Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does welfare work?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:07:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If it is combined with an extremely free capitalist society, providing opportunity instead of encouraging people NOT to work as socialism does? I know the Scandinavian countries follow this model (which are frequently mistaken as socialist by idiots like royal) and it seems to have worked out quite well for them. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area; could I have some thought?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, I have already noted that I support employing people instead of giving them handouts multiple times. Marxism never advocates supporting people who can work but refuse to work.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:14:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:07:23 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If it is combined with an extremely free capitalist society, providing opportunity instead of encouraging people NOT to work as socialism does? I know the Scandinavian countries follow this model (which are frequently mistaken as socialist by idiots like royal) and it seems to have worked out quite well for them. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area; could I have some thought?

It's cool that you call the other side idiots even though you admit you have no understanding of the subject matter.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:15:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.

You mentioned it in the thread "Good socialist countries to move to."

Actually, the Nordic countries are considerably freer than the US: [http://mises.org...]
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:18:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:07:23 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If it is combined with an extremely free capitalist society, providing opportunity instead of encouraging people NOT to work as socialism does? I know the Scandinavian countries follow this model (which are frequently mistaken as socialist by idiots like royal) and it seems to have worked out quite well for them. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area; could I have some thought?

I'm more inclined to believe that welfare probably has little to no effect on the gdp of a nation. Although gdp isn't everything.

I'm actually a little bit confused about the GDP equation. Its defined as:
Y = G + C + I + (Ex-Im)
G = government spending
C = consumption
I = investments
Ex= exports
Im = imports

Welfare spending can be considered a part of G, government spending. But welfare is more of a wealth transfer rather then production, so it would be double counting to include government spending that includes welfare as part of the equation.

There's also the income based approach, in which I don't believe welfare checks are considered a form of income.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:19:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:15:42 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.

You mentioned it in the thread "Good socialist countries to move to."

Actually, the Nordic countries are considerably freer than the US: [http://mises.org...]

That analysis does not take into account the regulations come from the EU.

That citation is a lie. Here's the actual list:

Top 10 Countries
world rank country overall score change from previous
1 Hong Kong 89.9 0.2
2 Singapore 87.5 0.3
3 Australia 83.1 0.6
4 New Zealand 82.1 -0.2
5 Switzerland 81.1 -0.8
6 Canada 79.9 -0.9
7 Chile 78.3 0.9
8 Mauritius 77.0 0.8
9 Ireland 76.9 -1.8
10 United States 76.3 -1.5

http://www.heritage.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:23:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:19:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:15:42 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.

You mentioned it in the thread "Good socialist countries to move to."

Actually, the Nordic countries are considerably freer than the US: [http://mises.org...]

That analysis does not take into account the regulations come from the EU.


That citation is a lie. Here's the actual list:

Top 10 Countries
world rank country overall score change from previous
1 Hong Kong 89.9 0.2
2 Singapore 87.5 0.3
3 Australia 83.1 0.6
4 New Zealand 82.1 -0.2
5 Switzerland 81.1 -0.8
6 Canada 79.9 -0.9
7 Chile 78.3 0.9
8 Mauritius 77.0 0.8
9 Ireland 76.9 -1.8
10 United States 76.3 -1.5

http://www.heritage.org...

You didn't read my link.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:24:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:23:07 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:19:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:15:42 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.

You mentioned it in the thread "Good socialist countries to move to."

Actually, the Nordic countries are considerably freer than the US: [http://mises.org...]

That analysis does not take into account the regulations come from the EU.


That citation is a lie. Here's the actual list:

Top 10 Countries
world rank country overall score change from previous
1 Hong Kong 89.9 0.2
2 Singapore 87.5 0.3
3 Australia 83.1 0.6
4 New Zealand 82.1 -0.2
5 Switzerland 81.1 -0.8
6 Canada 79.9 -0.9
7 Chile 78.3 0.9
8 Mauritius 77.0 0.8
9 Ireland 76.9 -1.8
10 United States 76.3 -1.5

http://www.heritage.org...

You didn't read my link.

