Look at how social welfare bring UK down

[wMulew]

You acknowledge that you are driven by your selfish wants. But the PAP has always been pontificating that Singaporeans must sacrifice for the greater good, most recently being the Rochor Centre acquisition. I guess what you really want to say is if someone else sacrifices, it's okay, but if you have to sacrifice, it is not okay.

Therein lies the problem. Nobody ever wants to pay for it but everyone wants to see more given. The concept of the rich paying more to help subsidize for the poor is admirable but in reality it doesn't always work.

Just look at Greece. They have a lot of rich pple but they all park their money outside so as to escape the taxes in Greece. USA faced the same problem. During the 08 crisis they demanded UBS release names of their customers who are evading taxes before they are willing to bail them out Just because they are rich doesn't automatically mean they are willing to fork out more money for others. For every philantropist like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, there are many others who are unwilling to part with their money.


1 effective way is of coz to implement the increase in GST. The Math works. Collecting 1% extra from the entire population is going to accumulate a lot more then collecting 1% extra from the top 10%. Yes the poor have to pay more but it is easily offset by giving them more. It goes back to are you willing to pay more to help the poor.Judging from the number of pple complaining about GST, I seriously doubt it

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.

Do U think Apple will earn as much money if they sell you the IPhone at 1/2 the price? Do you think Microsoft will earn as much money if they sell their software licenses at 1/2 the price? Of coz not. Lowering the cost = lowering the government income. Ultimately it is still costing the government money. If the government runs at more or less fixed cost then at the end of the day the money will NOT be enough and will end up having to borrow or use the reserves. If you run more stuff, cost will go up. The only way to increase welfare but still work within budget is to increase revenue.BTW FYI the Kahsiung public transport system is losing money like no tomorrow

SG currently HAS welfare in one form or another. PAP just doesn't want to admit it for fear of developing a lazy bums like the UK. The Workfare is a form of welfare. They also have allowance for the poor unemployed limited to a fixed period(3 mths I think). I've work with many of these pple before and Welfare exist in SG. I don't see any problem with PAP not admitting there is welfare, the problem however is PAP relactance to acknowledge existence of such schemes thus causing a some who needs and qualify for it to be unbale to seek help and like everyone in here, I agree more can and should be done. However it will be reducing the amt that goes to us. There is a balance that needs to be struck, if more goes to the bottom 10%, less will go to the top 90%

 

[mojito]

Self-interest? Who would be the beneficiaries of my insurance payouts? You or my family? It's all well pontificating on the virtues of altruism. But in the real world, we make trade-offs all the time. My trade-off is to endure the distressing sight of my fellow Singaporeans living in poverty just so that I needn't share my hard earned wealth with strangers. Be as altruistic as you want to be. Just don't impose it on me.

Quick response here, since kingrant has illustrated with an example of health insurance. I would also like to add that in the usual sense insurance is not free, everybody pays a premium. That premium is called 'tax'. Have you paid yours lately?

When the unfortunate happens to a holder of a conventional insurance, the payout of cash has to come from premiums paid by others who subscribe to the insurance. Where do you think the money came from?

Finally the program is held together on trust. In other words, when I happen to need assistance, others would come to my aid, as I would to others if they need assistance. It is not charity. It is community.

 

[neddy]

It doesnt work that way.

I can speak of canada's healthcare system e.g. in Quebec. There is a provincial public health insurance plan that covers everybody that is not covered by private insurance. There is an annual premium about C$600 max per year but how much precisely one pays depends on his actual income tax payable. The more income tax you pay, you pay a bit more in health premium to the system. If you are not working retired, no income tax payable, you pay zero premium. But even the highest income tax guy will not pay more than C$600 a yr.

When you fall sick or see a doctor, the consultation is free. But any drugs (medication) prescribed, you co-pay for it. But then, there is a cap on how much you will be copaying, and it's about $45-75 a month. In other words, even if yr medicine costs $200 or $2000 for that month, you are responsible to copay up to $75, and the balance you dont worry as you dont have to pay.

