3 ms·

I think my issue is with the ridiculous compromise. Either government has no authority in this domain (and thus we should have extremely low tax rates and zero

I think my issue is with the ridiculous compromise. Either government has no authority in this domain (and thus we should have extremely low tax rates and zero overt welfare), or we should actually aim to fix the problem completely (and thus have high tax rates but ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living). The middle route is absurd. It creates situations in which 'abuse' is even a meaningful concept; it gives arbitrary groups special status. What does 'abuse' of welfare even mean? In the UK we have media stories about people getting a few grand more than they 'need' (and thus not having to eat rice and beans every meal). Or getting more than the 'median salary', which I take to be evidence that median employees don't earn enough.

paulddraper 11y ago
An example of abuse is the 20-something-year-old whose back "hurts" too much for him to have a job, so his is disabled. Sans state-guaranteed welfare, he would do fine at many jobs. But the allure of someone else paying for everything is too much to pass up, so consciously or unconsciously, he allows himself to be crippled. (Similar to abuse, of say, painkillers.) The argument is that legal entitlement to welfare creates increased opportunity for abuse, because no one wants to deny it and then get sued in legal courts.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  I don't personally consider that to be abuse because welfare is set at such a low level that I don't begrudge anyone who is completely (or largely) reliant upon it. Abuse, to me, would be a wealthy person claiming benefits when they don't need them. To elaborate a little - let's imagine welfare gives ~6000GBP a year equivalent, and any job this person can hope to get gives ~10000GBP a year equivalent. I think if we want them to work, then they should be offered more by employers, not less in welfare. Essentially, giving them negotiating power, rather than saying 'work for BigMegaCorp for $5 an hour or starve'.

paulddraper 11y ago

An example of abuse is the 20-something-year-old whose back "hurts" too much for him to have a job, so his is disabled. Sans state-guaranteed welfare, he would do fine at many jobs. But the allure of someone else paying for everything is too much to pass up, so consciously or unconsciously, he allows himself to be crippled. (Similar to abuse, of say, painkillers.) The argument is that legal entitlement to welfare creates increased opportunity for abuse, because no one wants to deny it and then get sued in legal courts.

stegosaurus 11y ago
I don't personally consider that to be abuse because welfare is set at such a low level that I don't begrudge anyone who is completely (or largely) reliant upon it. Abuse, to me, would be a wealthy person claiming benefits when they don't need them. To elaborate a little - let's imagine welfare gives ~6000GBP a year equivalent, and any job this person can hope to get gives ~10000GBP a year equivalent. I think if we want them to work, then they should be offered more by employers, not less in welfare. Essentially, giving them negotiating power, rather than saying 'work for BigMegaCorp for $5 an hour or starve'.