world countries have programs for that too. I know it sounds ridiculously callous and harsh, but it is true. Children should not be punished for being born to absolutely crap parents.

CT GAMER wrote:Not sure given that i already spend a fair amount (as a percentage of my total post-tax income) on such things, but it might translate...

So it's reasonable to conclude that the money the government spends on charity - on your behalf - it does so generally without your consent, given that you wouldn't spend it that way anyway? Or, it at least gives money to charities that you wouldn't personally support.

CT GAMER wrote:The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

Would you consider yourself as having "a stake in humanity" and a "desire to help others," given that the government is requiring you to contribute to charitable causes that you, personally, would not contribute to on your own, or at least not in the amount the government contributes on your behalf?

Lynata wrote:"Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago. [...] In both Israel and the United States inequality has increased further from already high levels."

Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

Well, nothing really changes except tenfold price inflation.

However I do find the whole 'income disparity' talking point to be ridiculous. The period of least income disparity in recent US history was the Great Depression, when all was equal, just equally terrible. Poor people in the US still retain an affluent lifestyle by global standards, and it's downright regal relative to historical standards.

Where I live, in conservative Republican, borderline libertarian Kansas, there's enough social support and subsidization to boost a 25k/year salary easily into the mid 30ks in terms of lifestyle access, and 30ks to 40k. That's virtually 25%-50% of an individual's pay coming from government dole. How is that not enough?

I agree with the OP.
Social Democracy works.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Lynata, I *think* what many are proposing, is not an absolute abolishment of various welfare programs, but at the very least significant reforms, that would tighten down on those who are getting but shouldn't.

I can get behind that, I'm just somewhat sceptical of certain suggestions that can only result in widening the gap between rich and poor even more.

For example, you mentioned "children should not be punished for being born to crap parents" - yet we know for a fact that a child's origin has a great influence on what kind of education is offered. Not based on intelligence, but simply on social class. This has less to do with social welfare, granted, but it's part of the larger problem.

As for the obese children, I would say that this is actually a result of cheap and unhealthy food, which is purchased because it's cheap and because the parents don't have enough money. Added to that comes the stress factor which does influence both the style of nutrition as well as how a body deals with it. For the current generation, future doesn't look bright. They grow up in a world whose media shows them corrupt politicians, exploitative corporations and a general decline in social equality, and the parents' financial situation does subconsciously affect how much or how well they can deal with their kids as well. It is because of this that I am not even surprised that kids today show no appreciation for society.

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

The argument will always remain as long as an unnecessary gap is in place. Not just because of the price inflation, but also because the disparity hampers the potential of a nation's population.

Many people with a small income are complaining that they're not getting enough - yet always you could point to countries in Africa and say "they've got it worse!"
And whilst that is certainly true, it doesn't really address the issue at hand. Because it COULD be better. It's just that a minority doesn't want this to happen, as people are generally averse to relinquishing stuff, regardless of whether they truly need it or not. Ironically, this trait increases the further you go up: the people who have the most seem to be the ones who feel least inclined to share.

Anyways, I advocate for improvement, for trying to better society for everyone. If wealth is distributed amongst a greater mass of people, this is bound to result in more people being allowed to benefit from higher education, in turn tapping more potential.

sourclams wrote:Where I live, in conservative Republican, borderline libertarian Kansas, there's enough social support and subsidization to boost a 25k/year salary easily into the mid 30ks in terms of lifestyle access, and 30ks to 40k. That's virtually 25%-50% of an individual's pay coming from government dole. How is that not enough?

I don't have access to the details, so I can only imagine that there's a whole lot of bureaucratic loopholes preventing or lowering this amount, as well as social stigma preventing many people from applying for in the first place. I mean - are you speaking from personal experience or just public perception? Because the statistics clearly point out a problem, unless we assume that it is getting very fashionable to be homeless and hungry lately.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-21-homeless_N.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April05/DataFeature/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/07/health/main4998190.shtml

sourclams wrote:

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

Well, nothing really changes except tenfold price inflation.

However I do find the whole 'income disparity' talking point to be ridiculous. The period of least income disparity in recent US history was the Great Depression, when all was equal, just equally terrible. Poor people in the US still retain an affluent lifestyle by global standards, and it's downright regal relative to historical standards.

Where I live, in conservative Republican, borderline libertarian Kansas, there's enough social support and subsidization to boost a 25k/year salary easily into the mid 30ks in terms of lifestyle access, and 30ks to 40k. That's virtually 25%-50% of an individual's pay coming from government dole. How is that not enough?

It's never enough, there's always a bloody shirt being waved to be addressed. Until our culture improves, we will never recover from the entitlement mentality.

Hand up, not a hand out.

As a professional livestock economist, you don't know how happy it makes me to see someone actually cite an ERS document as opposed to a bunch of newspaper headline flimflam (although you did then go on to cite newspaper headline flimflam...)

