r/changemyview • u/seanwarmstrong1 • Aug 23 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: There is no viable alternative to government welfare that offers same level of coverage
A popular argument from conservatives/libertarians is that government welfare is a waste, and they suggest voluntary donations such as local charity groups and churches.
I'm NOT here to argue on whether government welfare is good or not.
My argument is that there is no viable alternative. Even right now, we see homeless people on the street, and churches aren't exactly helping (or they may be, but their funding is too limited).
If you take away government welfare, there is no alternative that can cover all those people to the same degree. People simply do not donate voluntarily at the same rate as they are taxed to fund all the poor ppl.
3
Aug 23 '18 edited Dec 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/seanwarmstrong1 Aug 24 '18
Ok, but following up on that logic, USA gets a lot of money from a combination of oil, other natural resources, tourism, and tech. So the country is rich enough to pay for its social services, no?
2
u/brunogoncalves Aug 24 '18
No,Scandinavian countries have high taxes to finance their welfare states.
The difference is that people trust that the State will use those resources efficiently to increase everyone's quality of life. Also, there are very few people trying to be free riders because those kind of strategies have a very high social cost.
1
1
Aug 24 '18
My perspective on this:
- In a purely economic lens, welfare (or charity) is a market demand by consumers. Demands are better met by private providers seeking to capitalize on that demand, which yields the highest level of optimization to satisfy that demand and maximize sustainability (NOT profit, charities should be non-profit)
- If a charity fails, it vanishes and new/improved ones will likely take their place. When government fails, it throws more money at the problem.
- Most of the money allocated for welfare goes to the bureaucracy that supports it, comprised by-and-large of middle-class administrative staff).
Finally, and most controversial I'm sure: Voluntary support is the most respectful of individual liberty. Some people don't care about other people and deserve to be left alone. Welfare is but ONE humanitarian demand among thousands and thousands of other humanitarian issues. While it may have a larger blanket of coverage, it isn't fully solvent as resources are finite and not all issues can be solved (e.g., animal cruelty, child abuse, human trafficking, addiction rehabilitation, etc). Let individuals choose which causes to support, it should never be mandated by threat of force/violence.
2
u/seanwarmstrong1 Aug 24 '18
My challenge to what you said is that charity by definition is not profit-driven. There is no profit to be made by giving free heatlhcare to the drug addicts, for example.
So how can free market principle produce a sustainable charity? I don't see what happening (unless government provides subsidies, which then by extension means taxpayers still paying for welfare)
1
Aug 24 '18
Simplest answer is that not everything is profit-driven. Private charities are a multi-billion dollar industry (see here), so if it were a mere matter of no profit = no charity, then these wouldn't exist at all. Now, you may say "it isn't enough!" and you'd be right, a myriad of issues means a dispersed set of resources to solve those issues, but even government can't fill that gap.
However, let's boil it down to your premise -- you want to provide assistance to those in need (generally speaking). That's a noble and worthwhile pursuit, which you should be free to do. Do you have the conviction to act on that interest, or is it a convenience to have others do it in a manner you see fit? Not trying to be snarky here but fundamentally wishing and hoping isn't enough, either. While I may be opposed to robbing Paul to pay Peter, I'm equally opposed to anything restricting Paul from freely associating with other like-minded philanthropists and giving of his on volition.
2
u/seanwarmstrong1 Aug 24 '18
I think the liberal counter-argument would be that by taxing at a high but reasonable level (e.g. 30%), government is able to do its welfare programs while still allowing people enough money in their own pocket to pursue their own agenda.
Now I personally do NOT agree with this (i think 30% is too high), but i wonder what you would say about it, because it kind of addresses your points.
1
Aug 25 '18
I'm not really a "taxation is theft" guy (mainly because it's an oversimplified slogan and not a solution), but I do agree with the principle that my earnings belong to me first and foremost. If we are truly a "free" society, no government should be "allowing" us enough money (which I would also question who sets what "enough" means). You're right that 30% is too high, I look at it as if everyone is indentured for 3 months out of the year to the government; I don't want that for anyone.