Yeah, I did. Someone in your link even points out that Heritage is lying about the tax rates in Finland.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:25:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:24:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:23:07 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:19:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:15:42 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.

You mentioned it in the thread "Good socialist countries to move to."

Actually, the Nordic countries are considerably freer than the US: [http://mises.org...]

That analysis does not take into account the regulations come from the EU.


That citation is a lie. Here's the actual list:

Top 10 Countries
world rank country overall score change from previous
1 Hong Kong 89.9 0.2
2 Singapore 87.5 0.3
3 Australia 83.1 0.6
4 New Zealand 82.1 -0.2
5 Switzerland 81.1 -0.8
6 Canada 79.9 -0.9
7 Chile 78.3 0.9
8 Mauritius 77.0 0.8
9 Ireland 76.9 -1.8
10 United States 76.3 -1.5

http://www.heritage.org...

You didn't read my link.

Yeah, I did. Someone in your link even points out that Heritage is lying about the tax rates in Finland.

"Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas."
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:24:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, I love that apparently corruption is a property of socialism. LOL

Not if you believe in the "Socialist Man," apparently. Whoops, I meant "Socialist Person." (That was sexist.)
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:29:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:25:33 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:24:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:23:07 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:19:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:15:42 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.

You mentioned it in the thread "Good socialist countries to move to."

Actually, the Nordic countries are considerably freer than the US: [http://mises.org...]

That analysis does not take into account the regulations come from the EU.


That citation is a lie. Here's the actual list:

Top 10 Countries
world rank country overall score change from previous
1 Hong Kong 89.9 0.2
2 Singapore 87.5 0.3
3 Australia 83.1 0.6
4 New Zealand 82.1 -0.2
5 Switzerland 81.1 -0.8
6 Canada 79.9 -0.9
7 Chile 78.3 0.9
8 Mauritius 77.0 0.8
9 Ireland 76.9 -1.8
10 United States 76.3 -1.5

http://www.heritage.org...

You didn't read my link.

Yeah, I did. Someone in your link even points out that Heritage is lying about the tax rates in Finland.

"Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas."

Did you even read the responses or did you just start lapping it up?

The user Aragon in the sources says:

have some sceptisism about Economic Freedom Indices (or is it Indexes), because there are so many things that are difficult to quantify. And there are many mistakes also. The most nasty thing in the Scandinavian countries is that the tax structure is so complex and wide that it isn't always clear how much the government actually taxes the people.

Here are what I found to be wrong about what it had to say about my country, Finland:

heritage.org claims that "Finland has moderate tax rates. The top income tax rate is 32 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 26 percent."

To put it simply, that talk about "moderate taxes" is a joke. The personal federal income tax is "only" 32 percent, but additionally you have to pay communal tax which is flat tax and usually somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of your income. The tax rate has to be that high, because the government forces communitys to give certain free services to the people. And you have to pay the Value Added Tax for every product you buy. VAT is generally 22 percent, but only 12 for food items and 8 percent for travelling and culture.

Americans occasionally complain when the price of gasoline is over 2 dollars per gallon. But remember that because of the gasoline tax, in Finland it was recently a big happy news when the cost of gasoline fell under 1 euro per litre (that is to say under $5.30/gallon). And there are additional paternalistic taxes for tobacco and liqueur. So if you smoke, you have to pay roughly 30 cents for every cigarette you use :)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:29:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:25:33 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:24:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:23:07 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:19:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:15:42 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:10:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think that I believe that the EU is socialist. It's crony capitalist just like the US is.

You mentioned it in the thread "Good socialist countries to move to."

Actually, the Nordic countries are considerably freer than the US: [http://mises.org...]

That analysis does not take into account the regulations come from the EU.


That citation is a lie. Here's the actual list:

Top 10 Countries
world rank country overall score change from previous
1 Hong Kong 89.9 0.2
2 Singapore 87.5 0.3
3 Australia 83.1 0.6
4 New Zealand 82.1 -0.2
5 Switzerland 81.1 -0.8
6 Canada 79.9 -0.9
7 Chile 78.3 0.9
8 Mauritius 77.0 0.8
9 Ireland 76.9 -1.8
10 United States 76.3 -1.5

http://www.heritage.org...

