Welfare reasonable in democracy?

[RP207]

Often times I notice the debate between the left and the right comes down to this issue, is giving welfare good or bad? Should we take money from someone who earned them by work and give them to someone who didnt? Or should we leave it all to private charity?

Basically there's a bunch of approaches I came across, ranging from 'taxes are evil!' to 'that doctor guy earning more than me is a crook!'. To say it simply, differences in wealth tend to be caused in differences in talents, heritage, opportunity and so on... because everyone has different abilities, you can't have everyone equally rich or contributing to society.

As for more of my view on the issue:
From my studies on the subject I noticed this: in democratic society, it is difficult for someone to participate in politics (watch it, vote and so on) when your basic needs are not meant: if you dont have enough money to eat, you'll not really care much about the political debates. Same way, having no access to media, you might not even have much opportunity to watch politics at all. As we realize, democracy is not possible without participation from the side of the electorate, thus: what to do? The thought is perhaps giving some basic needs to the poor to keep them from extreme poverty might be useful for everyone in the society in the long run: poor people are more likely to be motivated to criminal activity, will less participate in political life, will have less opportunity to qualify themselves (and thus be of better benefit to everyone) and more likely to be manipulated through promises of having their basic needs met.

All of these dangers are eliminated in modern society through simple redistribution of wealth, not to mention such action tends to create a bond of 'solidarity' within the community, But I also realize the problems, the fact it drains the economy of the state, allows abuse by the lazy and so on. So I ask for your thoughts on the subject.

[HahaISuckMoreThanYou]

At 10/9/09 06:37 AM, RP207 wrote: Often times I notice the debate between the left and the right comes down to this issue, is giving welfare good or bad? Should we take money from someone who earned them by work and give them to someone who didnt? Or should we leave it all to private charity?

Basically there's a bunch of approaches I came across, ranging from 'taxes are evil!' to 'that doctor guy earning more than me is a crook!'. To say it simply, differences in wealth tend to be caused in differences in talents, heritage, opportunity and so on... because everyone has different abilities, you can't have everyone equally rich or contributing to society.

As for more of my view on the issue:
From my studies on the subject I noticed this: in democratic society, it is difficult for someone to participate in politics (watch it, vote and so on) when your basic needs are not meant: if you dont have enough money to eat, you'll not really care much about the political debates. Same way, having no access to media, you might not even have much opportunity to watch politics at all. As we realize, democracy is not possible without participation from the side of the electorate, thus: what to do? The thought is perhaps giving some basic needs to the poor to keep them from extreme poverty might be useful for everyone in the society in the long run: poor people are more likely to be motivated to criminal activity, will less participate in political life, will have less opportunity to qualify themselves (and thus be of better benefit to everyone) and more likely to be manipulated through promises of having their basic needs met.

All of these dangers are eliminated in modern society through simple redistribution of wealth, not to mention such action tends to create a bond of 'solidarity' within the community, But I also realize the problems, the fact it drains the economy of the state, allows abuse by the lazy and so on. So I ask for your thoughts on the subject.

Whether or not it's good, it's taking money from someone who has plenty and giving it to people needing it whether they deserve it or not. Considering 10 people will spend $100 faster than 1 person spending $1000, then it's good for the governments wallet.

Though personally, I think there needs to be government programs which gives money for people to earn degrees/support them and those who are working but not making enough rather than the morons who sit on their ass all day rotting.

[HahaISuckMoreThanYou]

Sorry to double post, but think, with poverty comes crime. If someone is forced to steal so they can survive, does it really matter about the rules than? Just like if I was stranded in the woods and killed a bald eagle so I can survive off it.

[RubberTrucky]

Overall I don't think placing all charity in the volunteer basket is not so efficient. Then you go from the principle that every man is a good person who cares for others. People, in general are not however.

The government can deduct some money from everyone's paycheck to organise welfare, as long as it doesn't leave the working people in similar problems as the poor people.

[drDAK]

A redesign and re-designation of welfare would help get money to people who are unfairly struggling in the system.

At the same time, it would eliminate the assholes who leach off of us.

[RP207]

At 10/9/09 02:14 PM, drDAK wrote: A redesign and re-designation of welfare would help get money to people who are unfairly struggling in the system.

At the same time, it would eliminate the assholes who leach off of us.

That gives me an interesting idea for another question... do you think we should cut welfare completly for someone who is 'leeching' just the bare minimum? Does every person in society have a moral right to this bare minimum or do only the productive ones?