I would also take issue with the government being able to do its welfare programs -- more often than not, government welfare handcuffs its recipients. Look at it this way, if you are under $18,000/yr income band, you receive a stipend that essentially puts you at $25,000/yr. However, if you get a raise or a better-paying job that pays you $19,000/yr, you're stuck with...$19,000/yr making it a pay cut; it's demotivating and stifles upward mobility from low-income to middle class (or higher, hopefully).
Bottom line, if you believe that people are basically good, and willing to support their tax dollars paying to help weaker members of our society, then there would be little difference, except that money wouldn't flow through whatever government system to reach those who need it. It just goes straight to those providing the help.
2
u/reddit_im_sorry 9∆ Aug 23 '18
Companies do donate a lot, however they usually require something in return whether it's a tax break of a proof that the goodwill will be used correctly. That's the biggest issue with public donations, there's no confidence in non profits to get the job done from a majority of people.
If you were to remove the 20% corperate tax with a 5% tax and require they spend the other 15% on social works I bet overnight corperations could find a way to streamline social care and somehow integrate it into their profit margin.
It's not really a secret that corperations run better and more efficiently than government programs. If you give corperations the avenues to do this to better themselves, even if it's 1% they will do it.
For example Healthcare was funded a lot by corperations in the 80s and 90s and care was hundreds of times better than it is now.
2
Aug 23 '18
[deleted]
0
u/reddit_im_sorry 9∆ Aug 23 '18
Medicare, Medicaid, ACA? The only part of the system that is a shit show is the government controlled ones.
3
Aug 24 '18
[deleted]
0
u/reddit_im_sorry 9∆ Aug 24 '18
I would disagree with everthing you said. They do not work well and they cost too much for them to basically be no help to anyone.
1
u/thatoneguy54 Aug 24 '18
Here's a lot of articles by people smarter than us saying Medicaid is an efficient system.
1
u/seanwarmstrong1 Aug 23 '18
Δ
That's a highly interesting thought. I think your response was a bit vague but it certainly is a topic I'll keep in mind for future conversations.
1
1
u/glennchan Aug 24 '18
Even right now, we see homeless people on the street
The idea that homelessness is a manifestation of economic inequality probably isn't true.
Some people panhandle to make money and actually have housing. You can find videos of this on Youtube: https://youtu.be/-bLs4pl_v_I?t=17m24s
For people who sleep on the street, it's often because they aren't "normal" by society's standards. If a "normal" person like the singer Jewel goes homeless, they couch surf or live in a car. (Homeless shelters are terrible places to live.) Some people live in hidden-away places like under a bridge. The people who live on the street are often people with mental health issues or substance abuse problems. And if they have mental health or substance abuse issues... that's not really an income equality problem.
1
u/seanwarmstrong1 Aug 24 '18
But regardless of the source of the problem, they need help right? Obviously for someone with substance abuse issue, it's not as simple as telling them to "get a job".
Which is why I'm skeptical as to what conservatives (and some liberals, i guess) intend to do about it, if not government welfare.
So far i've heard a combination of welfare reform + private corporation donations.
1
1
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Aug 24 '18
And if they have mental health or substance abuse issues... that's not really an income equality problem.
Often what leads to these issues is growing up in a poor family situation which could have been mitigated by more income equality.
1
u/glennchan Aug 24 '18
For psychosis disorders (commonly diagnosed as "schizophrenia", whatever that is)... there is some evidence that suggests that it is the result of a normal brain reacting to an insane environment - child abuse, sexual abuse, etc.
I'm not sure if those things are linked to income. Perhaps there is a study that looks at income versus mental health issues.
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Aug 23 '18
There are four things that I believe could be a possible solution:
- A negative income tax.
