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.

So Many discussions on the OT board seem to degenerate into arguments about one of two things: politics or gun control.

In the interests of getting the arguments from both sides I thought I would start this one rather than have other VERY unrelated threads unwittingly hijacked by these issues.

I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Please keep it clean ladies and gentlemen.

I for one am interested in what Dakkites from accross the political spectrum have to say but I really don't want personal attacks and below the belt comments.

My first thought is that lowering the wealth of the more wealthy to give to the less wealthy (usually the lowest on the ladder) leads to a lower balance. This style of redistribution does not lead to much improved conditions for the lowest incomes.

The welfare and government programs rarely, almost never lead to social equality, nor financial equality.

What I would prefer is more education about opputunities for the lower income levels, and of course more oppurtunities overall.

From the speech you linked to, in the 6 minutes area, this man recognizes that one of the key points for overall health is community involvement and and trust between people.

It seems to me if more people who are higher on the ladder would use some of thier time and energy to work with one person on the lowest areas of the ladder, and vise verse, mentoring, etc, we could improve the lives of the lowest among us.

Here's the thing about it, wealthy people on average tend to be very busy and literally do not have enough time for this to occur to them. People on the lower part tend to not reach out to the wealthier for mentoring, be it from lack of trust, or just a general feeling like it would never actually happen.

This is where I go back to the education of people about oppurtunities available to them.

I learned this lesson many years ago, and put it to good use. You can literally just find someone who is doing fairly well (much better than you anyways), introduce yourself, and get some first hand advice on how to improve your lot in life. Preferrably someone who is part of an industry you really dream of being part of. Quite often they will actually help you out, because they recognize and respect the fact you are ambitious and trying to improve yourself, rather than looking for a hand out.

Social Welfare programs have thier place, and I am not saying they are useless, but it seems more social mixing of the wealth levels would go a long way to improving trust between people, and overall improvement of the least wealthy among us. Giving poorer people more money to keep living the same life they live seperately from others does not help fix the critical issues in our society.

I dunno, it is later and I should be in bed. sorry for the rambling.

I for one am glad of the system here in the UK (its broken but its better than nothing right?), With out it I would be dead...at lest twice. So I have alot of respect for the NHS and those that work in its limiting system. Then there is the underclass, Chaves, nasty little buggers they are. They are like cockroaches. Tell one of them to get lost when they are hurlling abuse at you and fithteen of them jump you. Then there is the education system, most of the time education is lacking here. I swer most of the kids today just grunt and grone like sullen orks.
...Oh dear god, I just used the "the kids today"...Damn I'm starting to get old!...

I think that, at least in the US, "Social welfare" programs do much much more harm than good. Sure, it is a means of ensuring that citizens are able to feed themselves while they are out of work, which is good....

However, how many people in the States are rabid drug users and on welfare? How many of them are morbidly obese, and have the nerve to complain that the food isnt enough to feed their family. I am of the opinion that Welfare needs massive reforms in the states, and that starts with "employing" those on welfare... these would be truly menial jobs that NO ONE would want to do, and unless they do these state run jobs, no welfare check. There should obviously be mandatory drug testing for those wishing to go on welfare. As a soldier in the US Army, why should I be tested for drugs in order to have a job in the first place, and these lazy sods can do as much crack or whatever they want, and never get tested for usage?

I also agree with Shadowseer, in that training for those who do not otherwise get the opportunity to succeed is important. I am not suggesting a Communist Russia system, where everyone gets tested, and you get training in a job that reflects well on your test results. I would be more in favor of a system that would give those on unemployment or welfare a list of "fields" or jobs that are short numbered. If they need special training, provide links to someone who can do that training on a grant or loan program (and I would support the hiring company paying for part of that training). It'd be more like, "You were an accountant, and that field has took a nose dive? Well, we have plenty of openings in the Logging industry, care to work a chainsaw?"


But overall, I hate the current system, because it fully supports laziness, and poor habits, but does not get the right sort of help that people really need.. and that is real work.

Ribon Fox wrote:I for one am glad of the system here in the UK (its broken but its better than nothing right?), With out it I would be dead...at lest twice. So I have alot of respect for the NHS and those that work in its limiting system. Then there is the underclass, Chaves, nasty little buggers they are. They are like cockroaches. Tell one of them to get lost when they are hurlling abuse at you and fithteen of them jump you. Then there is the education system, most of the time education is lacking here. I swer most of the kids today just grunt and grone like sullen orks.
...Oh dear god, I just used the "the kids today"...Damn I'm starting to get old!...

