Look at how social welfare bring UK down

[freedalas]

There is a no doubt the systemis flawed but appropriate welfare intervention and framework should still present.

If there is a simple condition where one can only be eligible for welfare after working for minimum of 20 years,it will be a goodstart.

That's a very good point. The whole problem in S'pore is that the PAP had turned 'welfare" into a dirty word and sweep it with one broad brush. There are many people in S'pore who need genuine help. I know of quite many who had tried their very best to get a job but for various reasons unable to find one (jobs snatched away by cheaper foreign workers is one reason). In the meanwhile they need some form of assistance from the government while they continue trying. The reasoning by the PAP that providing welfare will lead to a bankrupt country is too simplistic and convenient. Sure, there will be abuse but this can largely be addressed through clever management. That's what the government is there for isn't it. If everything is so simple, there's no need for a government. You can't just say that providing welfare would lead to abuse and therefore we should not have it. Some people and this number is growing, really need help. The actual reason why the government is not for welfare no matter how deserving the cases are is simply because the Old Fart can't stand to see a single cent being spend from the reserves, even for such good purposes. To him, the reserves should only grow, not reduce, even if that means spending it for the good of some S'poreans. Saying that it will lead to abuse is only an excuse by PAP.

 

[Cruxx]

Unappreciated is the word.

Overrated. Rural folks who walk for hours to fetch water are not superior, morally or economically, than us lazy urban people. Sinkies work like dogs. Longest working hours in the world, according to a study. Yet their purchasing power is barely stronger than the mudlanders.

 

[uncleyap]

EVERYTHING FOC is good, but only when your country can bloody afford it.

Everything FOC is good for the entire planet but only when the poor bloody planet and still afford it's depleted resources. And nope that is no longer affordable. Good time had expired.:*::(

Have to face it. Bravely face it and brutally face it. Stop fucking dreaming!

When UK owned 3/4 of the planet as colonies they can afford every damn thing for their own citizens, by exploiting colonies such as SGP. But sorry those good old days are no longer around and won't come back.

We have now a bloody 70 billion population sucking on the blood of one single poor planet earth which is dying. Good luck for those who are still dreaming FOC this & that! Come and suck my toes!:oIo:

 

[Fook Seng]

The whole problem in S'pore is that the PAP had turned 'welfare" into a dirty word and sweep it with one broad brush. There are many people in S'pore who need genuine help. I know of quite many who had tried their very best to get a job but for various reasons unable to find one (jobs snatched away by cheaper foreign workers is one reason). In the meanwhile they need some form of assistance from the government while they continue trying. The reasoning by the PAP that providing welfare will lead to a bankrupt country is too simplistic and convenient. Sure, there will be abuse but this can largely be addressed through clever management. That's what the government is there for isn't it. If everything is so simple, there's no need for a government.

The govt likes to take the easy way out by using the big brush, by not making discretionary decisions. That is why so many people got left out in life.

 

[Forvendet]

Everything FOC is no good. But there should be a safety for those too old or too sick.

 

[Fook Seng]

We have now a bloody 70 billion population sucking on the blood of one single poor planet earth which is dying. Good luck for those who are still dreaming FOC this & that! Come and suck my toes!:oIo:

Sorry. It is 7 billion not 70 billion. But your point that it has become unaffordable is taken. Unlike in the past, say 40, 50 years ago, the world is now a more competitive place. Many poorer countries have developed and are now competing for world market share in exactly the things that made the big powers strong in the past. If you have not be adjusting continuously to the new reality, it is now a revolutionary change. That is why the US and the whole of Europe is suffering from the need for structural change.

 

[tonychat]

When you gave the people social welfare, you cannot take it back. Any gov in UK would want to tweak it will be kick out in the next election, it is a vicious cycle. Why you want social welfare so much, so you can seat at home like a bum and surf the net the whole days right?

Then then it is not the people's fault. It is the govt who is scare of being kicked out. That is a very shallow way of thinking. Do you think they really think that way or is it just you who is shallow.

Being in the govt is to serve the society or to serve themselves.

you are beginning to sound like a PAP lowlife.

When the society suffer from some policy setbacks due to changing situation, then tweak according. I say this based on the govt being in a selfless nature to solely serve the society well. If they have any self- serving bullshit motive. then dun be in the govt.This kind of behaviour brings problem for the country. No wonder the whole of sinkieland is such a coward because the sinkie losers who run the country are a coward too.

 

[Fook Seng]

When you gave the people social welfare, you cannot take it back. Any gov in UK would want to tweak it will be kick out in the next election, it is a vicious cycle. Why you want social welfare so much, so you can seat at home like a bum and surf the net the whole days right?