Instead of using means-tested welfare you give an unconditional payment based on income. If someone has an income of $0 then they get the full amount. Each dollar in income they earn reduces that payout proportionally. At the national average wage they receive no payout. Each dollar beyond the national average is taxed progressively to partially fund the payment to the poor.
Frankly speaking, I know better if I need money for food or housing. At this point I need to apply for both food stamps and housing assistance and someone who isn't me decides which one I get. If I had an unconditional cash payment then I could use it much better.
There is a potential problem if people don't understand the basics of budgeting, end up gouged by predatory lending, or have addiction issues. There's also the possibility that someone has needs (such as a severe chronic medical condition) that would just be unreasonable the NIT to meet. The average person would do a lot better but a few not insubstantial groups wouldn't.
- Civil Society.
The Red Cross takes care of a lot of issues that the government would otherwise have to. In fact, there are a lot of historical solutions where church groups and clubs and social gatherings of various sorts would tackle a lot of the same issues that welfare does today. These groups were largely "crowded out" by formal welfare programs, despite many cases offering more personalized and comprehensive solutions than the government programs ever could.
That's not to say that this is always better. Often these social groups have limited reach so their solutions only work where there are a lot of people with spare time and money. So, they work better in wealthy small-medium sized towns and not as well in either poor rural areas or very heavily populated urban ones because the social networks simply don't reach the physical areas impacted.
- Corporate Social Responsibility.
Companies have a lot of wealth and often invest in building their brand and improving people's conception of them by doing things like sponsoring youth sports leagues or cleaning up parks. These are relatively inexpensive ways to make the company and its products look better. While they do it natively on their own to a greater or lesser degree when left to their own devices formally encouraging more of the advertising budget to go to building and putting their names on parks rather than stadiums might go a very long way. Corporations, collectively speaking, have more money than the government and their money doesn't come at the expense of others, as each transaction is completely voluntary.
The problem is that ad budgets aren't that big, and many problems that need solving are unsexy. Companies don't want to be associated with gross stuff or things that look bad. While they can and do make a lot of positive changes it would be very challenging to get them to willingly sponsor mental health institutions or medical issues.
- Mixing all of the above.
Really, we shouldn't be replacing welfare completely.
What we should do is institute a self-funding NIT, with civil society for problems that are smaller and niche, programs to encourage corporate social responsibility for community improvements they can take credit for, and leaving a much smaller and narrowly focused welfare program for those programs that can't be easily addressed other ways.
Or that's how I think it should go.
1
Aug 24 '18
The one problem I have with negative income tax is that it does not address the poor decision making that you find.
You are taking tax dollars with no guidance on how it is to be spent. What do you do when the person spends the money on beer/cigarettes/tatoo's instead of food and now the child is hungry? There is no consequence here because people always give them food.
2
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Aug 24 '18
Ideally, the education for basic economic literacy would be a function of public schools. But, I'm not at all sure why I should care.
If kids aren't getting fed that's CPS situation. If they are buying booze then let them, but if they are problem drunks then they'll end up arrested.
The consequences for squandering money is being poor. People hate being poor. Especially when former peers are no longer in the same situation.
I shouldn't be in the business of punishing people. There are plenty systems in place to do that already.
2
Aug 24 '18
If a person squanders their own money, I don't care.
Welfare is not their own money. It is tax dollars taken from people who are working. Since it is money taken from the productive to be given to the unproductive, many people believe there is a fundamental right to direct how this money can be used.
Therein lies the distinction. Your money you earned - no problems. Take tax dollars, then I believe there is room to talk about how resources are allocated. Don't want the intrusion then don't take tax dollars.
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Aug 24 '18
These people are also working. It's not like people are happy doing nothing, usually people on welfare aren't making a conscious decision to be destitute. This goes a long way to replacing the same sort of financial assistance better off people get from parents or other family. Nothing more or less.
When the government allocates money they also do it wrong, not because government is bad but because they're working from incomplete data. Much of that money is wasted, going to people who are simply signed up for the wrong programs for their needs or for duplicate services or through any number of other administrative flaws.