You didn't read my link.

Yeah, I did. Someone in your link even points out that Heritage is lying about the tax rates in Finland.

"Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas."

Did you even read the responses or did you just start lapping it up?

The user Aragon in the sources says:

have some sceptisism about Economic Freedom Indices (or is it Indexes), because there are so many things that are difficult to quantify. And there are many mistakes also. The most nasty thing in the Scandinavian countries is that the tax structure is so complex and wide that it isn't always clear how much the government actually taxes the people.

Here are what I found to be wrong about what it had to say about my country, Finland:

heritage.org claims that "Finland has moderate tax rates. The top income tax rate is 32 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 26 percent."

To put it simply, that talk about "moderate taxes" is a joke. The personal federal income tax is "only" 32 percent, but additionally you have to pay communal tax which is flat tax and usually somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of your income. The tax rate has to be that high, because the government forces communitys to give certain free services to the people. And you have to pay the Value Added Tax for every product you buy. VAT is generally 22 percent, but only 12 for food items and 8 percent for travelling and culture.

Americans occasionally complain when the price of gasoline is over 2 dollars per gallon. But remember that because of the gasoline tax, in Finland it was recently a big happy news when the cost of gasoline fell under 1 euro per litre (that is to say under $5.30/gallon). And there are additional paternalistic taxes for tobacco and liqueur. So if you smoke, you have to pay roughly 30 cents for every cigarette you use :)


Economic freedom indices do have their problems. It is indeed impossible to measure how harmful certain regulations are and then to compare them to other regulations and taxes. But generally speaking, I can say which economies are more or less regulated. As I've seen, for the most part, Scandinavian countries are less regulated than the U.S.

Of course, that isn't to say that Finland and other Scandinavian countries don't have their own problems, which is why he included the links at the bottom.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:32:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where many people pay 50% of their income in taxes " with some even paying 60% " are coping better than most, in particular better than Britain.

nstead, there has been a quiet confirmation among most people here that their way of doing things beats the low-tax, low-welfare system pushed by the US and, increasingly, the UK. In a survey in July, Danes cited their welfare system as their society's proudest achievement.

"There's certainly been a feeling of 'we told you so'," says Ketels. "People feel they have a solid system and that they don't have to follow what the US and the UK are saying is best."

Not that these small, export-led economies have not been hit by the decline in global trade. All the Scandinavian governments have had to offer bank rescue plans and stimulus packages. Some manufacturers, such as the carmaker Saab, have gone bankrupt. Unemployment is on the rise too " 9.8% in Sweden, 3.8% in Denmark and 3.1% in Norway.

Overall, these countries' high-tax, high-benefit welfare systems have been acting as stabilisers to their economies. If you lose your job in Sweden, you can expect to receive 80% of your wages for the first 200 days of inactivity, up to 680 kronor ("55) per day, dropping to 70% for the following 100 days. If you lose your job in Norway, you will receive 62% of your previous salary for up to two years.

In the 1990s, the Scandinavian countries underwent difficult financial crises during which they introduced tighter regulation of their banking sectors. That has protected them during the current downturn.

In addition, they have very competitive economies. Denmark and Sweden come third and fourth respectively in the World Economic Forum's competitiveness survey for 2008-2009, behind the US and Switzerland (the UK comes 12th).

This competitiveness is underpinned by their well-funded and large public sectors. In its survey, the World Economic Forum argues that high levels of investment in education and training have been the key to success. "This has provided the workforce with the skills needed to adapt rapidly to a changing environment and has laid the ground for their high levels of technological adoption and innovation in recent years," it says in the report.