That is why when there is a need to really change something like what they are trying to do in Greece and Italy, you bring in an interim Govt, someone who is there to do the job and bunk off, harbouring no future ambition. Just because you will face problem 20 years down the road doesn't mean you do nothing about a need today. I know Govt needs to go by the rule but there should be a certain amount of grey area where discretion can be used. Otherwise you just have a blanket policy and far too many people will lose out.

 

[Fook Seng]

Exactly. Can't believe once upon a time government providing affordable public housing was a noble social goal. These days when the PAP government start to claw that back, you have spoilt brats howling with fury about how they cannot afford it. Want to cut back on subsidies also difficult.

The PAP should not have give social welfare to people in the form of housing subsidies. This only breed laziness and contempt for hard work.

Having public housing has nothing to do with social welfare in the normal sense. It is a re-allocation of money from the money collected in the form of duties and taxes to where it benefits the most people most. All govts have to do that. Otherwise why pay some many people in the govt for what?

 

[mojito]

Having public housing has nothing to do with social welfare in the normal sense. It is a re-allocation of money from the money collected in the form of duties and taxes to where it benefits the most people most. All govts have to do that. Otherwise why pay some many people in the govt for what?

When I made the assertion that public housing "ownership" is a form of social welfare, I described it as a social equalizer which will help lower and middle-lower income families in starting families. Since social equalization policies have a redistributive effect, it is a form of social welfare.

The fact that the Singapore government administers the function does not make it a universally accepted social goal that ALL governments should adopt. The fact that governments administer and allocate taxpayers money does not mean they HAVE TO do so on the the basis that it benefits the most number of people. For instance, my new party the Richmen Welfare Party (RWP) recommends zero estate taxes, elimination of capital gains and priority in ownership of Good Class Bungalows (GCBs). Oh wait... that's already being implemented here.

If my RWP forms the government, I will redistribute taxes to my golf pal-lies and maybe leave a bone or two for the masses. Who says I have to allocate it where it benefits the most people most? Make sense?

 

[freedalas]

EVERYTHING FOC is good, but only when your country can bloody afford it.

Everything FOC is good for the entire planet but only when the poor bloody planet and still afford it's depleted resources. And nope that is no longer affordable. Good time had expired.:*::(

Have to face it. Bravely face it and brutally face it. Stop fucking dreaming!

When UK owned 3/4 of the planet as colonies they can afford every damn thing for their own citizens, by exploiting colonies such as SGP. But sorry those good old days are no longer around and won't come back.

We have now a bloody 70 billion population sucking on the blood of one single poor planet earth which is dying. Good luck for those who are still dreaming FOC this & that! Come and suck my toes!:oIo:

I am surprised by your posting, Uncle Yap. You sound exactly like the PAP. I don't believe the forummers are so naive to ask for everything to be free. That's an impossibility. This is lame excuse or tactic used by the PAP actually to deflect the people asking for some help from the govt. So ironically your post Uncle Yap make you like one of them. What the forumers are discussing here is whether when the govt extend some form of subsidies to certain groups of people who really need help would automatically lead to the country in ruins and bankrupt. And mind you, in S'pore context, subsidies would simply mean that the govt has lesser revenue, not that they had to cough out money from its reserves. Like cheaper public housing, public transport and healthcare for the people, especially for the lower income group. For such social goods such as these, they should not be based totally on revenue considerations, but on the affordability. No one is asking for these to be totally free, just that it be cheaper, not below cost, but not totally marked up to market price either. The whole problem in S'pore is that all such goods are being provided by government linked companies that have to show profits to the shareholders year after year. Hence by lowering the price of these social goods would mean lower profit for them and incur the wrath of shareholders. That's why many are clamouring for the provision of such social goods to be nationalised, for example the WP has asked the govt to seriously consider nationalising the public transport sector. And by nationalising this sector, it doesn't mean that everyone hops onto a bus or MRT for free. Just that the fare be more reasonably priced and not being increased compulsorily every year. This has worked very well in Taiwan and you don't see Taiwan being bankrupt.

 

[scroobal]

Agree with all that you have said. i share your sentiments.

It is the mark of a good society and govt that is prepared to look after those who are unable to do so for various reasons. We all can't be fortunate in terms of our inherent attributes and gifts, our parents position in life and in terms of our health.

A day will come when we need to the very same help the less fortunate receive or need to receive.

As you pointed out, this Govt treats welfare as a cancer. And sadly many do not know what a humane society in some of the western countries do.