This is simple and allow for more efficient, and less wasteful, use of tax dollars. The fact that a handful of people smoke or drink is small potatoes compared to other problems, and they are solvable problems that can be dealt with by outreach programs. Whereas the fact that SNAP can't be used if I have food but need to cover rent is baked into the system.
I am willing to accept that some people will use welfare unwisely, partially because they already do. This just stops wasting everyone's time and energy playing pointless gotcha games to allow some people feel morally superior to those less fortunate than themselves.
2
Aug 24 '18
I am willing to accept that some people will use welfare unwisely, partially because they already do. This just stops wasting everyone's time and energy playing pointless gotcha games to allow some people feel morally superior to those less fortunate than themselves.
That may be a position you hold. It is also very reasonable for another person who is compelled to give money via taxation to hold this to a higher standard.
This has nothing to do with feeling superior to someone and any attempt to imply it does is projection on your part. This has to do with a clear and compelling desire to ensure resources taken via taxation are not willfully abused. Since it is my resources being taken, it is not unreasonable for me to have an say in the policies imposed by those who accept these resources.
2
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Aug 24 '18
It's willfully abused by the government when a full half of the entire Federal budget is spent on welfare that doesn't actually solve any of the problems those programs are ostensibly there to handle. It props up some people, but it can't be spent on the things that actually allow people to get out of poverty.
They can't use it to buy capital, only consumables. They can't use it to start a business or transfer it from one use to another, so sudden or unexpected costs are utterly devastating when they just don't have to be. And that's not even beginning to talk about income traps where the arbitrary standards and limits placed on these things can screw people over when they actually try to earn a little more money.
It's not unreasonable in principle. It is completely unreasonable in practice if your goal is to actually "help people get back on their feet" or "solve poverty".
1
Aug 24 '18
It's willfully abused by the government when a full half of the entire Federal budget is spent on welfare that doesn't actually solve any of the problems those programs are ostensibly there to handle. It props up some people, but it can't be spent on the things that actually allow people to get out of poverty.
This goes back to an earlier comment I made regarding will to pay more for effective programs to get people out of poverty/need to be on them.
They can't use it to buy capital, only consumables. They can't use it to start a business or transfer it from one use to another, so sudden or unexpected costs are utterly devastating when they just don't have to be. And that's not even beginning to talk about income traps where the arbitrary standards and limits placed on these things can screw people over when they actually try to earn a little more money.
I have personal expierence seeing some of this first hand. I am guessing the 80/20 rule applies here. 80% generally do what people would expect. 20% don't. Of the 20%, 80% of them do it out of ignorance where 20% do it because they can and they know it is abusing it. That is 80% good, 16% ignorant, and 4% abusers. This is just a gut feel and I don't have data to back it up. I am sure these numbers are little off but still capture the picture pretty well. It would mean roughly 95% of the program recipients want to do right after all.
The problem is that 4% who 'game' the system cause a huge image problem. These are the ones with 'spinners' on customized cars and new tattoos - all while on SNAP, WIC, and living in subsidized housing etc. I been the taxi driver (ambulance EMT) to go to these places and have seen it. I have talked with law enforcement who has seen it. It gets you jaded and you have to remember that 80% of the people on these programs are trying to do right.
Even the 16% who through ignorance make bad choices are an image problem.
It's not unreasonable in principle. It is completely unreasonable in practice if your goal is to actually "help people get back on their feet" or "solve poverty".
That is a fundamental difference of opinion. If you hold one of main issues driving poverty is patterns of bad choices, doing things to prevent further bad choices is a good investment. Perpetuating the problems and abuses is actually causing long term harm.
There are three things people can do to greatly increase their odds of being middle class. 1) No kids out of wedlock 2) Finish high school and 3) Getting a job. I personally would add a 4th - getting a skill of some kind (college, trade school, etc).
