Welfare -- Why not?

[Uncle Jeff]

hydroh

Why are some Libertarians so harshly against Welfare?

Oh boy, Where to begin?

Consider these points:

1) Welfare moves money through the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. It's not necessary. F'rinstance, by using tax credits, gov't could motivate the movement of money without handling it (and even that would be coercive, but it would solve at least some of the problems).

2) Strings attach, controlling those who receive it. That would be fine if it were their money, but it isn't. It's mine. If I'm going to be forced to give it (a separate question in itself) I ought to at least be free to give it to the org of my choice to express the virtues that I value, not the virtues imposed by political-machine jackass in office.

3) Recipients become dependent on the politicians. Clearly, politicians are buying votes. Worse, they're buying votes with my money.

4) Because it's the law, recipients take the money for granted and ask for more. They actually resent the people who are taxed to put food on their tables. If recipients went to credit-funded orgs and knew that donors could have been giving their money elsewhere, then they might be more grateful, especially if they come into personal contact with some donors and volunteers.

5) Because it's taxed, those who pay for welfare resent the recipients for whom they should have some compassion. If tax credits motivated the system, there would still be a coercive element, but at least we who paid the charity would come into contact with orgs and maybe even individuals, sparking greater compassion in place of resentment.

4 & 5 b) Compassion and gratitude are glue that binds society together. By eroding these virtues, gov't saps the fabric of society... to buy votes.

6) Gov't monopolizes the pipeline. Lack of competititon produces flab in the bureaucracy. Lack of choices limits taxpayers expression. Lack of choices creates a captive audience of recipients. Recipients are turned from people into dehumanized numbers in a politicized machine.

7) Welfare, as usually practiced, penalizes thrift and industry.

8 If gov't gives money to "faith based" orgs, then it establishes religion. However, if gov't taxes money from the religious and never gives any of it to religious charities, then gov't is reducing their ability to give to the religious charities they would prefer, thereby inhibiting their free exercise.

hydroh

one Libertarian website... suggested that rather than being a burden on taxpayers, poor people can just find help from charities or from their community.

That may be true in America's affluent today, but it would be impossible to sell to an electorate raised in today's welfare society. That's why I advocate a tax-credit motivated system that liberates many choices.

It wouldn't be perfectly libertarian, but it would be a giant step in the right direction. After a generation grows up with it, with all of society developing charitable giving and other involvement habits, then society might be ready to remove the tax-credit crutch.

hydroh

Are all people on welfare stupid, baby-rearing moochers?

That's a tricky question. Before welfare reform, most of the welfare roles at any moment were chronic, lifetime dependents. However, they were not the majority of recipients over the course of a whole year. That's because a much greater number of people got in, got help, and got out. What frustrated welfare critics was that most of their dollars were going to the feckless in order to maintain a system that really does help people (in spite of its many shortcomings).

Further welfare reform needs to address those shortcomings but not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think my tax-credit strategy would do that.

hydroh

I do agree that our Welfare system right now does not work well. I think it should be...

You mention many decent tactical changes, but you are missing the forest for the trees. Fundamentally change the role of gov't in the process (with a tax-credit motivated system) and then donors and recipients would cause all of those other changes to happen. Asking a legislature to centrally plan all (or any) of those would take decades of effort to produce half-baked reform full of loopholes that would take more decades to close. A liberated system would be vastly more responsive to the wishes of donors and recipients alike.

hydroh

Once, I was at the grocery store, and some lady paid for all of her groceries with food stamps. Fine, right? Well, not when she's wearing nice designer clothes like Bebe and Chanel, and walks out to a super-nice car...

Maybe, but don't assume too much.

a) You'd be amazed what you can find sometimes at the Goodwill

b) She may have been shopping for her sister or daughter.

c) She may have been borrowing someone else's car because she doesn't have one of her own.

hydroh

This may bring up the opinion that, if they try hard enough, they can succeed in life by themselves. But I think that's just not true. Those stuck in inner cities, for example, can't really help themselves...

Nonsequitur. Nobody is chained to an inner city. It is less expensive to live in a small rural town, and there are plenty of opportunities in many of them, and those opportunities can now be found on the internet.

I'd dearly like to see a scientific study of where those permanently displaced by Katrina ended up and what they're doing today (compared to what they were doing in New Orleans before being forcibly uprooted)

As an aside, I hate it when I have heard that people need to stay "where all of the jobs are" and then, in the same argument, that inner cities have no jobs.

hydroh

they typically have to settle for inferior education...

Don't get me started on public education, especially in socialist, over-unionized urban districts.

hydroh

...trying to find out how you're going keep your house?

House? When I was young and poor, I not only could not afford a house, but I couldn't even afford an apartment of my own. As an adult, I have had to share not just an apartment but a bedroom. In fact, there was most of a year when all I had was a curtained off portion of a common room (but at least I was never forced into the street).

My point is that my blood boils when some mealy-mouthed politician says that because some teen welfare queen can't afford her own private apartment, I should pay higher taxes. Hello! Teens shouldn't be expected to afford luxuries. It's nice when they can, but if not, then they can work through the stage where they learn to share space with others. That's not squallor, that's just a less than luxurious life.

hydroh

...it's not impossible to move up without welfare...

In fact, it's such a common track that it's a tradition that hardly ever gets any ink. People are born naked and destitute. Very few are given great wealth, so they must earn everything (or borrow and then repay).

We reach young adulthood in debt and get low-paying jobs that barely keep us fed. However, most (not just a few but most gain skills and get promoted, or else start our own businesses. We move up into the middle class (and sometimes the upper income brackets) as we get older.

This is the norm for American society. Those who remain glued to the bottom rung are the exceptions, not the rule. Sadly, welfare is a form of glue.

hydroh

If Welfare were reformed, would it really be so bad for a small fraction of a percent to be added to your taxes?

Yes, because I shouldn't even pay that money via taxes. Even if the gov't requires me to pay some money toward feeding, housing and healing the poor, I should be free to contribute that money directly to the charitable orgs of my choice, orgs that express the religious and economic virtues that I want, not those by which craven politicians would buy votes with my money.