Welfare

[i_love_burritos]

Seeing as Off-Topic doesn't have a thread like this -

 

 

 

What are your opinions on tax, redtribution of income, social security and generally all the saftey nets that the goverment implements to help its citizens. Do you think it is exploited ? Unnecessary ? Fair or unfair ?

 

 

 

This includes eveything from public healthcare, taxation, housing and transport. Doll payments to those "unable to work" and parents with many children and those with low incomes.

 

 

 

In my opinion it shouldn't be implemented unless heavily means tested and the recipient is part of the workforce.

 

 

 

I'll elaborate and argue when someone disagrees with me.

[l0rd]

I think our government is dispensing checks too hastily and not prioritizing their assets well enough. I know a number of people that get disability checks for truly non-debilitating conditions, including my own mom. For the most part I agree with our current system, I just think that a little more scrutinization and exclusiveness should be had.

[i_love_burritos]

I think our government is dispensing checks too hastily and not prioritizing their assets well enough. I know a number of people that get disability checks for truly non-debilitating conditions, including my own mom. For the most part I agree with our current system, I just think that a little more scrutinization and exclusiveness should be had.

 

 

 

Yeah. Too many checks make people complacent.

 

 

 

Not good. Private sector also shrinks.

[mmmcannibalism]

helping the disabled=good

 

helping poor children have an equal chance=good

 

helping people help themselves=good

 

trying to force equal wealth at the expense of everyone=bad

 

 

 

I think the general opinion is that everyone wants to do what is right. We want to help people born into poverty, we want to help the less fortunate, and we want everyone to get a fair shot at life. But just as important, people should get what they deserve. You should get 0$ for claiming disability when your perfectly capable of working, and if you refuse to work, I have no problem with you going hungry.

 

 

 

I think what makes these issues so morally hard is that fact that useless people have children. If every person who deserved their poverty(not the people who were unfortunate) were the only poor people we would be fine, but they have children(creating the unfortunate group). I dont think anyone wants to let children starve, so we end up having to support people to save children that shouldnt have been born.

[Zierro]

helping the disabled=good

 

helping poor children have an equal chance=good

 

helping people help themselves=good

 

trying to force equal wealth at the expense of everyone=bad

 

 

 

Very good way of putting it.

 

 

 

I think everyone (given that they're not a threat to society, ugh... there always has to be exceptions) should have the right to live healthily and have a fair shot at success. Capitalism and communism are both too extreme for me. I don't agree with children going hungry just because their father is too poor to pay, but then again I don't agree with people who work their [wagon] off having to give their money to someone who manipulated the system in order to get some extra cash. I like it in the middle - give everyone the basics and necessities but let them strive freely for the extras.

[warri0r45]

Seeing as Off-Topic doesn't have a thread like this -

 

 

 

What are your opinions on tax, redtribution of income, social security and generally all the saftey nets that the goverment implements to help its citizens. Do you think it is exploited ? Unnecessary ? Fair or unfair ?

 

 

 

This includes eveything from public healthcare, taxation, housing and transport. Doll payments to those "unable to work" and parents with many children and those with low incomes.

 

 

 

In my opinion it shouldn't be implemented unless heavily means tested and the recipient is part of the workforce.

 

 

 

I'll elaborate and argue when someone disagrees with me.

 

 

 

Some disabled people can't work. I would seriously question the morals of a society that doesn't take care of the severely disadvantaged.

 

 

 

I'll tolerate redistribution of income to an extent, and I do support public healthcare, schooling, and transport. Just the necessary things that a government can provide to its people.

 

 

 

As for the dole, I would only support it if there is an emphasis on getting work, perhaps bonuses paid for every job interview they do? I don't really know, but it can't be a free handout with no obligations for the recipient.

[BlueTear]

The most important thing in my opinion is based on the followign: No true democracy can exist without providing free education in a way that ensures that everyone, regardless of medical or financial background of their parents, can attain the educational degree they want. This is the basic minimum and it covers everything from making sure your parents can feed you while you go to school - regardless of your parents current employment status - to paying healthcare for you and your parents.

 

 

 

Once that's covered, it's really up to what works with the people you apply it to. If they're willing to pay more to get more, sure thing, if they're not willing to pay more then that's fine to. But equal opportunities needs to be covered.

[Orpheus]

I honestly see welfare as being something that should help those that need a second chance, or helping those that are unable to help themselves(mainly the disabled, those who have been completely unable to find a job, those in poverty, etc.) Granted, this system could be abused, but then again, aren't most goodwill systems abused by some people?

 

 

 

Social Security is there to help support the elderly, so it's necessary in my eyes. I absolutely hate how welfare tries to equalize wealth for everyone though. We should be able to use the money we've earned in our own way, after any necessary payments to the government, like income tax, for instance. I'd rather see a progressive rate of taxes, where the wealthier pay a slightly higher percentage of their income than the lower classes.

[spacheco]

Im surprised Robert_De_fascist hasn't had his 2 cents worth in this thread...

 

 

 

OT: welfare is good maaan, even poor people need a semi decent life.

[Dizzle229]

Im surprised Robert_De_fascist hasn't had his 2 cents worth in this thread...

 

 

 

OT: welfare is good maaan, even poor people need a semi decent life.

 

 

 

Am I the only one that actually agrees with him to a small extent?

[OldJoe]

Coming from one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world, i'm not a big fan of it.

 

There's so many immigrants coming here in this country each year, and most of them sit on social welfare for a long period. Example, we had a boring debate, (as the only critical person of the immigration situation was an immigrant himself), there were two women in the audience who got asked "are you ready for a job?" and they said "yes!"... Their Swedish sounded like crap, and they hadn't had a single job since they came 9 years ago.

