Should welfare be completely repealed, especially for those who really need it?

Q

QI 541

Guest
kiwifarms.net
There aren't actually enough jobs thanks to globalism and it's in the economy's best interest to have the government give poor people money because those poor people will spend that money to buy their shit, which stimulates the economy or something. Sure it does absolutely nothing for normal people with normal jobs other than raising their taxes but they should have thought of that before volunteering to take on the burden of all of society.
 

KimCoppolaAficionado

The most underrated actor of the 21st century
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
There aren't actually enough jobs thanks to globalism and it's in the economy's best interest to have the government give poor people money because those poor people will spend that money to buy their shit, which stimulates the economy or something. Sure it does absolutely nothing for normal people with normal jobs other than raising their taxes but they should have thought of that before volunteering to take on the burden of all of society.
Agreed. We should just kill all poor and rich people.
 

RadicalCentrist

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
if You removed welfare totally you’d screw over those who genuinely need it (sick, disabled, injured.) you’d also leave the insane and unemployable with no money and a proportion of them would end up destabilising society by taking from others.
Welfare isn't for "helping those in need." It's to keep the lower classes sedate as intended by Bismark while he unified Germany.

In modern representational democracies, it can even be used to create a permanent underclass that cannot function in society and is thus both reliant on the political party that birthed them but also its primary voters. As such, once enacted, it will never be repealed with the exception of violent revolutions.
 

bbfx

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
I'm interning in a clinic and we have a lot of people who are disabled that work there. I'd say that 50% of people who are doing jobs that don't require a university degree have a disability, whether mental or physical. They work in the offices, work as receptionist or secretaries, clean, serve food, do gardening, assist people on the bus that drives them to the clinic.
The state pays part of their wage and the clinic the other part. Their work is taxed at a much lower rate.
It is good for the state, for the clinic and for them. The state spends less money on welfare, the clinic gets workers for basically free, and the disabled people get to work and feel useful (which greatly reduces depression).
I think most welfare should look like this. Unless you're in a condition that really prevents you from doing any form of work, you should do *something*. I think that having to work to get welfare would also reduce the number of people who try to get welfare because they're too lazy to work.
It takes a lot of effort to organise it, but it is highly beneficial for everyone involved.

I'm against welfare in general, tho, and as someone said above I wish this was taken care of by community and families. If we have to have state funded welfare, I wish it looked like it does in my area.
 

murgatroid

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
As more and more human labor is replaced by automation, robots, and artificial intelligence, it's inevitable that larger and larger amounts of the population are going to end up needing basic income payments to be able to live in first world countries. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum and whether you want to call it welfare or universal basic income it's something people are going to have to accept.
 
Last edited:

Jörmungandr

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Due to the massive birth increase, we’re gonna have a shortage of milk. What this means is, the neo-earth-good-government-league is gonna have to genetically modify all humans, male and female, to lactate once a month. Once every month, you’re gonna be going to a lactation processing center where they’ll hook ya up to all kinds of weird things. Uh, now, due to some fluke, about 3% of the population produces milk, uh, about 500% as much milk. So they’re gonna have to be farmed constantly. And it’s very painful, but they’re gonna be rounded up by FEMA and their milk will serve the greater good.

In all honesty though, the welfare system is flawed but needed in our post industrial societies. There would be an ever increasing amount of poor people roaming the streets, creating chaos in society. However, the administrators of the welfare system are so incompetent and treat it more or less as a non-profit organisation, giving out benefits to people who have productive potential. If this continues, then the system is going to collapse, sooner or later. By that point, you are going to pray to god every day that you or your family stay healthy enough to avoid going to the hospital.

As more and more human labor is replaced by automation, robots, and artificial intelligence, it's inevitable that larger and larger amounts of the population are going to end up needing basic income payments to be able to live in first world countries.
No, neets and parasites will and should get the bullet.
 