"We notice more interest around the Nordic model because we manage to combine productivity, growth and welfare," says Halvorsen, the Norwegian finance minister. "A large public sector is a buffer against the turmoil of the markets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:32:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The wealth gap in America is severely different to the wealth gap in Scandinavian countries. Immigration is far less of a problem there than in America. Education is easier to access. Families provide best safety nets. Et cetera. There's no comparison. The Scandinavian welfare model will not work in America.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, this analysis is bogus. Heritage did not include the regulations imposed by the EU, is lying about the the tax rates, and I have multiple sources that discuss a massive public sector with huge amounts of unemployment benefits.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where many people pay 50% of their income in taxes " with some even paying 60% " are coping better than most, in particular better than Britain.

nstead, there has been a quiet confirmation among most people here that their way of doing things beats the low-tax, low-welfare system pushed by the US and, increasingly, the UK. In a survey in July, Danes cited their welfare system as their society's proudest achievement.

"There's certainly been a feeling of 'we told you so'," says Ketels. "People feel they have a solid system and that they don't have to follow what the US and the UK are saying is best."

Not that these small, export-led economies have not been hit by the decline in global trade. All the Scandinavian governments have had to offer bank rescue plans and stimulus packages. Some manufacturers, such as the carmaker Saab, have gone bankrupt. Unemployment is on the rise too " 9.8% in Sweden, 3.8% in Denmark and 3.1% in Norway.

Overall, these countries' high-tax, high-benefit welfare systems have been acting as stabilisers to their economies. If you lose your job in Sweden, you can expect to receive 80% of your wages for the first 200 days of inactivity, up to 680 kronor ("55) per day, dropping to 70% for the following 100 days. If you lose your job in Norway, you will receive 62% of your previous salary for up to two years.

In the 1990s, the Scandinavian countries underwent difficult financial crises during which they introduced tighter regulation of their banking sectors. That has protected them during the current downturn.

In addition, they have very competitive economies. Denmark and Sweden come third and fourth respectively in the World Economic Forum's competitiveness survey for 2008-2009, behind the US and Switzerland (the UK comes 12th).

This competitiveness is underpinned by their well-funded and large public sectors. In its survey, the World Economic Forum argues that high levels of investment in education and training have been the key to success. "This has provided the workforce with the skills needed to adapt rapidly to a changing environment and has laid the ground for their high levels of technological adoption and innovation in recent years," it says in the report.

"We notice more interest around the Nordic model because we manage to combine productivity, growth and welfare," says Halvorsen, the Norwegian finance minister. "A large public sector is a buffer against the turmoil of the markets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Because when making an argument, it's always best to cite newspapers, right?

I'm pretty sure you just Googled this because you don't know anything about the subject but you want it to be true. This doesn't seem like an argument; it seems like propaganda with hardly any directly checkable claims (even a socialist should be able to admit that).

If I was ideologically biased towards capitalism, I'd Google my own arguments in response to yours. But I really don't care (debate me if you wish) and I want an actual response to the thread, which I'm fairly confident you don't have.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:43:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:37:33 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where many people pay 50% of their income in taxes " with some even paying 60% " are coping better than most, in particular better than Britain.

nstead, there has been a quiet confirmation among most people here that their way of doing things beats the low-tax, low-welfare system pushed by the US and, increasingly, the UK. In a survey in July, Danes cited their welfare system as their society's proudest achievement.

"There's certainly been a feeling of 'we told you so'," says Ketels. "People feel they have a solid system and that they don't have to follow what the US and the UK are saying is best."

Not that these small, export-led economies have not been hit by the decline in global trade. All the Scandinavian governments have had to offer bank rescue plans and stimulus packages. Some manufacturers, such as the carmaker Saab, have gone bankrupt. Unemployment is on the rise too " 9.8% in Sweden, 3.8% in Denmark and 3.1% in Norway.

Overall, these countries' high-tax, high-benefit welfare systems have been acting as stabilisers to their economies. If you lose your job in Sweden, you can expect to receive 80% of your wages for the first 200 days of inactivity, up to 680 kronor ("55) per day, dropping to 70% for the following 100 days. If you lose your job in Norway, you will receive 62% of your previous salary for up to two years.

In the 1990s, the Scandinavian countries underwent difficult financial crises during which they introduced tighter regulation of their banking sectors. That has protected them during the current downturn.

In addition, they have very competitive economies. Denmark and Sweden come third and fourth respectively in the World Economic Forum's competitiveness survey for 2008-2009, behind the US and Switzerland (the UK comes 12th).

