The social aid problem

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

November 21, there was a big debate at primetime between the major and the minor parties on the Dutch telly. Before the Elections next day.
A main issue between the Major parties was the social aid problem.
In Holland, when someone gets fired or isn't able to work, the person gets social aid.
It's like social security only a bit different.
The amount of money you get, is around 80% of the minimum wage.
It seems at first sight that you can't live of this amount, but you've got the right to get discount on you healthcare, insurance etc.
But that's only if you fill in the proper formulars.
The problem is, that some people seem to be too stupid to do this. And they will end up living in poverty.
The Socialistic Party and Green Left blamed the Balkenende Coalition for not doing enough.
The last goverment was a coalition between the right wing party VVD and the middle/right party CDA. They obviously paid more attention to corporations, which pissed off those pesky socialists.

Green Left wanted to raise the social aid, SP wanted to raise minimum wage.
It's an illiusion that such things are real solutions to our "poverty." People should get aid in filling in those forms i spoke about. And corporations should pay less for improductive people. If corporations do well, the employers do well.
Atleast if profits are devided well, which is arranged quite well here. THe two leftist parties try to illuse us that it's not, and that is an enormous problem around here.

Justice from the underdog position can be good, up to a certain level, that people that earn the most should pay more taxe because of jelousy.
There are currently around 350 thousand people living of social aid. Many of them are single moms trying to raise their kids. It is just that they get supported. But a large part of the rest of them simpley failed their lifes. They probably dropped school, we're lazy at work etc.
I can't proof this, but i can say that it is injust to support those.

They might deserve food and shelter. But they don't deserve the possibillity to gain financial aid from our taxe money, and have an illegal job at the same time! Which happens a lot.

Instead we should support corporations, if the economy is strong the population is.
Corporations, and big earners already pay an awful lot of taxe, so it's a lie that big corporations keep everything for themselves.
If companies earn more, they will invest more. Which is good for national income.

Discuss..

[Der-Ubermensch]

Give them their bread and water, access to a hostel and elementary health facilities. Many would be motivated by the strife alone.

Of course for the physically and mentally unfit, decent standards of living should be granted.

The problem with these social aid programs is that there is not enough control and follow-through . Abuse is rampant.

[swayside]

Just so you know, telling us to "discuss" is rather high-and-mighty of you. That's what this forum is for. You don't have to tell us.

----------

I think that we are all born with a natural right to live. I do not think we are born with the right to the means to live. I do not inherently deserve unearned resources simply to keep me alive. The government is there to protect my right to life, not support it. I have no right to food. I have the right to earn it. I have no right to shelter. I have the right to earn it. If I did have a right to those things, then what of the people that own them? Do they have the obligation to adjust their price based on the subjective need of every individual? They could and would be completely within their rights to do so, but they also have the right to require anything they would in exchange for access to their resources.

Also, those that earn more should pay more, but that's a basic mathematical principle. Individuals should pay a flat percentage tax. Graduated income tax is either illogical or communistic. The second plank of the Communist Manifesto dictates a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Wether you like the idea or not, it is a communist one.

I'm against all governmental finacial aid. Perhaps if tax-payers didn't have to fund such programs, the significantly lighter tax-burden would not only give otherwise generous people more resources to throw around, but it would also keep people farther from the poverty line which is what those programs are there for anyway. Not paying as much money is having more money. More money is prosperity that is, at the very least, comparably greater to that experienced under the greater tax-burden.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Wait, they want to raise your already high taxes.

Because people can't fill out papers?

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

At 1/2/07 02:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Wait, they want to raise your already high taxes.

Because people can't fill out papers?

That is one of the reasons, not the only one, but yes.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

At 1/2/07 09:35 AM, swayside wrote: Just so you know, telling us to "discuss" is rather high-and-mighty of you. That's what this forum is for. You don't have to tell us.

I said that to end my post, you sillybuns!

----------

I think that we are all born with a natural right to live. I do not think we are born with the right to the means to live. I do not inherently deserve unearned resources simply to keep me alive. The government is there to protect my right to life, not support it. I have no right to food. I have the right to earn it. I have no right to shelter. I have the right to earn it. If I did have a right to those things, then what of the people that own them? Do they have the obligation to adjust their price based on the subjective need of every individual? They could and would be completely within their rights to do so, but they also have the right to require anything they would in exchange for access to their resources.

I agree with you, but people in this country can't tand poverty, we are allergic to it.
Everytime i'm on vacation, and i'm in a big city outside Holland, like Rome or Paris.
I notice how many hobo's there are.
We only have junks, and everyone of them has the right to have shelter.
So the ones that sleep outside are afraid of the cops, or insane.

Also, those that earn more should pay more, but that's a basic mathematical principle. Individuals should pay a flat percentage tax. Graduated income tax is either illogical or communistic. The second plank of the Communist Manifesto dictates a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Wether you like the idea or not, it is a communist one.

Our country has three groups of people, (roughly) Liberals(not your kind), Socialists, and Christian Democrats. The Christian democrats can't stand poverty since they are Christian, the socialists think that some people are weak because the strong mistreat them.
And the liberals just hate poor people so they are willing to pay.
It's in the spirit of our nation that we pitty the weak, but they aren't weak because we made them weak, they are weak because they are!

But still, ignoring them is not the solution, since it causes them to raid, whore their daughters out, steal, mug all the bad things you can imagine.
Our social aid keeps our nation nice and quiet. But still, with the new plans of the left, it's going to far!
We shouldn't encourage them to do nothing, but to use the little creativity that they have to create themselves a better future.

I'm against all governmental finacial aid. Perhaps if tax-payers didn't have to fund such programs, the significantly lighter tax-burden would not only give otherwise generous people more resources to throw around, but it would also keep people farther from the poverty line which is what those programs are there for anyway. Not paying as much money is having more money. More money is prosperity that is, at the very least, comparably greater to that experienced under the greater tax-burden.

Yes, the more you let the strong pay, the less the strong can pour into our economy.

[swayside]

I think that one of the key differences between me and most others on this topic is why I think what. My reasons aren't based on pragmatism at all. While I can keep up with most that outline the practicality and effectiveness of their social aid theories and policies, those are really beside the point to me. Results in the last place don't matter to me. Rights in the first place do. So long as personal rights are protected before social aid programs are considered, I really don't care what the program is. That principle does, however, kind of narrow down the scope of programs.

The Judeo-Christian ethic does harp a lot on charity, but I don't think the government is the way to do it. Wouldn't you get rather peeved at some preacher if he called you out for walking by a hobo without helping him? If you would, why wouldn't you get peeved with a statesman who doesn't even confront you personally requiring, through law, your resources to be dispersed throughout the impoverished community? I'm not saying "don't help the poor 'cause they suck". I'm saying "don't help the poor through taxes". If you like the poor or want to help, help. No one's stopping you. This especially applies to those that subscribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic. That's what the church is for. The church-body or congregation is the group of people. The church itself is supposed to be a facility for helping the community. That's why churches have steeples-- so people, when in need, can look to the sky and see the cross. The symbol of the Christian faith in that context is supposed to be a beacon to the area around it that implies "we will help". That's why some churches have what are called benevolence funds. They keep money on hand to help anyone that walks through the door. That's social aid. If you're not part of a church, you can still give to secular charities (just be sure to do your research on it. Go ahead and research the church you're giving to if you are). That's the fabled safety net.

If my resources go to someone else, it should come out of my hand and go into the recipient's hand. It should not be legally required of me and handed out arbitrarily. That, I think personally, is an insult to the spirit of charity.