Look at how social welfare bring UK down

[mojito]

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.

I trust you are old enough to understand that reclaiming land, building roads and planting trees are components of the government budget that are not examples of welfare. Shall I draw you a Venn diagram?

I sense you are uncomfortable about what constitutes welfare, but you would like to see more of it generally. Understanding the principles behind it is the first step. That makes it easier to define what is and what isn't. Finally we can then decide if the application is consistent across the board.

It is fine thing to express a sentiment. However not everybody has the same opinions. Why should yours (or mine) matter unless you mean to convince readers otherwise?

 

[Fook Seng]

I trust you are old enough to understand that reclaiming land, building roads and planting trees are components of the government budget that are not examples of welfare. Shall I draw you a Venn diagram?

I sense you are uncomfortable about what constitutes welfare, but you would like to see more of it generally. Understanding the principles behind it is the first step. That makes it easier to define what is and what isn't. Finally we can then decide if the application is consistent across the board.

It is fine thing to express a sentiment. However not everybody has the same opinions. Why should yours (or mine) matter unless you mean to convince herreaders otherwise?

You made the point that the public housing is social welfare. Now you have the onus to defend that similar public programmes like this e.g. land reclamation, road development and tree planting are not. And another thing, don't presume too much. Before you claim that
you are older than me, can you remember anything about the Bukit Ho Swee fire?

 

[mojito]

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 "

Social welfare is not solely altruism. There is self interest involved, just like free market capitalism. And it is a more ideal, more sustainable system than "me first" and "every man for himself".

Consider this: When you buy health insurance for yourself, is that out of self-interest or altruism for other policy holders underwritten by the insurance company?

The notion of altruism is always part of the rhetoric from the left, but government interventions are seldom driven by that alone. Think of it as collective bargaining. If done well, can be cheaper and more enduring than purchasing individually from the private market.

Social welfare is the coverage that the state underwrites for everyone on their behalf. The end result is to promote social equality. Obviously the process is not perfect, for instance it can be hijacked for political purposes, there is tendency for over-coverage in return for votes, and moral hazard of all things deemed "free". Leave that to the bloody legislators. They make more money doing it on a part time basis than many of their constituents ever will.

Let us demand not just good character, but intellectual capability and vision from our MPs as well, shall we?

Or did you elect your representatives to do nothing? It appears you corporatists seem to delight in the notion of voting in muted, compliant MPs.

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

I share your sentiments, but our bro Cruxx here has very fixed opinions and a penchant for being provocative. Reminds me of... nay, I'm probably oversuspicious.

 

[neddy]

You made the point that the public housing is social welfare. Now you have the onus to defend that similar public programmes like this e.g. land reclamation, road development and tree planting are not. And another thing, don't presume too much. Before you claim that
you are older than me, can you remember anything about the Bukit Ho Swee fire?

I have been reading your posts.

Social Welfare is everywhere, even in Singapore. The question is whether people are voluntarily (charity) or forced to contribute (eg universal healthcare) to them.

How do you measure the civility of society. China and India have more rich people than Singapore, why are they perceived as poor?

Public education. Like paying $15,000 annually for primary 1 education?

Public Health. When there is SARS, who will pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. In 19th century England, factory workers and maids spread their low-class disease to high-class people.

In every society, there are freeloaders, just that the welfare cheats get publicised and not the rich scavengers.

I am a company shareholder as well, you think I do not like to see profits from cheap smart hardworking foreigners over locals. But there is this thing called social responsibility.

 

[neddy]

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.:*::(

Look at the bigger picture. The rich elite used to need justification for using up the world resources. Social Welfare is a nice start.

It started after the war by allowing some peasants to become middle class.

Then there is a silent movement among the rich to make middle class pay more tax then themselves. By printing fiat money, it is possible to make the middle class appear rich.

In the last quarter of 20th century, this printing of fiat money allow the rich to make use of the 'rich' middle class to feed the poor.

Finally today, everyone realise that the rich elites (1%) printing of money is generating unpayable debts to the rest of the people (99%).

