Why every state should be a welfare state.

People who are sick, can't care for themselves. People without education cannot find good jobs. People who are very old, should no longer have to work for an income. The welfare state is a call for humanity, nothing more but also nothing less. It is about helping people to get the basic necessities that they need in life, such as health care, education and a pension.
Especially in America you need to be careful when saying the word “welfare state”, it is as if you are cursing out loud in the middle of a religious building. Why do people preach for 'shared values', 'one nation' and 'the people' if they are not willing to provide the collective necessities in a collective manner? Why would one talk of unity but not be willing to pay a single dollar when his neighbour suffers of cancer?
The argument I have most often heard against the welfare state is that it would be bad for the economy, thus for all the people, thus not even help those who needed welfare in the first place. This might sound appealing, but is not based on facts. European countries have big welfare states and are still economically functioning well. Even due to the economical crisis the European Union has the highest GDP in the world (CIA factbook 2011).
Also the cost for health care in Europe is considerably lower per capita than in the US. In Europe most countries spend about 10 % of the GDP to health care, compared to a staggering 16,2 % in the USA (World Health Organisation 2009). The differences in expenditure can be explained in two different ways. The states in Europe monitor the prices that people have to pay in hospitals and therefore can avoid high prices, while still requiring good quality. In the US no such checks are in place. Secondly it might be that Americans on average use more health care due to cultural differences (more people suffering from obesity).
The last point that I think should be considered in this debate is that a good education and being healthy both are essential to participate in the economy. If the state provide the basic needs for people, then the entire economy will benefit from it. Both for humanitarian and for economical reasons the welfare state is beneficial. Therefore I come to the conclusion that every developed and humane state should be a welfare state.

World Health Organisation http://www.who.int/countries/en/
CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2001.html

 

Welfare state protection is certainly just economic sense! Capitalism tendency towards mass unemployment, for example, ensures the need to maintain the physical efficiency of the 'reserve army'. Welfare can also generate numerous positive spill-overs, such as increasing risk taking in terms of self-employment and firm creation

 

that's fine and dandy but not the ones able to work

 

Way too many people take advantage of the welfare system. Yes, welfare is helpful for those in need, but lots of the people on welfare either don't need it, are on drugs, or are just plain lazy. The government must be more strict when it comes to this! I know people that are fully capable of working, getting food stamps and nearly $8,000 dollars a month in special needs money, while all they buy are junk food, go to the movies everyday, and plan more trips to the comic convention. The government must put their foot down and catch the people that are abusing the welfare system!

 

Welfare state 'success' can be understood in terms of efficiency (i.e. % of money going to the genuine poor) and effectiveness (i.e. reduction in poverty intensity). To focus purely on efficiency is a fool's errand, typically ensuring the available positive spillover effects are minimised.

 

Lets see, I can go through 12 years of public education, another 4 to 10 years of college, and get a great job that pays really well, and pay 70+% of that in taxes.

Or I can stop going to school when I'm 12, and sleep in for the next 70 years.

Who is John Galt.

 

Where is the incentive to work, to produce something, when the poverty is not so painful?

 

One should note that the US- despite her obsession with the efficiency of the welfare state- has one of the lowest social mobility rates. The "incentive" argument is hogwash, with high poverty simply translating into more acute class divide

 

I would also add that extended education, college, should also be governmental funded for families and individuals that make under $50,000 accordingly depending on what they make. Ironically the richest nation in the world does very little for health and education.

 

I argue against the welfare state from a libertarian perspective. The welfare state violates property rights and the non-aggression principle. It steals from some people in order to give to others. You can't do good by doing bad; the ends don't justify the means.

 

I expected a somewhat lucid argument to a real question on the psychology of motivation, and got a till full of swill instead. You write well for someone with evident limited critical thinking skills.

 

You gave the standard blubbering. It just isn't consistent with reality. The US, compared to other western nations, has been obsessed with maximising the efficiency of the welfare system. That motivation is of course the result of the blubbering you tried to utilise. End result? An ineffective welfare system but also an economic environment characterised by an underclass and a lack of social mobility. Those countries that have invested in rational welfare systems have been able to reduce poverty intensity and also engineer incentives (e.g. welfare policy has been linked to entrepreneurship, given a safety net can have positive effects on risk aversity)

 

If you want to discourage a behavior, tax it.

If you want to encourage a behavior, subsidize it.

The welfare state taxes production and subsidizes poverty. And guess what happens...

 

Why do countries with more generous welfare systems twin lower poverty rates and higher social mobility rates?

 

The problem is dependency. If you are a child of parents who received some form of welfare, you are much more likely to be on the government dole yourself.

There are most certainly positive aspects of welfare and those who exploit it make up the minority, however I don't think we should just whistle past the graveyard in regards to creating a dependency on it.

 

I'm sure you're going to tell me the answer is because they have welfare states.

 

Given those empirical facts are inconsistent with your argument how would you account for them? No need to dodge

 

If you got rid of the welfare state entirely, you would hurt businesses.

 

My argument is that if you subsidize something you get more of it and if you tax it your get less of it. Are you disputing these simple economic observations?

You know, of course, that there are many variables that effect these indicators. You choose to believe that the difference is due to the welfare programs.

 

Of course I'm disputing your attempt at reasoning. I've also give a rationale: i.e. how a safety net impacts on risk aversity and therefore firm creation behaviour

So you admit that the data doesn't support your premise? Why, for example, does the US have an underclass (i.e. where there is zero social mobility and dependence on welfare payments) and why doesn't such underclasses exist in countries with more generous welfare payments?

 

My "premise" is that when you subsidize something, you get more of it, and when you tax something you get less of it. This is common knowledge. You don't have to agree with it if you don't wish. I don't care.

 

You continue to say nothing, preferring cliché to avoid economic comment. Try and answer the questions: Why, for example, does the US have an underclass (i.e. where there is zero social mobility and dependence on welfare payments) and why doesn't such underclasses exist in countries with more generous welfare payments?

 

Who knows? Could be any number of reasons, cultural or economic, having nothing to do with welfare.

 

So, despite countries have substantially more generous welfare systems, its only the US that shows the ultimate sign of dependency. Crikey, put some thought in your arguments!

 

So you're saying that charity is best provided by a coercive monopoly.

Most adherents of economic liberty wouldn't be caught dead using such inane buzzwords.

GDP includes government spending. Obviously, if their governments spend a lot it'll give them a high GDP. It doesn't mean they're more prosperous. Insofar as they are more prosperous, it is due to economic freedom. European states experienced the Industrial Revolution under relatively free markets and, in fact, they still are relatively free compared to many third world nations.

Well, if it might be due to cultural differences, how can you claim that socialized medicine makes medical care cheaper? Furthermore, where's your evidence that Europeans get better healthcare for lower prices? One argument is that Europeans live longer, but that too is likely due to cultural differences.

How is forced charity humane? It seems like it will more likely make people more callous and less humane as they give their moral imperative to care for the needy onto the unreliable state.