This competitiveness is underpinned by their well-funded and large public sectors. In its survey, the World Economic Forum argues that high levels of investment in education and training have been the key to success. "This has provided the workforce with the skills needed to adapt rapidly to a changing environment and has laid the ground for their high levels of technological adoption and innovation in recent years," it says in the report.

"We notice more interest around the Nordic model because we manage to combine productivity, growth and welfare," says Halvorsen, the Norwegian finance minister. "A large public sector is a buffer against the turmoil of the markets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Because when making an argument, it's always best to cite newspapers, right?

Oh, so newspapers are better than openly biased think tanks that blatantly lie about things like tax rates?
I'm pretty sure you just Googled this because you don't know anything about the subject but you want it to be true. This doesn't seem like an argument; it seems like propaganda with hardly any directly checkable claims (even a socialist should be able to admit that).

LOL, please tell me how I can directly check Heritage's claims. I have to rely on other sources to do that. You're giving me a ridiculous standard of proof.

People learn through research. It's not bad thing for me to use Google. Unlike you, some people are capable of learning. Not everybody is as learned as the great Mouthwash.
If I was ideologically biased towards capitalism, I'd Google my own arguments in response to yours. But I really don't care (debate me if you wish)
After seeing how you treated Danielle, I have no interest in debating you. I'd like the debate to be over before next year and without 400,000 character rounds,thanks.
and I want an actual response to the thread, which I'm fairly confident you don't have.
That's a great way of dealing with things that you have no response to: pretend that the responses are superfluous.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 8:56:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd say that welfare doesn't work.

Federal spending on welfare programs has quadrupled since the "War on Poverty" began, but the poverty rate has remained stagnant.

Compare that to the years before, when it was falling drastically. Poverty programs have been found only to have a marginal impact on poverty. [1] Poverty rates were falling fast, poverty was around 25% at the end of the second world war, and was 15% in 1965, and has since then stagnated. Job creation and economic growth have proven to raise the poor out of poverty.

I will not say welfare is purely harmful. It's not. Welfare might help a guy who needs more income. Overall though, welfare is counter intuitive. It traps people in poverty, if you work harder you will lose your benefits. By getting an entitlement, you don't have to work, and just rely on a benefit. Suddenly, working doesn't seem like a good alternative.

These welfare programs discourage the behavior and skills that would raise out of poverty -- staying in skill, getting a job, saving money, and avoiding unmarried pregnancies. Welfare reduces the need of getting a job, and contributes to moral decay - found with higher divorce rates, dependency, higher crime, and higher rates of out of wedlock birth.

Since I've established that welfare cuts the incentive to work hard and earn income, and is bad, what's the alternative? Let them starve like many suggest libertarians want to do?

If we wish to fight poverty, we must fight it with the most effective weapon - economic prosperity. Free markets generate prosperity better than any other system known to man. We would need to allow businesses to compete, and invest in productivity and innovation - all creating economic growth. Economic growth means more jobs, and with surging job creation, demand would go up, and the poor would get jobs that would give them the skills and the income to rise out of poverty. And as shown above - this clearly has been the most effective system at raising the living standards of the common guy.

Private charity would care for the people who fall through the cracks.

Welfare progams aren't failing because of too little money. On the contrary. Denise Hoffman, a 46 year old farmer, told a New York Times reporter, "The war on poverty was the worst thing that ever happened to Appalachia. It gave people a way to get by without having to do any work." [2] There was no longer a reason to earn a living. An entitlement culture, as well as violating individual rights, has hurt the poor. By providing a job, these people could gain skills at the bottom, and climb the economic ladder. That's why it's strongly proven that people over their lifetimes rise in the economic ladder after inflation.

[1] Census Bureau, "Table 5"Percent of People
by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970"2010,"
http://www.census.gov...
historical/hstpov5.xls.

