Well, as far as families go:
I don't think they should be penalized. As you say, families are the backbone of any society.
On the other hand, adults who breed knowing they cannot support their offspring deserve nothing but my contempt. They're putting a child to the world and giving it very bad odds, all for their selfish reasons.
I do not believe it is the role of the state to ensure that its citizens can afford having kids, BMW's or swimming pools by way of distributing the earnings of others.
The socialist system does not encourage productivity, as we've seen in the numerous tates who've had a go at it. It does not create an incentive or drive, nor does it add responsibility to the individual.
What it does is *remove* some responsibility, along with a fair amount of freedom. Individuals can take actions that will result in them being dependent on others - and many do. "Can we afford as third kid? Well, we'll get $xx a month from the state, with that and me at work, we can". Can I as a senior afford to live in this expensive place? Well, the state pays 60% of my rent, so sure.
The ones that earn the least on a social system are the high income people, the single ones with jobs, and also the unemployed single. I know of families where both parents are on welfare, yet they receive more than twice the amount my mother (who is a social worker) earns. This ain't right. A friend of mine between studies (3 months with no money) was told to borrow money in the bank to get by. So, there's a great unfairness to the system, but various advocates claim that this is the best possible solution. If it is, it sucks.
Infrastructure, military, schools, universities and hospitals cost money, and plenty of it. They're all essential for an advanced society. Welfare is, I believe, also needed - a society *must* be able to support its citizens to such a degree they get a chance to get back up.
The question is: how far should society go? And at what price? My economics professor claims that unions actually reduce the competitiveness of a company, which in turn leads to less jobs, and higher unemployment. His argument was much more detailed than this but I can not recall much of it (I do not like economics much, lol)
In 1998, Denmark spent the following tax money:
Defense: 8.9 billion (I guess, only says 8.9
)
Health care: 9.2
Education: 13.6
Police: 1.7
Roads and communication: 3.8
Welfare:
42.7And some other relatively minor costs.
Sort of an eye opener, no? The social democrats like to say that "defense, medical care, roads and education COST!", They sure do, all together 37.2 billion Danish crowns. Which is less that the welfare system.
I'm not trying to rip the bread away from under an unemployed, nor am I suggesting not paying for his or her getting a new education/training. What I *am* suggesting is that there is a big discrepancy between what the working person pays in taxes and what he gets back.
Also, big states tend to go all bossy and parential on its citizens, referring to them as "subjects", almost. In a relatively small country, it can be controlled somewhat. In a larger one...well, look at the US, and the government there is relatively weak compared to ours.
I wouldn't want to be in the US as a poor uneducated person. Had I lived in the US, I'd been one; I blew my first pass at the university due to general lethargy, apathy and lack of motivation. Here, I got a second chance and I am doing what I can to take it.
On the other hand, the US have had for quite some time a much lower unempolyment rate than most if not all European countries. Their economy has steadily been improving and is in a much better state than European ones. Working class citizens can afford air conditioning, two cars, a few kids (even saving up for their college) and generally have about 30% more purchasing power than the average Dane. Of course, there are also great social injustices in the US.
I'd like to see a compromise; taking the best from both systems. While the concept of the American Dream has more holes in it than that B-17 I hit, at least there's an incentive for the individual - and he is forced to take responsibility. OTOH, due to pricey education and whatnot, he isn't getting the same chance as someone richer.
So, offer possibilities. Give the starving man a fishing rod instead of a fish.
As far as Thatcher goes, I agree fully with you. What a Witch Queen From Hell, serving it up to those who didn't need while backstabbing the hard working low to middle income man/woman.
it's just that 75% taxes + various fees don't sound good to me - especially because as far as the government is concerned, teeth aren't really part of the body, so you must pay for that yourself, or get an expensive insurance. Unfortunately, when I knocked my front teeth out 1.5 months ago, I didn't have one. So that's 20k crowns I've had to borrow from the bank.
It's these small injustices that irritate me. True, I am looking on it from the ground up, and am probably losing an overview over it. But the numbers I've seen also suggest that a lot of tax payers money is wasted into pointless social projects.
Worst of all; only one party believes it is possible to lower income tax; the conservatives. And I ain't voting for them. Yet.
I understand fully where you come from and to a very large degree, I agree with you. But ya gotta admit that there are serious flaws in both the British and Danish welfare system, flaws that should be corrected. Encouragment and help to self help sure beats pity and dependency in my book.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