[dizzenbee]

When people don't take sides you usually see something ACTUALLY HAPPEN. Example: Dow system stimulated. Both sides wanted it at a stable rate whether good or bad.

[Korriken]

At 10/11/09 04:34 AM, RP207 wrote:

That gives me an interesting idea for another question... do you think we should cut welfare completly for someone who is 'leeching' just the bare minimum?

yes.

Does every person in society have a moral right to this bare minimum or do only the productive ones?

if you don't wanna contribute, why should we take care of your sorry lazy no good hide while you make babies and create more sorry lazy no good people?

[RP207]

While your reasoning is justifiable, what about say an artist who isn't really contributing, but needs the bare minimum to keep himself alive? I'm not talking about people who make a living with their art, but those who make it for themselves (or a similiar 'way of life'). Such a person might be called a 'lazy bum' but at the same time why not just leave them in peace?

Also even in the case of a 'social leech' isnt it immoral to let someone starve to death when say society has the means to keep them alive? Also prisoners get their basic needs met despite being unproductive to society, so why not do the same for someone who isn't breaking the law?

I'm not saying I neccesarily advocate the opposite position, still these are the thoughts that come to mind when considering such a position.

[Korriken]

At 10/11/09 09:34 AM, RP207 wrote: While your reasoning is justifiable, what about say an artist who isn't really contributing, but needs the bare minimum to keep himself alive? I'm not talking about people who make a living with their art, but those who make it for themselves (or a similiar 'way of life'). Such a person might be called a 'lazy bum' but at the same time why not just leave them in peace?

such a person could get a day job to support himself. as much as i would love to sit home all day and practice my music, even i realize i gotta keep a job in order to support myself and pay my bills until my skills are good enough to join a band that makes enough money that i can play music for a living.

Also even in the case of a 'social leech' isnt it immoral to let someone starve to death when say society has the means to keep them alive? Also prisoners get their basic needs met despite being unproductive to society, so why not do the same for someone who isn't breaking the law?

prisoners can be made useful, they often do things like clean litter off the side of the road. In Angola (Louisiana state prison) they are farmers, and do a rodeo every year. and to let a person who flat out refuses to work starve to death? I see no problem in it. When faced with starvation the person will either get a job, learn to grow his own food, or turn to crime. once those who turn to crime are weeded out (killed, or imprisoned and forced to work) the world will be a much better place. For the truly disabled, I can see helping them out, because they simply cannot do many of the jobs that are out there. However, Instead of doing the "poor pity me" thing, we could find suitable work for the disabled and give them the proper training. a person with no legs could still do office work, or peel potatoes at a restaurant. its not glorious work, but its still work nonetheless.

and the problem is just giving people money is it kills the work incentive. It also leads to crime. why? because if you work and make money, you lose your welfare, so you gotta make money behind Uncle Sam's back. whats the best way to make money behind Uncle Sam's back without doing any real work? Drug dealing, prostitution, all flavors of theft, among other unlawful things.

Why do you think the drug problem is so rampant? its easy money, it's a lot of money, it won't interrupt your welfare (unless you get busted), and its tax free.

[RubberTrucky]

One thing though. I find it wrong to say that people who are without a job for a while are lazy bums who leach of society. It's not like you can get a job with ease. Unemployment might be a big issue and it's quite insensitive to give those people the name of lazy bums. What about middle age people who got laid off and no one wants to hire such old people? What about people who got into an accident and are physically unable to do any work. Or young graduates who get no room in companies due to their high degrees...

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/11/09 09:34 AM, RP207 wrote: While your reasoning is justifiable, what about say an artist who isn't really contributing, but needs the bare minimum to keep himself alive? I'm not talking about people who make a living with their art, but those who make it for themselves (or a similiar 'way of life'). Such a person might be called a 'lazy bum' but at the same time why not just leave them in peace?

SURE!

However, he has no right to expect me to work to keep him alive, to expect the money which I earn to be taken from me against my will at the threat of my liberty, all because he's too lazy to get a productive job.