So it is similar in Australia except we pay more, 1.5% of income tax. We do not need to pay for medication once it reaches the annual safety net amount.

The problem with free-market capitalism that PAP govt subscribes to is that the trickle-down effect is not working. Hence there is wide income disparity, as they have in the U.S. where the system has gone far to the right.

Narrowing the income gap requires a conscious choice and deliberate purposeful course of action driven by a light socialist touch. The trouble is the PAP uses the slippery slope argument to avoid this course. In the end, they resolved it by giving all kinds of goodies to targeted segments. Economics-wise, this is not an unfeasible course; also, after all, why not? It allows them to use it as a visible carrot for getting the popular votes.

Taxing the well-to-do more and exempting more low income families from taxes offends the rich, the wealthy, and businesses while at the same time the low segment may not be entirely happy either. Right wing political parties who believe in free-market capitalism will consider this as political suicide. Once the system is in place, it is hard to change. Too many vested powerful interests safeguarding the status quo.

In the US health system, there is a quota! And read this ...

Workers’ Health Premiums Rose 63% in 7 Years
By Carol Eisenberg - Nov 17, 2011 1:01 PM GMT+0800 .

Workers bore higher out-of-pocket costs as well.


.U.S. workers’ health insurance premiums rose 63 percent from 2003 to 2010 as employers shifted more of the burden of rising medical costs to individuals and families, a study showed.

The total cost of insuring a family through employer- sponsored health plans rose 50 percent over the same period, reaching an average of $13,871 a year by 2010, according to the Commonwealth Fund study, based on annual government surveys of companies.

Though the study revealed state-by-state disparities, it documented the growing burden of health care on employers and individuals in the years leading up to passage of the 2010 health care law, its authors said.

“Whether you live in California, Montana or West Virginia, health insurance is ever more expensive,” said Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of the Commonwealth Fund and lead author of the study. “Out-of-pocket costs for premiums and care are consuming a larger share of people’s incomes at a time when incomes are down in a majority of states.

Focusing on premiums ignores the underlying factors driving health-care spending, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a Washington lobby group. Factors include “soaring prices for medical services, changes in the risk pool with younger people dropping their coverage and new benefit and coverage mandates,” he said.

Differences By State
Employers and workers split the cost of health insurance premiums. Workers paid the lowest share in Michigan, Montana, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, the study showed. Employees in Delaware, Maine, Virginia, Texas and Florida made the highest premium contributions.

Workers bore higher out-of-pocket costs as well. By 2010, employers required almost three quarters of workers to pay deductibles in addition to their share of premiums, compared with about half in 2003. Average deductibles for individuals exceeded $1,000 in 29 states by 2010, the study found. They were highest in Wyoming where the average was $1,479, and lowest in Hawaii, where the average was $519.

If current trends continue, the average premium for family coverage would increase 72 percent to almost $24,000 a year by 2020, Schoen said. Provisions in the health-care law may slow the trend and deliver savings of more than $2,000 a year for a family.

To contact the reporter on this story: Carol Eisenberg in Washington at [email protected].

 

[scroobal]

I sense there is some level of confusion here especially when people mix up political systems with the concept of welfarism. They can be mutually exclusive and no dependency is needed. I also sense that many do realise that some sort of safety net or pension is needed but concerned with current funding model.

Here are some points to help guide the discussion.

1) Political System - The first world countries including the US, UK, Canada, OZ as well as the end world ex-communist countries including China all have some form of welfare structure in place. So it does not matter if its full fledged capitalism or communism, they all have unfunded welfare obligations to fulfill which are statutory in nature. So lets leave out the political systems.

2) PAYG vs FF. Pay as you Go (PAYG) is the current existing model where the state is obliged to provide everyone on an unfunded model and the continuous raising of various taxes or the cutting down of other expenditure is required to address the rising longevity issue of retirees. While a fully funded (FF) model is based on contributions and growth in the investment returns and there is no guaranteed stipulated minimum sum as pensions or welfare contributions. The latter is the more responsible.

