Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p="
1. Welfare (as it is currently run) is inefficient and often counterproductive, and although it might be possible to reform it, I can't figure out how.
|
In the modern era, the automation (computers) can be used to reduce the bureocracy and the price of bureoucracy. In this way, if we distribute N amount of wealth, the cost of the distribution will likely fall near 5% or below. Also typically, the bureocracy costs quite same amount not depending of the amount of money distributed. In this way, the more you distribute, the more efficient the distribution will relatively get.
I would say, that the problems with the unmotivating effect of the welfare can be avoided. Typically it is that big problem, but with solutions like the citizen-salary the counter-motivational effect can be greatly reduced or even removed.
I say that the Scandinavian countries are rather good examples of a working welfare state. Especially the Danmark's model with the work-force has recently gained praise.
Quote:
|
2. Even if welfare were made more effective, we still have a huge national debt in this country. How can we continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on aid programs without driving the country into bankruptcy?
|
For the debt, you may blame the republican and the ever-growing money void of pork. The republicans have proved that they can toss more money to rich corporations than democrats ever could for social security, education and health care.
But anyway, by removing the pork and bringing down the ever-growing war-machine you should save enought to make some nice social improvements. Still, constructing the social system does require money. In this way, you really have to compromise between the social values and the economic values.
Still, even if the welfare system uses money and means high taxes, lot of used money work actually as an investement. The money put on education and health care will surely pay itself back. The opportunities and the security provided for the poor tend also to calm society and its internal conlflict. This means savings, since it tend to reduce the theft and destruction of property, murders, people in prisons and the burden on the law-enforcement.
Quote:
|
3. How can income be distributed with greater equity without hurting the incentive factor?
|
Well, typically with money, the luxuries themselves are not that important, but the social status and its symbols. Even if taxes are progressive, the difference between the different economic classes remains. In this situation, as long men wish to set themselves above other men, the creed for money will prevail.
What is truly important to realize with human psychology is that people don't think wealth in absolute terms, but only as it relates to others. The amount of men above you and the ones under you will not change and neither will the significance of wealth.
Quote:
|
4. How can a government control more of the GDP without having more arbitrary power? In other words, how can government misuse of taxpayer money be prevented?
|
Through automation and supervision. It works well in the Nordic countries - and believe me - the goverments here control and redistribute massive amounts wealth.
I would say that the essential thing is the overall corruption rate of the goverment. If the corruption is rare, the welfare system will work seamlessly. If the corruption rate is high, then certainly - you should think twice before yelding any penny for any reason, whether the reason is welfare or war.
- BtD