[pr0ded]

and that doctor is making less than Jay-Z, or some tanning booth business man, or anyone with a useless job

[pr0ded]

if you don't wanna contribute,

i'll contribute by becoming a showgirl

or by being born into a family that was well established before civil or womens rights came in, probably by selling hard drugs that were legal at the time and marketed as cure alls

[zendahl]

There are many benifits to society that come frome social welfare, and I have no problem giving those who need it a little help and I think most reasonable people of reason regaurdless of income level would agree that the benifits of having less poverty in the society outweighs the pain of the taxes to take care of the proble. That is asuming it takes care of the problem. Like I said I don't mind giving someone a little help to get back on there feet, but I do have a problem with people who use welfare as a primary source of income. Welfare would not be such an issue if it were done correctly. Able bodied adults should be working when able. I don't mind if you get laid off and need a boost till you get back to work but after six months if you are still milking it, I say it's time to cut the cord. You're on your own after that. I also have no problem with people who work full time but don't quite make enough getting a boost. Though I would rather they don'y get money, I would support a WIC style program though. Welfare should be a temporary hand up, not a primary source of income.

[RP207]

At 10/13/09 04:46 AM, pr0ded wrote:

if you don't wanna contribute,

i'll contribute by becoming a showgirl

or by being born into a family that was well established before civil or womens rights came in, probably by selling hard drugs that were legal at the time and marketed as cure alls

Yes all those are ways of making money that aren't essentially very productive, yet they're still 'rewarded' in some way, while the poor artist mentioned in the example is not making anything illegal or productive, just requires welfare so he can focus on his art. Of course the counter argument I can think of right away would be, to have him make money of his talent, like everyone else tries to, but then we know that people aren't neccesarily appreciative to all good art and its fairly easy to become rich as a pop idol, compared to making some serious art.

And thats not even getting into how unapreciated a doctor's work is, compared to a pop idol: while I appreciate a good song for instance, I believe the work of a doctor remains undervalued as music doesn't really seem that good when you're badly ill :D

Either way I seen some good responses so far and seems generally just about everyone has a point, so I'll move the discussion on: while we may agree that if someone is a 'lazy bastard' he shouldnt be rewarded for it, still there is such a concept as human rights and it does involve the idea that every human being, however they be, deserves a certain meassure of dignity to their existance. In this case lets see it as material dignity.

What would your objection be to the claim that every human being, deserves some material minimum to give their existance some meassure of dignity?

[bcdemon]

So what about the people who can't find a job because there aren't enough jobs for every person, do they have a right to collect money (welfare) from the ones who are working? I think so.
If not then the government should crack down on child birth until the population count meets the amount of jobs available. Unfortunately business would rather pay a one time fee for a robot than a weekly wage for their fellow man, meaning less jobs, and more welfare.

[fatape]

At 10/13/09 02:05 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: SURE!

However, he has no right to expect me to work to keep him alive, to expect the money which I earn to be taken from me against my will at the threat of my liberty, all because he's too lazy to get a productive job.

why do you assume he's lazy?

making proper art actualy takes hard work, its not you move the pencil around and a picture magicly comes out.You actualy have to think, its just like programming or mathmatics, except in programming or mathmatics there's actualy a good chance to get paying job to do it.

unlike art in which you have to be extremly lucky to make a living at it.

theres actualy alot of things that are useful, but can't seem to make a profit in a capitalistic system.
(even jhon adams admitted this, )

now im not proposeing every artist who asks for a handout should get one, however if someone shows lots of promise then im willing to pay a couple cents to support there endevors.

[pr0ded]

well you can use programming and maths to make art, or have a job involved with it

like DSP programming, MAX/MSP Reaktor,

[zendahl]

At 10/13/09 09:15 AM, bcdemon wrote: So what about the people who can't find a job because there aren't enough jobs for every person, do they have a right to collect money (welfare) from the ones who are working? I think so.
If not then the government should crack down on child birth until the population count meets the amount of jobs available. Unfortunately business would rather pay a one time fee for a robot than a weekly wage for their fellow man, meaning less jobs, and more welfare.

That is an excuse. There are plenty of jobs out ther, just not ones people want to work. Just because you have a masters degree in chemical engineering doesn't mean I sould have to pay for you to wait for a "good job" while there are plenty of openings in construction, security, or even fast food. Suck it up, take the shit job while you are looking. waiting for a good job is not worthy of my tax dollars. I fully support welfare to help out but there have to be time limits. I'm willing to help you for six months but after that you bet start asking if I want fries with that. We need to help those that want to work, not those who want to do nothing. I'd even be willing to give a wic style program to those who make too little to take care of there family, you know you get an alotment of cheese, milk, cerial, veggies, and meat each month. Nothing fancy just a little help. But if you are able bodied you really need to be working and helping socially.