3) Australia took the lead followed by Canada and other countries in the late 90s and early 2000s, when they began moving to the latter model and with the introduction of co-payment schemes and various incentives. For instance, the state pays a % of Medical Insurance premium while the individual pays the rest. Eventually everyone is moving to a fully funded model. This model requires individuals to begin contributing early and encourages the young ones to enter the job market and live off the state.

4) In a FF model, taxes will lower and burden to look after oneself rests mainly with the individual. But the State continues to provide a safety net at the lowest common denominator. Bare essentials and medical for serious conditions.

5) Our CPF was first started by the British, fully funded and required on the individual and his employer to contribute. It was an ideal model but it has been mis-managed over the years. It has been used as cheap funds to build the national infrastructure and never earned market returns. Eventually it moved to become a secured fund or an escrow for paying for housing and govt hospital bills with nothing left for retirement.

Nobody wants to see leaches sucking on other people's hardwork but there is desire to see those who are unfortunate to be looked after especially those who contributed significantly in the past. It can be done.

There is already significant amount of work done to replace the current broken model. Co-payments, managed closed funds, means testing, limited period of welfare support, qualifying period prior to receiving support, support based on level of past contribtuion. etc. None of these exist in SIngapore.

 

[bryanlim1972]

1 effective way is of coz to implement the increase in GST. The Math works. Collecting 1% extra from the entire population is going to accumulate a lot more then collecting 1% extra from the top 10%. Yes the poor have to pay more but it is easily offset by giving them more. It goes back to are you willing to pay more to help the poor.Judging from the number of pple complaining about GST, I seriously doubt it

the problem with GST as a means of wealth redistribution, is it shifts the burden to the middle class. the poor can't (afford to) consume much, so they pay negligible amounts in GST, and they'll receive subsidies anyway. for the rich, what's another $10,000 on a $1,000,000 purchase?

the ones who get shafted are the middle class. everyone from lower middle, middle-middle, and upper middle.

relying on GST to boost revenue whilst removing estate tax, capital gains etc is an implicit acknowledement of the PAP's enslavement to the rich elites. the old money. the ones who were here before LKY.

the PAP already pissed off many of the old money when they seized much of the rich men's land in the 60s/70s. but something happened in the 80s and 90s that made them beholden to the rich elites again. i don't know what it is. maybe they just got rich themselves.

 

[wMulew]

There is already significant amount of work done to replace the current broken model. Co-payments, managed closed funds, means testing, limited period of welfare support, qualifying period prior to receiving support, support based on level of past contribtuion. etc. None of these exist in SIngapore.

http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/Assistance.aspx <- I suggest you check this. Welfare in SG does exist in 1 form or another and I know of many pple who have benefit from it. PAP just refuse to acknowledge it's existence and call it something else.

 

[neddy]

I like your post. No one likes a flat tax system like GST.
Certain basic goods have to been exempted from GST because it is such a crude revenue collecting system.
At the same time, on the higher end of the income bell curve, there should have additional consumption taxes such as luxury goods tax.

 

[neddy]

None of these exist in SIngapore.

How much time is left before the government address these issues?

I worry for the older Singaporeans.
Demographic wise, Singapore is adding burden to the diminishing working population.
More health issues are going unassessed. A Singaporean colleague just told me about the 10% mental health "crisis".
The reality of the PIIGS countries is that they are poor now. So, the global economy is entering into prolong stagflation because Asia will not be able to address the excess capacities. Another economic slowdown, Singapore growth forecast down. Sound like bad news for CPF holders.

 

[jw5]

What we have may be worse than either a welfare system or a country totally without aid for the needy.
Poor allocation of resources, distribution of freebies for the wrong reasons, e.g. to placate the demanding and noisy person, to prevent him from being "unhappy", or simply to get him to stop thumping the table and go away.