Remember, once, it is the King or Emperor who own the country's land.
When we got rid of the king or emperor, the govt took over and introduce land/property tax. But people thought they own their land/property. But it is not. Esp in Singapore HDB 99 yr lease heartland.
Now, who is the government working for? How come people need to pay tax

 

[Fook Seng]

I have been reading your posts.

Social Welfare is everywhere, even in Singapore. The question is whether people are voluntarily (charity) or forced to contribute (eg universal healthcare) to them.

How do you measure the civility of society. China and India have more rich people than Singapore, why are they perceived as poor?

In every society, there are freeloaders, just that the welfare cheats get publicised and not the rich scavengers.

I am a company shareholder as well, you think I do not like to see profits from cheap smart hardworking foreigners over locals. But there is this thing called social responsibility.

If you read my posts carefully, I am for giving more social welfare to people who really need them and it should not be allocated based on just straight rules but with some degree of discretion because we are talking about a human condition. But I am against simply throwing money freely to everyone because like you, I think it is money hard earned. And before we look at the situation in other parts of the world, look at your own backyard first. Unless you are among the richest economies in the world, in which case you have the responsibility and honour to save the rest of mankind. Regarding your remarks on China and India, the filthy rich are a disappointing minority, the masses are still very poor.

 

[uncleyap]

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.

Look at the bigger picture. The rich elite used to need justification for using up the world resources. Social Welfare is a nice start.

It started after the war by allowing some peasants to become middle class.

Then there is a silent movement among the rich to make middle class pay more tax then themselves. By printing fiat money, it is possible to make the middle class appear rich.

In the last quarter of 20th century, this printing of fiat money allow the rich to make use of the 'rich' middle class to feed the poor.

Finally today, everyone realise that the rich elites (1%) printing of money is generating unpayable debts to the rest of the people (99%).

Remember, once, it is the King or Emperor who own the country's land.
When we got rid of the king or emperor, the govt took over and introduce land/property tax. But people thought they own their land/property. But it is not. Esp in Singapore HDB 99 yr lease heartland.
Now, who is the government working for? How come people need to pay tax

The principal is simple, humans can enjoy only whatever that is affordable and any excess will cause a DEFICIT in resources it is a kind of DEBT or OVERDRAFT, which will roll with high Interest rate to the Future People = OUR CHILDREN / Grand Children.

Problems in USA & Europe are only partial reflections of World's CRISIS. We had been accumulating DEFICIT big time that we can no longer afford. Financially / Economically as well as in terms of burden to the Planet's natural resources = Environmentally.

I am not throwing a blanket to say we can not afford everything. But we have to be very wise and careful and be very responsible in planing and using what we can afford.

DON'T TRY TO BE TOO KIND and overdraft towards a bigger deficit which our children will Never be able to cover.

 

[uncleyap]

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.

I will not go into any details.

In general only it is like this:

http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...ial-welfare-bring-UK-down&p=882990#post882990

I caution strongly against some mindless people who think that there is SANTA coming every XMAS to distribute any amount of FOC GIFTS and fulfil all dreams and everyone is entitled. They live in that naive kind of mindset and have faith in blinded kindness. Totally impractical and childish indeed.

 

[kingrant]

This guy Cruxx cant differentiate between the concepts of philantropy, health insurance, and charity.

What have Canadians buying handphones etc got to do with paying to keep alive sub-Saharans when their own govt and state have failed? The more capable Canadians pay more taxes and the incapable pay less towards their healthcare system. Everybody pays so the system works, except the rich will bear the burden of their less fortunate ones in the same country - it's a paid system and never a charity.

I dont see how that should extend beyond the borders of Canada. What a blur and confused fuck!

 

[scroobal]

We are talking about creating an essential framework to provide some level of minimal support without people needing to lose their dignity. Some of whom have worked and contributed to society and country in the past.

We are not talking about resolving world hunger or poverty. PAP has made the world "welfare" such a cancerous term that many sense that any form is taboo.