That's a very good point. The whole problem in S'pore is that the PAP had turned 'welfare" into a dirty word and sweep it with one broad brush. There are many people in S'pore who need genuine help. I know of quite many who had tried their very best to get a job but for various reasons unable to find one (jobs snatched away by cheaper foreign workers is one reason). In the meanwhile they need some form of assistance from the government while they continue trying. The reasoning by the PAP that providing welfare will lead to a bankrupt country is too simplistic and convenient. Sure, there will be abuse but this can largely be addressed through clever management. That's what the government is there for isn't it. If everything is so simple, there's no need for a government. You can't just say that providing welfare would lead to abuse and therefore we should not have it. Some people and this number is growing, really need help. The actual reason why the government is not for welfare no matter how deserving the cases are is simply because the Old Fart can't stand to see a single cent being spend from the reserves, even for such good purposes. To him, the reserves should only grow, not reduce, even if that means spending it for the good of some S'poreans. Saying that it will lead to abuse is only an excuse by PAP.

 

[Unrepented]

Meet and listen to the Singapore bosses too..............and by the way, Singapore has minimal social welfare.

Meet the British bosses who say: Give us foreign workers every time
........

 

[Fook Seng]

When I made the assertion that public housing "ownership" is a form of social welfare, I described it as a social equalizer which will help lower and middle-lower income families in starting families. Since social equalization policies have a redistributive effect, it is a form of social welfare.

Bros here when talking about social welfare are taking about social welfare in the more restricted and not bring in the entire govt budget for discussion.

 

[kingrant]

I watched one of Michael Moore's movies about how Americans were so incredulous about the Canadian Health Care service as there has always misinformed opinions from both sides about each other. In it, one of the Canadians who was interviewed was posed the question why should someone who is healthy and never had to see a doctor all his life have to pay for others who are the chronically sick. What the chap replied was telling. He said it engenders this feeling for each other as human beings, and one cannot be sure that one of these days, one would not need or depend on the kindness, altruism and magnanimity of the others whom you have helped. The system is sustenable because people learn not to be selfish, and there is more to go around as a result. Something that the PAP govt can never understand, grasp, or imbibed, or plain too monetarist to declare it as evil socialism.

Something no kinder gentler campaign or gracious society movement can ever do.

So your comments esp the underlined part are very poignant.

Agree with all that you have said. i share your sentiments.

It is the mark of a good society and govt that is prepared to look after those who are unable to do so for various reasons. We all can't be fortunate in terms of our inherent attributes and gifts, our parents position in life and in terms of our health.

A day will come when we need to the very same help the less fortunate receive or need to receive.

As you pointed out, this Govt treats welfare as a cancer. And sadly many do not know what a humane society in some of the western countries do.

 

[Cruxx]

In it, one of the Canadians who was interviewed was posed the question why should someone who is healthy and never had to see a doctor all his life have to pay for others who are the chronically sick. What the chap replied was telling. He said it engenders this feeling for each other as human beings, and one cannot be sure that one of these days, one would not need or depend on the kindness, altruism and magnanimity of the others whom you have helped. The system is sustenable because people learn not to be selfish, and there is more to go around as a result. Something that the PAP govt can never understand, grasp, or imbibed, or plain too monetarist to declare it as evil socialism.

My response to that do-gooder, bleeding heart is, "fuck you! Why don't you extend universal health care to the millions in Sub-Saharan Africa who have no access to medical facilities? Why is Canada's international aid less than 1% of GDP? So much for altruism "

 

[kingrant]

You are confusing a national healthcare service with charity. So the only person who is blur and confused is you.Don't do gooders also do not have universal healthcare for subSaharans. You wld think they have more money left for that if they dont soend it on NHS. Ask the Americans.

How can you ever mix up the two? What Subsaharans need is first political stability to install a good govt not warlords. National healthcare is the concern of a national govt not even UN. Wtf! LOL, r

My response to that do-gooder, bleeding heart is, "fuck you! Why don't you extend universal health care to the millions in Sub-Saharan Africa who have no access to medical facilities? Why is Canada's international aid less than 1% of GDP? So much for altruism "

 

[Cruxx]

You wld think they have more money left for that if they dont soend it on NHS. Ask the Americans.

Why don't you ask Apple how many iPhone units have been sold in Canada? Canadians have $ for TVs, computers, mobile phones but strangely enough, have no $ to spend on the healthcare of their fellow human beings?

National healthcare is the concern of a national govt not even UN. Wtf! LOL, r

Are Africans sub-humans compared to Canadians? Did the Canadian in Michael Moore's Psycho not endorse universal healthcare predicated on the notion that "it engenders this feeling for each other as human beings"?

 

[Fook Seng]

Why don't you ask Apple how many iPhone units have been sold in Canada? Canadians have $ for TVs, computers, mobile phones but strangely enough, have no $ to spend on the healthcare of their fellow human beings?

Are Africans sub-humans compared to Canadians? Did the Canadian in Michael Moore's Psycho not endorse universal healthcare predicated on the notion that "it engenders this feeling for each other as human beings"?

Before you argument this further make sure you are not arguing world socialism.

 

[Cruxx]

Before you argument this further make sure you are not arguing world socialism.

That would be the argument of some proponents of the welfare state, if they weren't so hypocritical and equivocal in their humanism.