highwaystar101 said: Socialist welfare does encourage laziness and inefficiency, no-one can argue that. But it is easy to group people together and say everyone welfare is a scrounger, when it is not the case, many people genuinely are having trouble finding a job at this time and some people are unfortunately able to work. Sure maybe some are lazy, but some are genuine. The motivation to work will still exist for many of the people on welfare, it's just a stage between jobs. If you get me. --edit-- In Britain those who live off welfare and are able to work are pressured into work and motivation, it seems to be a good idea. I don't know results though brb.

This is why private charities are very critical to the establishment of proper welfare and social benefit outside of government control. I know your British, but you should really try to visit America to see what private welfare is like - it's a pretty awesome thing. We don't do the best of it (we should honestly spend 3-4x as much money), but we do give 3 times more money to charities than any other country in the world as it stands.

For example, in America, food banks are a VERY large part of our private (non-governmental) Welfare programs:

Corporations get tax writeoffs, and are encouraged to send surplus foodstuffs and damaged goods to local foodbanks. Many of our major brands (such as Kraft, Hersheys or Tysons) donate millions of metri tons of foodstuffs to food banks every year - as well as local producers that cannot sell their goods.

The food is then distributed to volunteer food pantries for below-wholesale pricing, since the companies gave the food to the major distribution points for free. $500 USD can buy, tens of thousands of pounds of food (meats, milk, potatoes, canned goods, ect) which are then given to needy families, or directly cooked in Soup Kitchens for rapid, healthy, distribution to the needy.

It's a phenominal system, and it works very well, as it involves the community helping the community. It's a great example of the government helping (via tax breaks) businesses to give to help the needy. In America, our government-run food pantries and distribution points cost usually 5-10x as much for the same amount of food to be distributed, due to the cost of hiring employees.

mrstickball said: highwaystar101 said: Socialist welfare does encourage laziness and inefficiency, no-one can argue that. But it is easy to group people together and say everyone welfare is a scrounger, when it is not the case, many people genuinely are having trouble finding a job at this time and some people are unfortunately able to work. Sure maybe some are lazy, but some are genuine. The motivation to work will still exist for many of the people on welfare, it's just a stage between jobs. If you get me. --edit-- In Britain those who live off welfare and are able to work are pressured into work and motivation, it seems to be a good idea. I don't know results though brb. This is why private charities are very critical to the establishment of proper welfare and social benefit outside of government control. I know your British, but you should really try to visit America to see what private welfare is like - it's a pretty awesome thing. We don't do the best of it (we should honestly spend 3-4x as much money), but we do give 3 times more money to charities than any other country in the world as it stands. For example, in America, food banks are a VERY large part of our private (non-governmental) Welfare programs: Corporations get tax writeoffs, and are encouraged to send surplus foodstuffs and damaged goods to local foodbanks. Many of our major brands (such as Kraft, Hersheys or Tysons) donate millions of metri tons of foodstuffs to food banks every year - as well as local producers that cannot sell their goods. The food is then distributed to volunteer food pantries for below-wholesale pricing, since the companies gave the food to the major distribution points for free. $500 USD can buy, tens of thousands of pounds of food (meats, milk, potatoes, canned goods, ect) which are then given to needy families, or directly cooked in Soup Kitchens for rapid, healthy, distribution to the needy. It's a phenominal system, and it works very well, as it involves the community helping the community. It's a great example of the government helping (via tax breaks) businesses to give to help the needy. In America, our government-run food pantries and distribution points cost usually 5-10x as much for the same amount of food to be distributed, due to the cost of hiring employees.

This.

It's back to the philosophy that it's the governments job to solve all the problems. I don't want people to starve to death just as much as the next guy. I just think it's as much an injustice to see someone go without food, as it is to steal the food from someone people feel don't need it as much (forced taxed to pay for welfare).

If the government stopped collecting funds for welfare, and then stopped the program, no one would starve to death. If private charities stopped providing for the poor, and we relied solely on the government to feed the poor, millions would die.

The Private sector does it better, cheeper, faster, and without removing peoples liberties. Let's let them keep doing it.

 

Right, Mafoo.

If the government wants to get involved, the only reasonable way to do it is tax incentives for corporations and citizens to give of their income to Welfare projects. This way, no ones liberties are infringed upon, but the government is still supporting the plight of the poor. They're just doing it *gasp* the most efficient way.

I agree private welfare works well. I think we have it to an extent in Britain, but Britain has been a government run welfare state for nearly 60 years so I'm not 100% sure how private works within our system. A larger private system would make Britain's welfare state a little better.

However, my brother is officially semi-literate (health problems, I wont discuss) and he lives on welfare because he finds it hard to get jobs. The government run system seems to work wonders. They don't treat him as a drone but as an individual and they have done wonders at finding him tailored (no reading) work experience to keep his hopes alive because it is their responsibility to help him as a citizen. But that is just an uncommon case where the government would have the advantage I guess.