The 'system' is what has caused the UK to be in such a mess because of slowed social punters thieving money from the government when they arent sick in fact.

Hi. I'm a Tory.

Firstly, let me say that I support the idea of social welfare. Part of living in a civilised society is accepting that some people, through no fault of their own, will find themselves out of work or unable to work. Should we leave these people to their fates in the name of so-called 'freedom'? No. Freedom to starve to death is not freedom at all.

However, not all welfare recipients are deserving of our collective compassion - there are those that CAN work, but refuse to. Bearing that in mind, welfare should be difficult to avail oneself of, and the cash component of it should be miniscule, for example, one should receive money to travel to job interviews, upon receipt of proof by the authorities. It should NOT be a lifestyle choice, it should be a subsistence allowance. That said, MORE support should be given to those who are successful in finding work, lavish support, even. I think we should give people a month's wage (to be repaid in small installments) as soon as they start a job, so that they have money to travel (amongst other things), and so that they can enjoy the benefits of employment immediately. It would be a great incentive, I think.

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.

Speaking of moral hazard I truly believe that the upper reaches of society have fallen collectively to the moral hazard of greed for it's own sake. There are too few people who control each other's remuneration that is leading to an accumulation of wealth in too few hands.
This strangles an economy because too little actual wealth filters through to those of lower income.
The greater the gap between rich and poor; the greater the problems that will be faced by government. Comapny boards seem quite happy with laying off 1000 menial workers and at the same time handing the equivalent of half or more of the saving in bonuses and share options to thier executives. This places strain on an economy in two ways: it reduces liquidity in the economy and it places a weight of care upon the state.
I am not saying that government should intervene in remuneration decisions but that shareholders should have a vote on remuneration. There are too many executives who sit on each others remuneration boards.

I like Shadowseer's idea of mentoring.

Sonophos wrote:So Many discussions on the OT board seem to degenerate into arguments about one of two things: politics or gun control.

In the interests of getting the arguments from both sides I thought I would start this one rather than have other VERY unrelated threads unwittingly hijacked by these issues.

I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Please keep it clean ladies and gentlemen.

I for one am interested in what Dakkites from accross the political spectrum have to say but I really don't want personal attacks and below the belt comments.

From each and his ability to each to his need eh?
That didn't work out so well.

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!!!

I'm for:
*Swiss or similar style medical system for all.
*Education through University or advnaced technical school.
*Shutting the border.
*Acquiring Canada, Tahiti, and the Cancun, in that order.
Everything else you're on your own.

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

With out da UK stuff my arm would be broken in 3 places.

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

Totally agree.

We might, however, differ on whose comment we are referring to.

Sonophos wrote:I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

I disagree.

When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity. Social charities are better at allocating resources because they have an incentive to weed out fraud and misuse (donors might stop giving money) and because they are better able to adapt to changes in circumstances and tailor their services to individuals.

Plus, I would much rather give money voluntarily to support the poor than be forced to do so.

biccat wrote:

When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity. Social charities are better at allocating resources because they have an incentive to weed out fraud and misuse (donors might stop giving money) and because they are better able to adapt to changes in circumstances and tailor their services to individuals.

Plus, I would much rather give money voluntarily to support the poor than be forced to do so.

So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here. If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.
That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

There will always be a place for Charities but only a state run benefit system is truly able to provide a system without prejustice (not that I'm saying it does).

Yes fraud can enter into the system but a lot of this can be avoided with a joined up system. Benefits are income and it in the UK it is quite hard to claim and have a proper paying job as our PAYE system picks it up. Besides all monetary systems are open to fraud; false charities are one major form of fraud.

Your final point for me boils down to "I want to choose wich poor people I personally support". Although I am to an extent "forced" through taxation to pay for welfare I see it as a duty; a duty to ALL others to offer help; something that I can not do alone.

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

Mmm...no.
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?

Frazzled wrote:

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

Mmm...no.
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?

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?

Everyone should get thier quota of Keynes Co. Chocolate!

Exept Sausage (Weiner) dogs because it is toxic to them.

Sonophos wrote:
So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here. If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.
That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

Who pays for the $400 difference? What right do you have to steal that $400 and give it to you? You know thats theft right?
You also know under the above scheme you're just re-incentivzing those evil one percenters. they now have no interest in providing a market based, "fair" salary.

Sonophos wrote:So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here.

No, by giving someone a benefit you're incentivising them not to act in other ways that might be beneficial. See Bastiat.

Sonophos wrote:If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.

