“Maybe jobs are for machines, and life is for people”
bostonglobe.com
bostonglobe.com
For example - we consider a person with a physical disability to be worthy of support (presumably because we reason that they're unable to work).
We consider a person of advanced age worthy of support (again, they're unable to work, and probably supported society in the past via working).
There are a few other categories of human that we think of as being deserving, and income support recognises this.
The flaw here as far as I can see is that we basically say that if you don't fit into one of the above categories, you must be fit to work, and so if you're not working you're doing so via choice, and if you choose not to eat that's your problem to deal with.
To me it's just a really basic error of logic and I don't know how to even come close to correcting it.
People talk often about the fact that they don't want to be taxed, or whatever. But why don't they care about paying for the disabled?
Is it that they don't want to pay for people who just aren't trying? It seems to me that unless unemployment is at 0% such an argument could never be valid.
I think that income support is a great idea, by the way, I just find it an odd situation that we're in, almost like a really bad compromise. Surely we should try to help everyone, or help no-one, not unfairly select groups based on them having a 'bad enough handicap'.
It's not that they believe charity is bad, but rather that it is either morally wrong or inefficient for the government to force it.
This opinion has become less popular over time, as the norm for government jurisdiction has increased. Progressive income taxes are, historically speaking, a new concept, starting in 1909 in the UK and in 1862 in the US (and requiring an amendment to the Constitution).
Another reason for the dislike may be the large amount of welfare abuse (not necessarily fraud, but abuse), which you will probably find even after only a little exposure to the system.
Either government has no authority in this domain (and thus we should have extremely low tax rates and zero overt welfare), or we should actually aim to fix the problem completely (and thus have high tax rates but ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living).
The middle route is absurd. It creates situations in which 'abuse' is even a meaningful concept; it gives arbitrary groups special status.
What does 'abuse' of welfare even mean? In the UK we have media stories about people getting a few grand more than they 'need' (and thus not having to eat rice and beans every meal). Or getting more than the 'median salary', which I take to be evidence that median employees don't earn enough.
Sans state-guaranteed welfare, he would do fine at many jobs. But the allure of someone else paying for everything is too much to pass up, so consciously or unconsciously, he allows himself to be crippled. (Similar to abuse, of say, painkillers.)
The argument is that legal entitlement to welfare creates increased opportunity for abuse, because no one wants to deny it and then get sued in legal courts.
Abuse, to me, would be a wealthy person claiming benefits when they don't need them.
To elaborate a little - let's imagine welfare gives ~6000GBP a year equivalent, and any job this person can hope to get gives ~10000GBP a year equivalent.
I think if we want them to work, then they should be offered more by employers, not less in welfare. Essentially, giving them negotiating power, rather than saying 'work for BigMegaCorp for $5 an hour or starve'.