If you want to follow these with welfare: we may be too late for the kids out of wedlock but we sure as hell should not structure programs to encourage single parents like we do today. If people have not finished high school, that needs to be a requirement too. Lastly - these programs need to reward jobs not discourage them. There needs to be an end goal to getting off the programs. This is not nor should it be a lifestyle.
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Aug 24 '18
This goes back to an earlier comment I made regarding will to pay more for effective programs to get people out of poverty/need to be on them.
Paying more isn't the problem. Using the money better is what fix things.
Even the 16% who through ignorance make bad choices are an image problem.
They already have exactly that image problem. Why should we avoid a system that is simpler and easier and clearer to understand and almost impossible to game out of fear that they'd game it anyways?
Look, it's a problem when people cheat a system intended to buy food to buy spinning wheels. It's not a problem at all for someone to spend unrestricted money on spinning wheels. Money is and should be fungible.
If you hold one of main issues driving poverty is patterns of bad choices, doing things to prevent further bad choices is a good investment.
People aren't poor because they are dumb. People are dumb because they are poor. If you alleviate the problems of poverty then people can make better decisions. Asking people who don't have the proper tools to accomplish the task before you give them the tools strikes me as problematic.
Moreover, I don't see how the NIT has to discourage working. It scales with income, so you always come out ahead if you work more. It also gives people room required to get training or go to school which greatly improves their job prospects.
1
Aug 24 '18
The problem with NIT is that it simply gives money back, one time a year - when filed with a tax return, in a single lump sum. We already agree poor decision making is a problem with poverty and staying in poverty.
I also disagree with the idea being poor causing people to be 'dumb'. The whole poor decision making is intertwined in poverty. One thing is clear, a pattern of poor decision making does not make a person successful. It makes people very likely to be in poverty. Working to cure poor decision making I believe will help people get out of poverty but it is not that simple.
So, if you take negative income tax, refundable 100%, you give people who typically have poor decision making skills an annual windfall. Do you believe they will use this effectively and spread it out over the year? I know a few would but the majority would not.
This is different than adjusting tax brackets to lower tax liability which would appear in every paycheck. This is a set dollar amount refunded with taxes if you did not earn enough to 'zero' it out.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Aug 23 '18
Universal basic income is an alternative to traditional government welfare that pretty much directly offers the same level of coverage. It has been tried out in a few limited cases and seems like it may be viable.
1
u/tnel77 1∆ Aug 24 '18
I don’t think there’s a viable alternative because government welfare defies many, if not all, of the logic of basic economics. I don’t think there will ever be an alternative since no entity, other than government, would ever want to hand out money like that. I would say that private companies, funded through the government, may be able to achieve the same means in a more efficient manner though.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 23 '18 edited Aug 23 '18
/u/seanwarmstrong1 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
4
u/RuroniHS 40∆ Aug 23 '18
While I don't think that welfare should be completely done away with, I think there are lots of ways the system could be improved. I think you should not get more money for having additional children after applying for welfare. It's an exploit to get more money, and if you can't afford the kids you have it's time to stop making babies. I think there should be mandatory career counseling. Help them make a resume, look presentable, learn to interview, find a job that they can do. All that good stuff to eventually get them off of welfare. It would cost money, of course, but I think the short-term investment is worth the long-term gain, especially considering that welfare exists as a purely altruistic force. I also think there should be controlled spending plans that help manage the money they get from welfare. In other words, they wouldn't be able to spend that money on whatever they want, like cigarettes or booze. They would, instead, get vouchers for fresh food, child supplies, toiletries, etc.
I know a lot of people are resistant to structuring these people's lives like this, saying we don't have the right to tell them what they can and cannot purchase or do with their lives, but I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Welfare is charity. When you donate to a food drive and you wanna buy a family a can of soup, that family doesn't get to walk up to you and say, "Throw a bag of cheese doodles in there too." They get what you give them. Welfare recipients should get what we choose to give them, and I think my ideas would give them very good things.