Re: Who's 'paranoid' now.

"deemsbill@xxxxxxx" <deemsbill@xxxxxxx> wrote:

:On Apr 3, 9:58 am, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>
:> I would think also the bigger the heart they have, the more Liberal they
:> vote.
:>
:
: That doesn't necessarilly follow. A lot of us don't think it's
:really helping people to make them dependent on govt handouts. Welfare
:was supposed to be a temporary aid when a person/family fell on hard
:times....not something to put people into generational poverty.
:

But if you provide a way out you don't get that nice voting block.

Time for me to pound on my tub again, I guess.

The idea 'welfare' system has three attributes, all of which cannot be
achieved at the same time. You can generally tell a lot about
someone's politics by the combination that they choose.

Those attributes are:

1) It is sufficient. That is to say that it provides a livable
minimum to everyone who needs help to achieve it.

2) It is efficient. That is to say that only people who need the help
get it and that people only get what they absolutely need.

3) There are strong incentives to get off the system. Essentially
this says that you are always better off if you work than if you do
not.

To see where the problems arise, let's examine the thing just a bit.

Suppose that it takes $X to achieve whatever we determine to be the
'minimum level' in order to achieve 1), above. If we strive for 2),
that says that we don't get 3), since for the first $X someone makes
they're essentially subject to a 100% tax. No incentive to get off
the system unless one can walk into a job that pays much more than $X,
which is probably unlikely.

Suppose instead that we decide to try for 3). That means that someone
needs to be better off for every dollar that they earn than they are
if they just receive the 'welfare'. It takes only a very brief look
to recognize that either we're still giving aid to people which brings
them well above $X or else we're not giving anyone $X to start with.
In other words, in order to get strong incentives to get off the
system, either we are no longer efficient or we are no longer
sufficient.

What we actually usually get is a system that meets none of the three
criteria, as various political ideologies bargain to try and get a
system that is commensurate with their beliefs.

:
: It's the old "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" difference
:of opinion. Now, do I think everyone should have access to basic
:health care, nutrition, shelter, etc? Of course, but we need to find a
:way to let people help themselves rather than wait on a check every
:month.
:

--
"Give a man a fish and he has food for a day; teach him how to
fish and you can get rid of him of the entire weekend."
-- Zenna Schaffer
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Working for a living...
    ... it for literally generations. ... keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never ... I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at ... areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Working for a living...
    ... off of it for literally generations. ... keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never ... I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at ... areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: OT: Why welfare doesnt work!
    ... in fact, by all the reasons you gave, it doesn't, and actually seems to ... There is that old saying, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime". ... In fact, if one is on welfare, one is *not permitted* to take any sort of classes, i.e. job training. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Whos paranoid now.
    ... It's the old "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" difference ... I agree with the welfare bit. ... that "liberalism" means more than handing out welfare checks. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)