buccaneer wrote:
-
- But when it comes to welfare I believe that it is
- necessary to have a program that ensures that people
- don't become the victim of misfortune without a
- change to get out of that situation. In this highly
- competitive world we are living nowadays, to many
- people are stranded and brushed aside. And if a
- thing like welfare (not charity) can help them to
- get back on their feet, I'm all for it.

I agree buc, but for how long does a welfre receipient stay on for?

I personaly believe 2 years max is fair. And then maybe you re-apply for welfare where you have to show why you were not able to get yourself on your feet. If it's a medical problem your in, if it's lack of education you should be given trainning apportunities as mandatory being on welfare the second time around. However if there are no reasonable reasons then you can assume they are just abusing the system.




The beatings will stop when morale improves.

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
-
- This is a nice ideal and I applaud you if you want
- to help people to get back on their feet. But is it
- ethical for you to force others to part with their
- cash to help people they do not know?

Well look at it this way MNG, you never know if you ever end up needing the system also, at the very least you help someone get back on the feet, what is wrong with that?
-
- Further, it simply doesn't work because a government
- run insurance system is grossly inefficient and
- faces constant abuse and fraud by the insured. The
- services offered are poor (ever been to a job
- center?) and they have no incentive to properly
- invest your money.

Thats why you need the right politician to be in charge.

Last, if they decide, they can
- renege on paying you (and they will in the end) and
- there is nothing you can do about it.

Sure there is something you can do about it........It's called a Vote!






The beatings will stop when morale improves.

MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- A nationalized insurance policy is not insurance but
- in fact a pyramid scheme in which eventually the
- amount being claimed will eventually exceed the
- amount going in. This is the situation that
- Germany, France, England and the US are facing.

Yes it sometimes works out that way but not necessarily. In a healthy economy there will be more coming in than there will be spent.

- There is nothing wrong with employment insurance but
- why must it be provided by the State (read: other
- people against their will)?

Thats how it works in democracy. You can't please all. But it goes way to far to claim that a welfare insurance is against everybodies will. We, the people, elected a government that has to carry out the will of the majority. And they better do it right or the next time there will be another majority that chucks them out.

- This is basically theft
- and will harm individuals for the reason I described
- above. I actually have private employment insurance
- myself - nothing wrong with that.

But than all taxes are theft. You are forced to give your money and you won't have any or, at best, limited control over how it is spent.


- This is one of the core problems. Since you cannot
- change to another company the government faces no
- competition. Furthermore, it breaks its own laws
- with impunity by mixing pools (i.e. using the funds
- for something else like say, a war on Iraq) or other
- fraud.

Yes but bad management and fraud are not limited to the government alone. Many businesses are know for that too. I would hate to see a private welfare company go bankrupt after spending a lifetime of insurance fees for it. This is something that to some extent a government is protected from. If the mangement is bad, we elect a new one.

- This is a nice ideal and I applaud you if you want
- to help people to get back on their feet. But is it
- ethical for you to force others to part with their
- cash to help people they do not know?

I also pay for the roads I don't use and the police I don't need. But one day I might take that road or need to call the police or fire department.

- Further, it simply doesn't work because a government
- run insurance system is grossly inefficient and
- faces constant abuse and fraud by the insured. The
- services offered are poor (ever been to a job
- center?) and they have no incentive to properly
- invest your money. Last, if they decide, they can
- renege on paying you (and they will in the end) and
- there is nothing you can do about it.

But that goes for private business aswell. If an insurance company goes down. There isn't much you can do about it. You might be able to sue (if you still have enough money) but when there is no money you will get no money.

But what alternative do you see for welfare?



*War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength*

buccaneer wrote:
- Yes it sometimes works out that way but not
- necessarily. In a healthy economy there will be more
- coming in than there will be spent.

This was not the case in the US. However, the problem is larger than that. With a state run insurance system encompassing health, unemployment, old age, etc. there never seems to be enough money to properly fund it. There are always waiting lists for critical operations, never enough employment benefit to live on, too many people living to old age. State run insurance is set up for ultimate bankruptcy because it is impossible for the director to determine how to rationally distribute the services and properly allocate funds. Therefore, funds are wasted and services are given away too cheaply.

Eventually more funds are required to shore up the shortfall. Taxes on petrol or consumer sales are increased but to no avail. The insurance system starts to resemble a bottomless pit with money continuously going in but never hitting the bottom.

As taxes increase, services decrease in quality. Meanwhile, the economy becomes more and more sluggish over time as funds are extorted from the healthy economy and misallocated causing distortions in capital markets.

-
-- There is nothing wrong with employment insurance but
-- why must it be provided by the State (read: other
-- people against their will)?
-
- Thats how it works in democracy. You can't please
- all. But it goes way to far to claim that a welfare
- insurance is against everybodies will.

Well certainly the net recipients of taxes will be happy and they live at the expense of the net payers. However, in the liberal ideal of democracy government was supposed to be limited to police protection and no. Look at the Leviathan it has grown into now. We pay a greater percentage of our taxes than any other society in the history of man. The only taxes it was envisioned government would subsist on were customs duties and indeed this used to be the case.

- But than all taxes are theft. You are forced to give
- your money and you won't have any or, at best,
- limited control over how it is spent.

Indeed and this is entirely unethical.
-
-- This is one of the core problems. Since you cannot
-- change to another company the government faces no
-- competition. Furthermore, it breaks its own laws
-- with impunity by mixing pools (i.e. using the funds
-- for something else like say, a war on Iraq) or other
-- fraud.
-
- Yes but bad management and fraud are not limited to
- the government alone. Many businesses are know for
- that too. I would hate to see a private welfare
- company go bankrupt after spending a lifetime of
- insurance fees for it. This is something that to
- some extent a government is protected from. If the
- mangement is bad, we elect a new one.

The fact that businesses fail and disappear is precisely what protects your insurance premiums. It means that businesses are extremely disciplined about how they invest your funds. If they are inefficient they will be bought out and replaced by someone better. The fact that government can protect itself by fraud, inflation and tax is precisely why they are so poor at managing your money. They cannot fail no matter how bad they mess up. Your last statement is inaccurate: you cannot elect a new government you can only elect a new party. The same government officials are still running the insurance scheme.
-
-- This is a nice ideal and I applaud you if you want
-- to help people to get back on their feet. But is it
-- ethical for you to force others to part with their
-- cash to help people they do not know?
-
- I also pay for the roads I don't use and the police
- I don't need. But one day I might take that road or
- need to call the police or fire department.

Well technically, police and fire are a kind of a insurance. Police protection and roads can be provided privately.
-
-- Further, it simply doesn't work because a government
-- run insurance system is grossly inefficient and
-- faces constant abuse and fraud by the insured. The
-- services offered are poor (ever been to a job
-- center?) and they have no incentive to properly
-- invest your money. Last, if they decide, they can
-- renege on paying you (and they will in the end) and
-- there is nothing you can do about it.
-
- But that goes for private business aswell. If an
- insurance company goes down. There isn't much you
- can do about it. You might be able to sue (if you
- still have enough money) but when there is no money
- you will get no money.

A company has a reputation to uphold. If a company has a reputation for fraud, bad management and reneging on customers would you purchase a policy from them? Unfortunately, with the government you have no choice.
-
- But what alternative do you see for welfare?

Private insurance, charity and family.




"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917