So let's look at the Amber Waves publication.

US households by food security status:

Food secure - 88.8%
Food insecure without hunger - 7.7%
Food insecure with hunger - 3.5%

So topline number, 3.5% of America has been considered food insecure with hunger. But how is hunger defined? 'Adult members who were hungry at times during the year because of their households food insecurity'. Note that this is not starvation. This isn't even prolonged shortage. This is simply an adult whose food access is not guaranteed and has felt hungry within the past year. And I don't say that to be dismissive; hunger is terrible. But people, especially on OWS forums, tend to talk about the massive swathes of starving-to-death Americans, which is a hyperbolic overinflation of the actual circumstance of America's 'hungry'.

Food insecure with or without hunger generally tracks very closely with the poverty line, and food insecure with hunger is typically about 1/3 of that number.

First, this tells me that food insecurity is basically a metric that is determined by poverty level. Poverty level has been fairly constant (as much as a number that bounces between 11% and 15% can be said to be constant) in the US since 1965 so I'm not getting too concerned about food access unless poverty is also taking off. Secondly, the social safety nets at work during 2003 were adequate, especially since 02-03 were recession years. In boom times the food insecurity with hunger rate was between 2-4%, in recessionary times the 'hunger' rate tipped up slightly but still remained contained by 4%. So it's not periods of have or have not, there's simply always a marginal number of chronically impoverished.

So if poverty levels overall are basically rangebound, and if even through the Great Recession poverty levels are unchanged, and if the percentage of individuals with hunger is both below the poverty line and relatively unchanging regardless of financial circumstance, then I'm still completely unconcerned about starving to death within America. I don't think it is the 'fault' of that bottom 3.5% that they remain hungry, but nor do I believe that some grand open-hand policy is going to significantly reduce that rate.

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

The argument will always remain as long as an unnecessary gap is in place. Not just because of the price inflation, but also because the disparity hampers the potential of a nation's population.

Many people with a small income are complaining that they're not getting enough - yet always you could point to countries in Africa and say "they've got it worse!"

What is enough?

Lynata wrote:Because it COULD be better. It's just that a minority doesn't want this to happen, as people are generally averse to relinquishing stuff, regardless of whether they truly need it or not. Ironically, this trait increases the further you go up: the people who have the most seem to be the ones who feel least inclined to share.

Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

sourclams wrote:

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

Well, nothing really changes except tenfold price inflation.

I'm not sure you understand the question. People would have ten times as much "stuff." Instead of living in a (under current measurement) $100,000 house, you would live in a (under current measure) $1 million house. There would be ten times as much food available, acting to drive down prices (although prices might rise due to inflation). In effect, everything today, only ten times more.

From what I understand, the argument from income equality is that everything would be just as bad as it is today, despite everyone being better off, materially.

sourclams wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

Except you're the exception (i.e. a taxpayer who receives less from the federal government than he pays in). 50% of American society receives more benefit from federal taxes than they pay into the system. Thus they do not have a real incentive to do anything but raise taxes because ultimately somebody else's money gets indirectly funneled to them. Then there's the whole issue of corruption and cronyism, and bureaucratic inefficiency...

How is it then that in the past 30 years the top few percent of the wealth holding population have got richer and richer at the expense of everyone else?

It can't be due to people voting for higher taxes so they can loll around.

Ah, I see what you mean. Actual ten-fold resource abundance.

Yeah, that's basically my argument against this whole 'income disparity' dialogue in a nutshell. I don't give a damn how much some individual or small group of individuals out there in the world has/controls, provided that I (society in general) still have a higher standard of living than humanity through any meaningful duration of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:How is it then that in the past 30 years the top few percent of the wealth holding population have got richer and richer at the expense of everyone else?

Because it's not zero-sum, and it's not "at the expense of everyone else". Increased globalization and the tech boom has literally created brand new industries with huge opportunity and wealth across the board was created.

This isn't mercantilism; if I want to put a sauna and jacuzzi into my backyard, I don't have to hop the fence with a sword, kill you and take your sauna and jacuzzi. Instead I go create the iPhone, invent an entirely new market that people don't even know there is demand for, which then generates new wealth that I then benefit from. Your standard of living is not suddenly worse just because mine is better.

No, it is because your line of reasoning is incorrect.

The top 2% of the US population's share of the national wealth has increased massively over the past 30 years, while everyone else's share has decreased. The lower down the income scale you are, the less well off relatively you have become.

This situation could not arise through the majority voting themselves huge subsidies at the expense of the wealthy minority.

Kilkrazy wrote:No, it is because your line of reasoning is incorrect.

The top 2% of the US population's share of the national wealth has increased massively over the past 30 years, while everyone else's share has decreased. The lower down the income scale you are, the less well off relatively you have become.

This situation could not arise through the majority voting themselves huge subsidies at the expense of the wealthy minority.

Its not the rich being imapcted. Its the middle class.

Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.