[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 9:40:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Welfare-to-work programs have been pretty successful. I don't remember specifics, but I can recall quite a few programs I've heard about where people's welfare included training in certain trades (usually construction) and then after awhile they would get jobs based on what they were trained for. I can't remember if they were employed by government agencies though, like government funded construction companies or something.
President of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 9:55:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My ideal replacement for welfare would be a full employment program combined with a living wage.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 12:40:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:43:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:37:33 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where many people pay 50% of their income in taxes " with some even paying 60% " are coping better than most, in particular better than Britain.

nstead, there has been a quiet confirmation among most people here that their way of doing things beats the low-tax, low-welfare system pushed by the US and, increasingly, the UK. In a survey in July, Danes cited their welfare system as their society's proudest achievement.

"There's certainly been a feeling of 'we told you so'," says Ketels. "People feel they have a solid system and that they don't have to follow what the US and the UK are saying is best."

Not that these small, export-led economies have not been hit by the decline in global trade. All the Scandinavian governments have had to offer bank rescue plans and stimulus packages. Some manufacturers, such as the carmaker Saab, have gone bankrupt. Unemployment is on the rise too " 9.8% in Sweden, 3.8% in Denmark and 3.1% in Norway.

Overall, these countries' high-tax, high-benefit welfare systems have been acting as stabilisers to their economies. If you lose your job in Sweden, you can expect to receive 80% of your wages for the first 200 days of inactivity, up to 680 kronor ("55) per day, dropping to 70% for the following 100 days. If you lose your job in Norway, you will receive 62% of your previous salary for up to two years.

In the 1990s, the Scandinavian countries underwent difficult financial crises during which they introduced tighter regulation of their banking sectors. That has protected them during the current downturn.

In addition, they have very competitive economies. Denmark and Sweden come third and fourth respectively in the World Economic Forum's competitiveness survey for 2008-2009, behind the US and Switzerland (the UK comes 12th).

This competitiveness is underpinned by their well-funded and large public sectors. In its survey, the World Economic Forum argues that high levels of investment in education and training have been the key to success. "This has provided the workforce with the skills needed to adapt rapidly to a changing environment and has laid the ground for their high levels of technological adoption and innovation in recent years," it says in the report.

"We notice more interest around the Nordic model because we manage to combine productivity, growth and welfare," says Halvorsen, the Norwegian finance minister. "A large public sector is a buffer against the turmoil of the markets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Because when making an argument, it's always best to cite newspapers, right?

Oh, so newspapers are better than openly biased think tanks that blatantly lie about things like tax rates?
I'm pretty sure you just Googled this because you don't know anything about the subject but you want it to be true. This doesn't seem like an argument; it seems like propaganda with hardly any directly checkable claims (even a socialist should be able to admit that).

LOL, please tell me how I can directly check Heritage's claims. I have to rely on other sources to do that. You're giving me a ridiculous standard of proof.

People learn through research. It's not bad thing for me to use Google. Unlike you, some people are capable of learning. Not everybody is as learned as the great Mouthwash.
If I was ideologically biased towards capitalism, I'd Google my own arguments in response to yours. But I really don't care (debate me if you wish)
After seeing how you treated Danielle, I have no interest in debating you. I'd like the debate to be over before next year and without 400,000 character rounds,thanks.

Really? Funny how you always have an excuse. How many challenges have you weaseled out of now? I know CP and CiRk have done so. You're too afraid of losing to ever debate in something you feel you could lose. Ever loss you get you howl about votebombing. You take leftist stances first, THEN you Google information on it to argue (can that even be called research?). And when you realize public opinion isn't going your way (even Wnope called you an anti-Semite) you claim you were trolling. You're pathetic, insecure, and angry. Goodbye.

and I want an actual response to the thread, which I'm fairly confident you don't have.
That's a great way of dealing with things that you have no response to: pretend that the responses are superfluous.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:05:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 8:18:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:07:23 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If it is combined with an extremely free capitalist society, providing opportunity instead of encouraging people NOT to work as socialism does? I know the Scandinavian countries follow this model (which are frequently mistaken as socialist by idiots like royal) and it seems to have worked out quite well for them. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area; could I have some thought?

I'm more inclined to believe that welfare probably has little to no effect on the gdp of a nation. Although gdp isn't everything.