The country should be providing a backup for the hardworking or capable person who unfortunately suffered a misfortune or tragedy, to allow him to lead a decent life and especially his children to get the oportunities they would have had.
What we have instead is distribution of freebies to those who are the most demanding and noisy, probably lazy too.

Not simply a welfare system, whereby someone who merely applies for it based on some set criteria, gets it.
Sometimes when I watch CNBC and they mention "jobless claims", it makes me want to laugh. Some of the richest people around are 'jobless'. Those who enjoy claiming this and claiming that (and I don't mean genuine insurance claims) are usually the laziest and nastiest.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Kiasuism was created in Singapore.

Created in S'pore by the MIWs.

 

[Cruxx]

Anarcho-capitalism + intellectualism = my utopia

 

[singveld]

I don't believe the more rational forumers here are asking the PAP to replicate the social welfare systems in Europe in its entirety in S'pore. What they are basically saying is that there are people in our society that truly deserves some form of assistance from the govt, monetary and otherwise. If your starting point is "social Welfare is evil" which is what the PAP would have believe, then we have exactly the situation now. Where people who fell by the wayside through no fault of their doing are left to die on their own. The role of the govt is not simply to grow the GDP or the reserves. The govt has a social responsibility to everyone of its citizens, and for those who had fallen on bad times, too sick to be employed etc, there must be some assistance rendered to them. The moment you say social welfare will lead to a bankrupt nation, then none of such pitiful people will ever get any help at all. It's too convenient an excuse to be used all the time. Surely the PAP who boast without fail that they have the brightest and the best to form an A Team can think of some ways to overcome the pitfalls of the social welfare systems in UK and other parts of Europe. The rational forumers are not asking for social welfare for the sake of social welfarism. They are too well read and well informed to know what the negative consequences would be. What they are highlighting is that the PAP govt has over the years neglected its primary responisbility of looking after those who had been left behind by their greedy policies. And that they should stop using "social welfare is evil" as a rhetoric QUOTE]

Tiger tiger burning bright, In the forest of the night.
It will not be possible to provide socal welfare to the people you initially hope to help, without other people abusing it.
It is not possible, i am sorry to say to you. It will never work. The reason i post UK example, is that exactly what the social welfare system was set up to do in the first place. Your idea, mirror exactly what UK social welfare aims for, look what happen to their system now. It is a path that will eventually end in disaster.

 

[mojito]

Anarcho-capitalism + intellectualism = my utopia

Try living on a desert island by yourself with your gold bars and brainy inventions without getting robbed.

 

[Cruxx]

Tiger tiger burning bright, In the forest of the night.
It will not be possible to provide socal welfare to the people you initially hope to help, without other people abusing it.
It is not possible, i am sorry to say to you. It will never work. The reason i post UK example, is that exactly what the social welfare system was set up to do in the first place. Your idea, mirror exactly what UK social welfare aims for, look what happen to their system now. It is a path that will eventually end in disaster.

There's a way to circumvent the problem of welfare abuse: private charity. Invest your energy and money on charitable foundations close to your heart and whose work you could monitor personally rather than rely on a proxy such as the government. It wouldn't be "abuse" if it's a cause you contribute to out of your own volition.

Just because I denounce the welfare policies of the West doesn't mean I'm categorically opposed to the whole concept of welfarism and taking care of the weak and vulnerable. I'm of the belief that social and economic policies should be more scrupulous and aligned with the desires and demands of the individuals that constitute society rather than imposing broad-brush measures on everyone regardless of their needs and the circumstances they face.

