Using welfare as protection?

I don't doubt that many people currently dependent on welfare would take to crime if it were suddenly turned off. Faced with no immediate prospects to provide for my family through honest work, I admit that I might turn to crime, myself.

However, abolishing government welfare need not mean abolishing welfare. We could provide for the needy through voluntary means. There should be no argument whether we are capable of it from a material standpoint. That we do it now through tax financing proves that we can. The question is whether we would be willing to voluntarily.

If government welfare was abolished and we did nothing to neither provide for its dependents nor assist them to become self-sufficient, then get out your guns. Desperate people may seek whatever means they can to feed themselves - including shaking you down.

However, if we assist those people through voluntary means, the incentives will be better aligned to actually improve their situations. When the assistance must come voluntarily out of our wages, we will be interested in seeing our wards stand on their own as soon as possible. Undoubtedly, we will find some people to be unable to provide for themselves, perhaps due to mental or physical illness. I believe that we should care for these people while helping them to improve within the limitations to which they are subject.

Politically administered welfare, on the other hand, does not come out of the wages of the people who administer it. Rather, it comes out of the wages (whether they consent or not) of the people over whom the politicians rule. Therefore, there can be a tendency to keep people dependent on welfare to buy votes.

Speaking more broadly, concern for others is good for our communities. We should recognize the plight of others and realize that their difficulties can spill over into our own lives. It is rather mean and uncaring, though, to characterize this as “protection”. Real concern would move us to do more than erect political institutions that allow long-term dependency. People so dependent already are dangerous to society. While they can not exist on their own, they may resent their situations. They are subject to envy and do contribute to a great deal of crime despite their assistance. And they are powerful political blocks that are manipulated by the welfare-state.

In conclusion, we may give money to a bum that we fear may rob us if we don’t give him some money. Yes, this is self-defense. Generally though, we should be more courageous. True concern would prompt us to seek to improve the mendicant’s situation. We should recognize that the programs designed to help him may be holding him down if they promote dependency and stifle incentive to improve. For many people accustomed to dependency, so improving their lives may be great challenges, but we should be brave enough to begin to remove the institutions that do not treat them with the utmost respect.

Political institutions usually treat the poor as pawns.

ADDITION: Incidentally, reading the answer by robert c, tax funding for welfare allows much of the money to be funnelled to politically connected lobbyists. While I express concern for dependency, I have my eyes very much on the people who profit from politics. The poor are duped when they believe that they are taken care of by the state. If that money were left in private hands instead of being directed toward the consumption of the elite, there would be many more opportunities for them to be contributing members of society.

You cannot enact large political programs without considering the graft that attaches somewhere along the line.

Actually Welfare does Not exist .

--------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C. welfare caseworker Angela Perkins talks to Cynthia Harris. (Juana Arias, Washington Post)

Welfare's Changing Face

By Dan Froomkin

Washingtonpost.com Staff

Updated July 23, 1998

Welfare as we knew it no longer exists.

The 61-year American tradition of guaranteeing cash assistance to the poor came to an end with the signing of legislation in August 1996.

Under the old system, founded during the Great Depression, the federal government provided fairly uniform benefits to the nation's poor – mostly mothers and children – without regard to the details of their personal circumstances, and with no time limit.

But over time, the system became increasingly unpopular. Political opinion turned against the idea of anyone getting rewarded for being idle. Social critics said welfare was responsible for a permanent underclass of people living off government checks because the incentives to go to work were so weak.

Now, a federal system that was once fairly consistent has been turned over to the states, where programs are diverging widely. And it is far from clear whether the poor will be better or worse off.

The poor will be paying their fair share in taxes because as in Europe once the social programs are in place then a Value Added Tax (VAT) is added onto every purchase that is made like the current gross receipts tax that states levy on goods and services.

In the UK gas cost $8.00 a gallon, cigarettes are $10 a pack and $1.00 McDonald's burger here costs $1.60 there. All items that you purchase in the UK has a 17% VAT built into the cost of the item that you never see on your receipt.

These are all tax based added costs to support the social welfare system over there. So yes the poor will be paying their fair share here if we go to a similar social system.

I don't know what the idiot was thinking when he said that but I am not going to pay someone to sit on their a** just so I can leave my back door unlocked at night. Let's get rid of almost all welfare. Make all those druggies do something!! Screw em.

Yes, the welfare protection comes in many different flavors. But be careful, there are a few holes in their product. It is not 100% perfect protection!

Are you saving some of that for the biggest welfare recipients of all, the two per cent who are inheriting most American wealth?http://faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Cours...