Private works well in the common cases I imagine. If you get what I mean, basically we could do with a larger private one, but Britain should also keep the government funded one too.

Just to give you some background, my father has gone to college at least 6 times for various fields of work, every time he got into the work force the need for work dried up, so he has been on and off unemployment as long as I can remember. bad luck if you ask me. That having been said, I do not advocate wellfare programs of any kind.

Ben Franklin once said something along the lines of " the best thing you can do to poor people is make them uncomfortable in their current situation" (obviously that is not the direct quote, but it is the jest of it)

Why am I against wellfare? Well first of all,it is like crack, and those on it are the whores. who are the pimps? Polititians. They tax your employer out of business, then give you a free hand out for not working, then they have you hooked and know that you will forever vote them in.

Welfare does not entice anybody to hurry and find a job, there are those who have scruples
and will do such, but many will not.

Welfare should be unnecessary, get to know your neighbors, get involved in a church or some sort of an organization. This will virtually eliminate the need for wellfare since friends tend to help each other out as needed. How do you think people have survived so long without wellfare?

Wellfare enslaves people and empowers the government and is therefore a BAD idea.

I think welfare is a necessary evil. Not everyone on welfare is a lazy selfish bum trying to live off the state. There are many people who simply cannot find work. They may have health problems, they may not have the right skills etc. Welfare allows these people to live. I am on benefits, if I wasn't I would be homeless, hungry and probably doing something illegal. Welfare is needed. The problem is the goverment runs it poorly (which it does with everything nowadays).

To all the people who are talking about health related issues requiring assistance.

That's a different issue. And even with those problems, they can still work. My ex volunteers at a home for the disadvantaged. She sponsors a woman. Goes to her house three times a week, makes sure she's clean, fed, and dressed. Then a bus comes and picks this woman up for work. Companies around the area pay 2-3 dollars an hour for there work. (they pick up trash, or do something else equally unskilled). All the money earned goes to the organization taking care of them.

The cost of there living is obviously more then there income, and the government subsidizes the rest. But it's still a win-win solution.

I am all for helping those who can't help themselves. The other 98% of welfare can go work or starve.

On a side note (and I know this is anecdotal, but it made me shake my head). During Katrina, they were showing some of the people helping the people trapped. This one man was carrying out a little girl, and was heading back on to look for more, when they stopped him to ask a few questions.

Basically, he had been at this for 10 hours. When asked if he saw the water rising, he said he was sleeping in his bed on the front porch of the house he stays at and saw it rising.

This man was so poor, he lived outside on the porch of someone's house (and didn't work), yet when he needed to, he worked is ass off for 10 hours, and was not only willing to work more, was wanting to end the interview as fast posable so he could get back to it.

If this man realized working = living, he would have that work ethic all the time, and I am sure live a much better life then sleeping on someone's porch.

Scientifically there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that tells us the benefits of strong public welfare far outweigh any negatives.

Social liberal welfare states typically have the highest life expectancy in the world, the lowest child mortality rates in the world, the healthiest citizens in the world, the highest social mobility rates in the world, the lowest murder rates in the world, the lowest illiteracy levels in the world, the lowest pollution levels in the world, the highest levels of political stability in the world, the highest worker efficiency in the world, and the highest GDP per capita in the world.

The UN Human Development Index is completely dominated by Social liberal welfare states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index


One might argue against the welfare state using moral/religious arguments. But claiming that public welfare is bad for society purely from a socio-economical point of view, is ignorant at best.

Luney Tune said: Scientifically there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that tells us the benefits of strong public welfare far outweigh any negatives. Social liberal welfare states typically have the highest life expectancy in the world, the lowest child mortality rates in the world, the healthiest citizens in the world, the highest social mobility rates in the world, the lowest murder rates in the world, the lowest illiteracy levels in the world, the lowest pollution levels in the world, the highest levels of political stability in the world, the highest worker efficiency in the world, and the highest GDP per capita in the world. The UN Human Development Index is completely dominated by Social liberal welfare states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index One might argue against the welfare state using moral/religious arguments. But claiming that public welfare is bad for society purely from a socio-economical point of view, is ignorant at best.

Other then Japan, every county on that list is dominated my white people. (and Japan was rebuilt by the US in the 40's).

So one could make the same illogical correlation between White people and HDI.

I think a welfare state is a result of HDI, not the cause of it.

You're grasping at straws.

Look only at the developed "white" countries. The top of the list is still dominated by "socialist" welfare states (Scandinavia, Netherlands) while the more conservative nations (USA, UK) are found near the bottom of the list.

Public welfare has been around in one form or another since the birth of industrialism in north-western Europe in the 17th century. It's been more than 300 years. If public welfare didn't benefit industrialized/developed societies, but rather harmed them, the HDI index would have looked very different.

More than 200 years ago Adam Smith warned against the "dangers of the welfare state". Isn't it time to admit that he was wrong ?