[pr0ded]

or if they're learning while on welfare, maybe if you had a list of where you're taxes go you'd be even more upset.

for me the miltary

helping socially? i telemarket then spend my money on useless toys that deplete resources

i am helping resource depletion

[Jinzoa]

To be honest they really need to reform alot of welfare systems, it's just a stupid situation where person X on welfare gets say £500 a month with their rent/council tax paid and person. While if they went out to work for the minimum wage they would get less and be worse off....That's the kind of situations that needs to be sorted. Working 40-50 hours a week just to be either worse or no better off than on welfare is just silly.

Also when it comes to the issue of people who abuse the system/to lazy to work they should be given the ultimatum:

1. Go and participate in X course of Y list each week and get yourself some training
2. Community service
3. fail do to any of above(or whatever other options) and you get no benefits

There is currently a thing going on in the UK where people on longterm benefits have to go on an 11 week course. Basically it's ment to help out with CV making, job interviews and various other skills and by the end of the course they should have a job(For every person who gets a job the private companies get an extra £100 for showing results). If people refuse they can get their benefits cut off.

That excludes those who really need the benefits though(seriously ill, unable to work and such)

[bcdemon]

At 10/14/09 01:50 AM, zendahl wrote:

At 10/13/09 09:15 AM, bcdemon wrote: So what about the people who can't find a job because there aren't enough jobs for every person, do they have a right to collect money (welfare) from the ones who are working?

That is an excuse. There are plenty of jobs out there....

If that's just an excuse, then prove to me that there is an employment position for every person who is able to work.

[fatape]

At 10/14/09 01:50 AM, zendahl wrote:

:while there are plenty of openings in construction, security, or even fast food.

and what happens if I can't get a job making fast food?

[SadisticMonkey]

Join the army

[jonnyrules935]

Free welfare for all citizen cannot be anything else than democratic. It atcually is much much more democratic than a cast system where only the rich and powerfull can get help.

So yes it is fully reasonnable, and for those who thinks this is communism, Marx's theory was based on practical democracy in all aspects of life, but our friends of the CCCP screwed it.

[RP207]

At 10/15/09 09:30 PM, jonnyrules935 wrote: Free welfare for all citizen cannot be anything else than democratic. It atcually is much much more democratic than a cast system where only the rich and powerfull can get help.

So yes it is fully reasonnable, and for those who thinks this is communism, Marx's theory was based on practical democracy in all aspects of life, but our friends of the CCCP screwed it.

Being 'democratic' and 'reasonable' don't have to be the same things (as funny as it sounds)

I tend to think that people see themselves as having some kind of a 'material' right to have some minimum wealth and standard of life. If this standard is not met they will be tempted to turn to crime to meet it, especially if they see people making lots of proffit 'effortlessly'

. Simply if you and your family are starving (for whatever reason) and then you see a bakery full of bread on display its not too hard to see the reasoning behind stealing some of the food. I think Marx saw it in a similiar way as to why the proletariat would revolt, but didn't realize that there might be a simplier way of achieving a fairer society: have the rich give benefits to the poor.

[zendahl]

At 10/14/09 04:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/14/09 01:50 AM, zendahl wrote: while there are plenty of openings in construction, security, or even fast food.

and what happens if I can't get a job making fast food?

Everybody can work in fast food. I have a buddy that got out of prison and imediatly got a job at burger king. If you can't find a job it's because you are lazy or un willing to take a certain type of job. Even people with mental hadicaps are able to find work if they want. No jobs is an excuse. What you really mean is no jobs that I want to do. Too bad, suck it up and get to work. There are newspaper routs, fast food, gas stations, construction, security, telemarketing as well as thousands of other crap jobs. and I have no problem helping out for six months while you find one nor do I have any problem contributing a bit if you don't quite make enough wile gainfully employed, but take any job you can get. You are a leech on society when you refuse to work a crap jobs because you don't want to. Get over it loser and get to work. Take a step down if have to and try totake that step up again later.

[Der-Lowe]

At 10/17/09 04:32 PM, zendahl wrote: If you can't find a job it's because you are lazy or un willing to take a certain type of job.

So unemployment is just laziness? The business cycle is just an invention created by lazy people?

[pr0ded]

At 10/17/09 04:32 PM, zendahl wrote: Get over it loser and get to work.

no, i have boycotted many of the workplaces, and instead i will paint, make music and write

all more respectable than a lot of jobs out there