Spiritually Sodomized

Filled with the Holy Ghost
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
It's essential to keeping society stable; even ancient societies had some form of it like Rome with their wheat allowance when things were hard. Poor people with nothing have nothing to lose but their chains like Marx said; it's not sated people who revolt like the citizens of France and Russia did during their revolutions and it's in the public interest to keep things at a level where people do have something to lose by kicking off.

Even if it wasn't, we really should. Think of it this way. If you saw someone seriously hurt or afflicted in some way, and you could help with only a minor inconvenience to yourself which in the grand scheme of things a tax on such things is, would you seriously say no?

I wouldn't, I couldn't look someone dead in the eye and refuse to help, and admittedly I wouldn't want to either. I can't help it, if you're that callous, cold and mercenary you're quite happy to sit back and watch people suffer and fall into poverty and it's many side effects, you're an asshole plain and simple. There are places in the world where people simply don't have the means to look after one another, but in the western world we do have them and not wanting to is just obscene imo.

I think this was part of my contribution towards "Why does everyone bitch about America" thread now I think about it,
 

Emperor Julian

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
In the end you pick your poison

You either accept that someone somewhere is going to duke the system or you accept that someone is going to get fucked real bad by your attempt to stop people duking the system.

Unless you're genuinly stupid enough to think you the plebs won't riot or steal for a meal . In which case I hope you're going to ramp up police spending over what the dole costs.
 
Last edited:

Alec Benson Leary

Creator of Asperchu
Christorical Figure
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
I know it's grating to watch scammers manipulate the system to grift money away from people who deserve it, but no system can ever get it perfect.

Here's a thought: in an ideal libertarian world any human should be able to live and thrive by their own bootstraps, right? 10,000 years ago that meant "can you throw a pointy stick at that tasty aurochs" and maybe some "can you plant a few seeds in the soil and grow enough to feed your family". And even then there's murky area because ancient human society was far more tribally oriented and exile meant you got eaten by a tiger, but my point is that it used to take far less specialized skill to survive and everyone but truly crippled people could do it.

But now? There are 8 billion people clogging the planet. You can't survive by just hunting and farming because every arable tract of land is owned and policed so you're not allowed to do any of that on your own. You need money, you need credit, you need to play by an ever increasingly complicated set of rules and requirements before you can get either of those things. Tell a hunter-gatherer he needs to get a bachelor's degree, then tell him that's suddenly obsolete and he needs a doctorate, oops we forgot the unpaid internships you need to "pay your dues". Oh now you have a job, but it's dead-end because the market for that industry is crashing and the housing rates for your city are skyrocketing so better pack up your belongings and move across the country, traveling more miles in a day than your great-grandfather did his whole lifetime to a place you're not familiar with where you have no friends or family and no assurance the prospects are any better there. You have a culture of economists and influencers and other such witch doctors telling you this system is understandable but only if you have a lifetime's worth of education in their dubious field. But at least in the end you can reti- oh wait, someone just Madoff'd your retirement fund.

So what I'm asking is... when the omnipresent and inevitable bureaucracy of a technocratic human society doesn't even allow you the choice to live simply because those ways were eliminated, and the ability to thrive is more and more exclusive because the difficult education and specialized careers that pay well are far too few for the number of people who want them, does that society now owe you some form of compensation? If not... why not?
 

KimCoppolaAficionado

The most underrated actor of the 21st century
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
I know it's grating to watch scammers manipulate the system to grift money away from people who deserve it, but no system can ever get it perfect.

Here's a thought: in an ideal libertarian world any human should be able to live and thrive by their own bootstraps, right? 10,000 years ago that meant "can you throw a pointy stick at that tasty aurochs" and maybe some "can you plant a few seeds in the soil and grow enough to feed your family". And even then there's murky area because ancient human society was far more tribally oriented and exile meant you got eaten by a tiger, but my point is that it used to take far less specialized skill to survive and everyone but truly crippled people could do it.