Yes, and governments are notoriously poor at determining these criteria. Because there's no reason for them to be selective. In fact, there are lots of reasons for them to be over-inclusive.

Sonophos wrote:That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

Well, you didn't specify that. But that would be a superior system. It is still open to abuse and inferior to private charity.

Sonophos wrote:There will always be a place for Charities but only a state run benefit system is truly able to provide a system without prejustice (not that I'm saying it does).

I disagree. A state run system will be no less prejudicial than charities. In fact, it will often be more prejudicial because private charities can discriminate. If green monkeys only make up X% of the population, then a non-discriminatory government program would only have X% of its clients be green monkeys. But if a private charity only services green monkeys then more than Y% of green monkeys will get help.

Plus, government-run charities dry up money that would normally go to private charities, for a number of reasons.

Sonophos wrote:Yes fraud can enter into the system but a lot of this can be avoided with a joined up system. Benefits are income and it in the UK it is quite hard to claim and have a proper paying job as our PAYE system picks it up. Besides all monetary systems are open to fraud; false charities are one major form of fraud.

And fraudulent charities will be defunded by donors, or prosecuted for fraud. Unfortunately, there's no such remedy for forced taxation.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

Mmm...no.
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?

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?

Everyone should get thier quota of Keynes Co. Chocolate!

Exept Sausage (Weiner) dogs because it is toxic to them.

I like Hershey's myself.

Frazzled wrote:

Sonophos wrote:
So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here. If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.
That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

Who pays for the $400 difference? What right do you have to steal that $400 and give it to you? You know thats theft right?
You also know under the above scheme you're just re-incentivzing those evil one percenters. they now have no interest in providing a market based, "fair" salary.

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

Mmm...no.
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?

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?

Everyone should get thier quota of Keynes Co. Chocolate!

Exept Sausage (Weiner) dogs because it is toxic to them.

I like Hershey's myself.

That's fine. There isn't actually any chociolate in Hershey's.

Now if you will excuse me gentlemen I am off to sort out some social housing. I am enjoying this discussion and learning from it.

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions though. Thats the problem, there's never discussion of the costs.

While I have never needed it I appreciate the fact that we have a line that you will not fall below (although I do hate the ideal of relative poverty - it is or isn't IMO).

That said I do think that we should treat the problems rather than fund the symptoms.

So more money should go to Education rather than Benefits, (hopefully/probably) reducing the need for Benefits and Healthcare in the longer term.

Those that abuse the system should also be treated as serious fraud cases with punishments to match.

Sonophos wrote:
So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

The problem is, what is the defined value of "minimum standard" ? I know more people on welfare that have more Cable channels than I do, pay for faster internet, have more XBox time logged than I do, etc etc. Why should ANY welfare or social program basically pay for these niceties? I work my tail off to earn what money goes into my bank account. If there were a system that "marked" money given to welfare recipients that basically told companies, if you take this money for cable and other niceties, then you can face penalties/sanctions.. the individual purchasing said niceties (internet and xbox stuff are NOT necessities), should be given first a warning, in writing, and second an actual cut from the system, saying you were given all opportunities to live on the welfare system and you abused it; Perhaps give a probationary reinstatement after a full investigation and whatnot.

Norway.

Kilkrazy wrote:Norway.

I've heard its full or Norwiegans. What does that reference to KK?

Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

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

Kilkrazy wrote:Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

Doesn't Norway have like 4MM people?
Wait Wiki says 20% of their GDP is from hydrocarbons. Thats a fair example of...nothing then.

On the positive they have killer (as is cool) trolls. I like the Mountain Trolls the best.

Frazzled wrote:

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions though. Thats the problem, there's never discussion of the costs.

Just like the discussion of QE costs. Minimum standard social welfare is paid for through taxation of those that exceed the minimum but may have need of it in the future, ie everyone on a wage above national average proportionate with their ability to pay.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions though. Thats the problem, there's never discussion of the costs.

Just like the discussion of QE costs. Minimum standard social welfare is paid for through taxation of those that exceed the minimum but may have need of it in the future, ie everyone on a wage above national average proportionate with their ability to pay.

So in other words it really is theft. Awesome.

Several of my friends could possibly be dead without unemployment checks, child support and other social programs. I've seen it work for the better, and I support them for the most part.

Even the poorest person in this country has a higher standard of life than a lot of other people in the world.

It is a psychological fact, that people will create myths about themselves to justify whatever.

Most the time,when they are successful; do not even realize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

When they are not successful, they emphasize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

Therefore, we must follow the idea of the Golden Mean. Sadly, what is the best balance between social welfare and taxation is not always clear.