I'm actually a little bit confused about the GDP equation. Its defined as:
Y = G + C + I + (Ex-Im)
G = government spending
C = consumption
I = investments
Ex= exports
Im = imports

Welfare spending can be considered a part of G, government spending. But welfare is more of a wealth transfer rather then production, so it would be double counting to include government spending that includes welfare as part of the equation.
There is overlap, but I believe that is where the multipliers come in. Government spending is all wealth transfer (someone has to pay them), and government spending affect consumption by paying employees, who then may invest or spend.

Income is not double counted, as one cannot spend what is given to the government.

There's also the income based approach, in which I don't believe welfare checks are considered a form of income.
Welfare is not considered income for tax purposes, but it may be considered for other things, like credit checks. I am not familiar with the income based GDP, but I would guess it would consider welfare income. How else would there be buying power of the taxed income?
My work here is, finally, done.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 9:55:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:
My ideal replacement for welfare would be a full employment program combined with a living wage.

No offense, but this is an awful idea. A full employment program could include paying people to sit and make nothing all day (gov't owned factory in India), reducing the value of steel in the process of making a vehicle (East Germany Soviet era), et cetera. It would require high, much higher taxation, which would destroy the wages and legitimate job creation produced by businesses.

A living wage is also a poor idea. If Bill has a marginal productivity of $5, he would be unemployed. Studies have statistically shown that the living wage would be about $15. The huge majority of teenagers couldn't get jobs, as most of our value of labor is around $5-10. The poor would often not have the skills to have a wage that is at $15, so many of the poor would be unemployed. So what happens to society? Businesses take their investment elsewhere, jobs become created by the government, which is a self perpetuating cycle that destroys the economy.

The concept of full employment and a living wage sounds great, of course. But in reality it would fail. A free market with individual rights is the best way of promoting people's living standards, and would raise the poor out of poverty by granting them the skills to get higher wages, and provide them the strong job creation needed to succeed, be self reliant, and have higher take home pay.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:32:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Unless the US is going to limit immigration to near zero and keep it's population growth to near static. And engage in a surplus export economy that keeps new money coming in to support the welfare state there is no point in comparing the US to Scandinavian countries. It's like comparing tricycles and Lamborghini's. Socialism can not work in a country that has a deficit economy and unchecked immigration that allows all new comers to feed off the state from day one. Until these two points are addressed first and foremost, all discussions about comparing the US to other countries is preposterous.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 10:36:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 2:05:40 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:18:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/9/2012 8:07:23 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If it is combined with an extremely free capitalist society, providing opportunity instead of encouraging people NOT to work as socialism does? I know the Scandinavian countries follow this model (which are frequently mistaken as socialist by idiots like royal) and it seems to have worked out quite well for them. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area; could I have some thought?

I'm more inclined to believe that welfare probably has little to no effect on the gdp of a nation. Although gdp isn't everything.

I'm actually a little bit confused about the GDP equation. Its defined as:
Y = G + C + I + (Ex-Im)
G = government spending
C = consumption
I = investments
Ex= exports
Im = imports

Welfare spending can be considered a part of G, government spending. But welfare is more of a wealth transfer rather then production, so it would be double counting to include government spending that includes welfare as part of the equation.
There is overlap, but I believe that is where the multipliers come in. Government spending is all wealth transfer (someone has to pay them), and government spending affect consumption by paying employees, who then may invest or spend.

Its not all wealth transfer. A lot of it is, but would you consider road construction part of wealth transfer?

Well that's where the multiplier comes in, but is it a genuine multiplier or just double counting.

Income is not double counted, as one cannot spend what is given to the government.

There's also the income based approach, in which I don't believe welfare checks are considered a form of income.
Welfare is not considered income for tax purposes, but it may be considered for other things, like credit checks. I am not familiar with the income based GDP, but I would guess it would consider welfare income. How else would there be buying power of the taxed income?

Income method:

Income = Employee compensation + Corporate profits + Proprietor's Income + Rental income + Net Interest

So no its not considered part of gdp. The taxed income is still part of your income, even if it isn't used to increase one's purchasing power. I guess its because taxes would be considered "purchases".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...