But now? There are 8 billion people clogging the planet. You can't survive by just hunting and farming because every arable tract of land is owned and policed so you're not allowed to do any of that on your own. You need money, you need credit, you need to play by an ever increasingly complicated set of rules and requirements before you can get either of those things. Tell a hunter-gatherer he needs to get a bachelor's degree, then tell him that's suddenly obsolete and he needs a doctorate, oops we forgot the unpaid internships you need to "pay your dues". Oh now you have a job, but it's dead-end because the market for that industry is crashing and the housing rates for your city are skyrocketing so better pack up your belongings and move across the country, traveling more miles in a day than your great-grandfather did his whole lifetime to a place you're not familiar with where you have no friends or family and no assurance the prospects are any better there. You have a culture of economists and influencers and other such witch doctors telling you this system is understandable but only if you have a lifetime's worth of education in their dubious field. But at least in the end you can reti- oh wait, someone just Madoff'd your retirement fund.

So what I'm asking is... when the omnipresent and inevitable bureaucracy of a technocratic human society doesn't even allow you the choice to live simply because those ways were eliminated, and the ability to thrive is more and more exclusive because the difficult education and specialized careers that pay well are far too few for the number of people who want them, does that society now owe you some form of compensation? If not... why not?
Yeah, this is my problem with the hard-libertarian position that says that society doesn't owe anyone anything: if you're uncompromising about that position, then when the automation wave hits the bullet you'll have to bite is "70%+ of the human race should fuck off and die".
 
Q

QI 541

Guest
kiwifarms.net
I know it's grating to watch scammers manipulate the system to grift money away from people who deserve it, but no system can ever get it perfect.

Here's a thought: in an ideal libertarian world any human should be able to live and thrive by their own bootstraps, right? 10,000 years ago that meant "can you throw a pointy stick at that tasty aurochs" and maybe some "can you plant a few seeds in the soil and grow enough to feed your family". And even then there's murky area because ancient human society was far more tribally oriented and exile meant you got eaten by a tiger, but my point is that it used to take far less specialized skill to survive and everyone but truly crippled people could do it.

But now? There are 8 billion people clogging the planet. You can't survive by just hunting and farming because every arable tract of land is owned and policed so you're not allowed to do any of that on your own. You need money, you need credit, you need to play by an ever increasingly complicated set of rules and requirements before you can get either of those things. Tell a hunter-gatherer he needs to get a bachelor's degree, then tell him that's suddenly obsolete and he needs a doctorate, oops we forgot the unpaid internships you need to "pay your dues". Oh now you have a job, but it's dead-end because the market for that industry is crashing and the housing rates for your city are skyrocketing so better pack up your belongings and move across the country, traveling more miles in a day than your great-grandfather did his whole lifetime to a place you're not familiar with where you have no friends or family and no assurance the prospects are any better there. You have a culture of economists and influencers and other such witch doctors telling you this system is understandable but only if you have a lifetime's worth of education in their dubious field. But at least in the end you can reti- oh wait, someone just Madoff'd your retirement fund.

So what I'm asking is... when the omnipresent and inevitable bureaucracy of a technocratic human society doesn't even allow you the choice to live simply because those ways were eliminated, and the ability to thrive is more and more exclusive because the difficult education and specialized careers that pay well are far too few for the number of people who want them, does that society now owe you some form of compensation? If not... why not?

Because that would require economic conservatives to admit that their ideology is based on fucking nothing and is a complete and utter failure.
 

Shoggoth

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Anything that can be abused will be abused. You could say the way to prevernt any % abuse is to just shut it down.
While I'm inclined towards that solution, you have to consider the people trapped in the welfare cycle who can't get past the welfare cliff, and the people who hadn't been productive in such a long time they may not be able to reintegrate into the work force.
It's like with wild animals - if you feed them they can stop hunting and become dependent. then it becomes your fault if you stop feeding them.
I would tie it to voting rights - if you recieve any form of public assistance, you don't get to vote on it.
 

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
The government would be more obligated to create work programs and busywork which would wreak havoc. The govt would almost certainly expand the bureaucracy just to employ people so that they don't riot. Construction jobs and environmental jobs require Certs so you can't just throw people at these jobs like FDR did.

Without something like that, we'd see an explosion in crime and likely a massive populist uprising to keep jobs in the country.