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"?

 

[scroobal]

This guy has a problem. He wants to be popular and impressive. He throws in words and concepts he has little knowledge of. He grabs figures and stats that have no relevance.

This guy Cruxx cant differentiate between the concepts of philantropy, health insurance, and charity.

What have Canadians buying handphones etc got to do with paying to keep alive sub-Saharans when their own govt and state have failed? The more capable Canadians pay more taxes and the incapable pay less towards their healthcare system. Everybody pays so the system works, except the rich will bear the burden of their less fortunate ones in the same country - it's a paid system and never a charity.

I dont see how that should extend beyond the borders of Canada. What a blur and confused fuck!

 

[singveld]

Still ranking 4th last time I checked.

no no no, rank 4, by calculating how much their property prices gone up, and their financial sector and service sector like training etc.
Their industries are tiny to pre ww2.

 

[singveld]

Like everywhere else in this world, the Brit's forefathers work hard to so as to be able to provide a education and a better life for their children.
Their children studied hard so as to be able to have a better life their forefathers wished for them.

that is not true. people who live with social welfare create children who also relies on social welfare and never want to work. Why work when state pays for your home? your bills and foods. your medical bills.

do you know in uk, if they work, they might lose their home. because the work might not pay as much as social welfare.

 

[singveld]

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 a good idea, the netherlands for example have work insurance that pays you salary for a couple of years, but only after 10 years of working, but minimum social welfare is for everyone. Though if you relies on that work insurance for a couple of years, no one will hire you, because they think you are lazy.

 

[singveld]

Yes you can. Australia keeps "fine-tuning" the welfare system.
My thoughts. Welfare has nothing to do with the UK losing its Industrial power.
My understanding is that it is the middle-class Brits who are taxed for the dole, not the businesses.

depend on how powerful is the gov, british gov is not so strong, any changes in welfare state will result in a lot of protest and swing the vote to the opposition. So, basically once given, it is very hard to take back. Especially all the giving is in good years, and now is bad time.

Welfare started after ww2. Brits are industry super power then, just behind usa. Now very far below everyone else. In UK, business pay extremely high fuel price, due to taxes on fuels taken by gov. The tax are used for things social welfare.

British business also pays the pension of workers, it is incredible burden since the lifespan of brits increase tremendously after ww2.

basically the british business are taxed to death.

 

[singveld]

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.
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!

you do not sound like uncle yap. did you account get hacked? i thought you like free of charge stuff.
like for example you use linux and solaris, which is free of charge, while you do not use os x which is also unix. why dun you dump your linux and go for os x.

 

[singveld]

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.

whatever the reason, creating massive number of people who never work a day in their life is not a good thing.
I was try to explain to you that social welfare was started as a good thing, but a group of people in their country turn the good policy into a horrible thing.

 

[singveld]

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.

to save these people who really need help, you will create another group of people who uses it to not to work, just relies on the govt for living, do you think the price to pay for helping these small group of people is worth it? can you take it if you work hard everyday for 60 hours per week to feed your family for example your neighbor who play guitar everyday and relies on govt welfare. This is the price to pay for, can you except it now and 20 years later, will you say the same. Social welfare is evil.

 

[jw5]

whatever the reason, creating massive number of people who never work a day in their life is not a good thing.
I was try to explain to you that social welfare was started as a good thing, but a group of people in their country turn the good policy into a horrible thing.

It'll be interesting to know the extent to which food and grocery vouchers are distributed during MPs' meet the people sessions.
Even more interesting is how much detail do they go into before they distribute such freebies.

 

[scroobal]

This is nothing to do with with helping the needy but vote buying. During the financial crisis, the PUB gave vouchers to the residents of Hougang thru the PAP rejected candidate and not thru the elected MP. A more appropriate conduit would be a govt entity that shows no bias but works thru a transparent mechanism.

It'll be interesting to know the extent to which food and grocery vouchers are distributed during MPs' meet the people sessions.Even more interesting is how much detail do they go into before they distribute such freebies.