 

I like the social welfare to some extent, but i'd like to see much harder rules for it, because now it's pretty easy to get. But all in all, i'd like to see less social welfare since i don't like our high taxes very much.

[obfuscator]

As others have said; it certainly has the potential to be a good thing, however ends up being abused by many people.

[Zierro]

Im surprised Robert_De_fascist hasn't had his 2 cents worth in this thread...

 

 

 

OT: welfare is good maaan, even poor people need a semi decent life.

 

 

 

Am I the only one that actually agrees with him to a small extent?

 

 

 

Probably. It's not that I don't see the logic behind it. I just don't think it's right to murder an innocent person.

[Latinoking]

As others have said; it certainly has the potential to be a good thing, however ends up being abused by many people.

 

 

 

This, some people actually think they can live of the government.

[Kiriyama]

As others have said; it certainly has the potential to be a good thing, however ends up being abused by many people.

 

 

 

This, some people actually think they can live of the government.

 

 

 

The scary thing is, that quite often they manage to.

 

 

 

We need to be harder on those who claim benefits from the government.

[i_love_burritos]

I say Welfare should be taken out of goverment spending totally. No one should recieve payments from the government. Regardless of their physical or mental condition.

 

 

 

I'm playing the Devils' Advocate here.

[Kiriyama]

I say Welfare should be taken out of goverment spending totally. No one should recieve payments from the government. Regardless of their physical or mental condition.

 

 

 

I'm playing the Devils' Advocate here.

 

 

 

And appearing as a right [puncture].

 

 

 

I'm not against benefits for families with children, even if the parents work.

 

 

 

However, I am against how much more those without employment get. The can survive off it, and they have no incentive to get a job then.

 

 

 

Plus, I feel we are not hard enough on those that claim disability benefits, mainly because of people who fake not being able to work. I have no problems with those who are actually disabled claiming, but it seems that claiming can be as easy as playing up a back injury and acting as if it is permanent.

[RpgGamer]

I'm pro-welfare. I just wish people would stop abusing it when they don't need it. There are some people out there that don't deserve the financial situation they're in, which is where welfare comes in to save the day. Some people really should be poor, but it's really not fair for one guy to have millions, when another has less than nothing.

 

 

 

Bottomline: Welfare good.

[i_love_burritos]

I say Welfare should be taken out of government spending totally. No one should receive payments from the government. Regardless of their physical or mental condition.

 

 

 

I'm playing the Devils' Advocate here.

 

 

 

And appearing as a right [puncture].

 

I'm not against benefits for families with children, even if the parents work.

 

 

 

However, I am against how much more those without employment get. The can survive off it, and they have no incentive to get a job then.

 

 

 

Plus, I feel we are not hard enough on those that claim disability benefits, mainly because of people who fake not being able to work. I have no problems with those who are actually disabled claiming, but it seems that claiming can be as easy as playing up a back injury and acting as if it is permanent.

 

 

 

First off - calm down.

 

 

 

My arguments against:

 

 

 

The government spends far too much on these types of welfare. Just last year, the Australian government spent 40% of the budget - about $97,200 million on social security and welfare. This often leads poverty traps and reduces the incentives to work. Here, welfare recipients do not want to work at all.

 

 

 

The incentive to work is lost. Instead of wasting taxpayers money - the government could enforce lower tax rates to lower income brackets. In the last few years the government has done this. Ill take Australia as an example in 2000 A New Tax System was implemented that encouraged people to work and offered them other incentives.

 

 

 

Another package in 2001 had a different approach. It allowed people to obtain an apprenticeship, education or some form of training and only then, whilst working, they would receive ongoing support.

 

 

 

Then again in 2006, there were more tax cuts and those who did work, even part time as it suggested in the policy was linked to welfare support.

 

 

 

Why I ask you, is this not a better method for treating unemployment and disability. Since the late 90s the Participation Rate has been increasing and unemployment decreasing. Currently it is 4.25 [2008 before downswing].

 

 

 

If you do argue that the marginal taxation rate may catch up [wait, do you even know what the MTR is ?] on gross income, I argue against, because as of this moment the effective marginal taxation rate is, as previously mentioned, being reduced especially for low income earners through a series of tax cuts and bonus incentives

 

Again, I ask you why wouldnt this system work ?

[Kiriyama]

Yeah, but the thing is, there are those incapable of working through no fault of there own, which you included at the first.

 

 

 

Though, I do agree with you, governments are spending too much on benefits for those who are undeserving.

 

 

 

There do need to be better incentives for working, and I agree with you on that point. Really, the best solution would be to give them jobs such as cleaning the streets, cleaning public toilets, you know, jobs next to nobody wants. Sure, it's easy labour, but hell, it's pretty much a job that needs done, and those who are willing to do work, should not have to do these types of jobs, if their talents could be suited elsewhere.

 

 

 

The prospect of cleaning public toilets alone should scare many into working, and if not, we get menial jobs filled by people on benefits, making them actually do a service in order to earn money.

 

 

 

Though, with more incentives for people to actually work, it'd be fine. Welfare, well, it seemed like a good system at the time it was introduced, however, like many systems it is abused too much by those who are able, but unwilling.

 

 

 

I suppose you can argue that there are jobs that almost anyone can do, except those with conditions that exclude them from every line of work.

[das1330]

In my opinon, welfare in general is overused and far too expensive. Even coming from a country with relativley few programs and a low tax rate (the United States) about 2/3rds of the federal budget is consumed by such programs. While some systems are useful, abuse of welfare is so common that a very large chunk of the money distribuited goes to people that are simply lazy, which is not right.