"We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Frédéric Bastiat

 

[freedalas]

I don't believe the more rational forumers here are asking the PAP to replicate the social welfare systems in Europe in its entirety in S'pore. What they are basically saying is that there are people in our society that truly deserves some form of assistance from the govt, monetary and otherwise. If your starting point is "social Welfare is evil" which is what the PAP would have believe, then we have exactly the situation now. Where people who fell by the wayside through no fault of their doing are left to die on their own. The role of the govt is not simply to grow the GDP or the reserves. The govt has a social responsibility to everyone of its citizens, and for those who had fallen on bad times, too sick to be employed etc, there must be some assistance rendered to them. The moment you say social welfare will lead to a bankrupt nation, then none of such pitiful people will ever get any help at all. It's too convenient an excuse to be used all the time. Surely the PAP who boast without fail that they have the brightest and the best to form an A Team can think of some ways to overcome the pitfalls of the social welfare systems in UK and other parts of Europe. The rational forumers are not asking for social welfare for the sake of social welfarism. They are too well read and well informed to know what the negative consequences would be. What they are highlighting is that the PAP govt has over the years neglected its primary responisbility of looking after those who had been left behind by their greedy policies. And that they should stop using "social welfare is evil" as a rhetoric QUOTE]

Tiger tiger burning bright, In the forest of the night.
It will not be possible to provide socal welfare to the people you initially hope to help, without other people abusing it.
It is not possible, i am sorry to say to you. It will never work. The reason i post UK example, is that exactly what the social welfare system was set up to do in the first place. Your idea, mirror exactly what UK social welfare aims for, look what happen to their system now. It is a path that will eventually end in disaster.

Your latest posting just proved my point. You as with the PAP is using "social welfare is evil" as a rhetoric and convenient excuse for not wanting to spend a single cent to help those who really have no where else to turn to. Please stop using "social welfare is evil" mantra ad nauseum, Be more like other enlightened forumers such as scroobal, jw5 who provide more thoughtful interpretations and analyses of the issues and various options instead of parroting the one-liner "social welfare is evil". Perhaps you and the PAP is hoping that just keep repeating that "social welfare is evil" and the problem will go away.

 

[Cruxx]

Try living on a desert island by yourself with your gold bars and brainy inventions without getting robbed.

Egoism isn't individualism. I advocate self-interest, not the atomisation of the self. So I don't see why you would propose that I try living on a deserted island by myself. Why would I actively subject myself to subsistence living when I've gold bars and brainy inventions that could assure me of a life of luxury in big cities?

 

[Cruxx]

The high absenteeism rate in Sweden is just another instance of the perils of giving people something for nothing. Capitalists like me shouldn't have to pay for the good intentions of socialists.

 

[Cruxx]

Here's an example of how civilised the Brits are compared to us:

A family of former asylum-seekers from Somalia are living in a £2.1million luxury townhouse in one of Britain's most exclusive addresses at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293730/Somali-asylum-seeker-family-given-2m-house--complaining-5-bed-London-home-poor-area.html

 

[mojito]

There's a way to circumvent the problem of welfare abuse: private charity.

So how did NKF and Ren Ci work out for you?

Relying solely on private allocation to charity is a foolish notion because it does not ensure people or causes that need it most receive funding. Again, the squeaky wheel gets greased. Just because I like little animals more than I like aged folks does not mean they should receive more funding over the aged poor. Or that in aggregate everything will work out, you retarded gay dog. No one is stopping you from starting a charity or helping cats and dogs after the vulnerable members of the community has been taken care of.

Another brainwashed convert to the cult of Invisible Hand.

 

[kingrant]

Agreed with Scroobal we shldnt get the politics mixed up with something that's a basic state responsibility, like defence , education, transport infrastructure. Healthcare is one of them. If left to free market forces, it will be what economists called a market failure, where no one will find it profitable or worth his while to invest in. Who will want to build the first railway, or the first hospital or pay for a standing army? You need a state apparatus to collect taxes and channel them to such purposes.

When hunters became gatherers and settled down to a less nomadic life, people group together into nation states to achieve certain objectives - security and strength in numbers, pooling of resources, etc. It is inconceivable that the state can avoid being responsible for health. Something so statutory.

I dont know why people who understands little of high faluting ideas and big words continue to spout nonsense when it is simply a pooling of risks and sharing of sunk costs.