Should we kick more people off welfare?

[minifrij]

Welfare benefits are soon becoming the easy way to get out of working, which is wrong. Of course the elderly and completely disabled should get it, however those who claim they 'cannot find a job' should be found a job by the government and forced to do it properly for their pay or sent into military service. There is always a lack of manual labor in almost every country, forcing those who are too lazy to find a job into those spaces will both help the economy and increase the amount of manual labor done.

[Kolla]

Welfare programs are also a strong reason for Africans to immigrate to rich countries, which close their borders very precisely not to let foreigners gain access to welfare. Welfare and borders are the same thing: restrictions to freedom.

Welfare payments are the primary reason for people from the third world nations to immigrate to Western countries. For example, take the case of Afghan migrants. The richest country in the world (Qatar) is nearer to Afghanistan when compered to the European nations. Qatar is also culturally similar to Afghanistan. But still, Afghan migrants prefer Europe. The reason - welfare payments.

Bismarck was no fascist. That was not invented yet.... And old age pension with 65 when most died before the age of 60 well, that's not expensive is it?
Not everyone is allowed to access welfare. Immigrants should work and if they loose their job they are kicked out again. Asylumseekers who are deemed legal are given some kind of welfare. Only when the situation is too dangerous and the refugee can't return only then an asylumseeker is allowed to request welfare.

[BADecker]

Actually, we should get more people into the field of robotics and computers. We should develop robots that can handle every job without help from people. The robots should even be built to completely repair themselves, from raw materials all the way to finished products.

Then we all, worldwide, should go on welfare, collect a thousand times more than we would without the robots, travel the world, enjoy every pleasure that we can devise for ourselves, and live a life of ease.

Of course, if anybody wants to pursue an occupation as part of his/her enjoyment, room would be made amongst the robots.

What fun! Can't wait.

[bryant.coleman]

Immigrants should work and if they loose their job they are kicked out again. Asylumseekers who are deemed legal are given some kind of welfare. Only when the situation is too dangerous and the refugee can't return only then an asylumseeker is allowed to request welfare.

You are talking about the state welfare system in the Netherlands, right? I was wondering why that country hasn't received the flood of Sub-Saharan Africans and Syrian Arabs, unlike some of the other European Union countries (United Kingdom, Italy, Germany.etc). And this might be one of the reasons. The PVV has achieved in the Netherlands what the UKIP has failed to achieve in the United Kingdom.

[countryfree]

Welfare programs are also a strong reason for Africans to immigrate to rich countries, which close their borders very precisely not to let foreigners gain access to welfare. Welfare and borders are the same thing: restrictions to freedom.

Welfare payments are the primary reason for people from the third world nations to immigrate to Western countries. For example, take the case of Afghan migrants. The richest country in the world (Qatar) is nearer to Afghanistan when compered to the European nations. Qatar is also culturally similar to Afghanistan. But still, Afghan migrants prefer Europe. The reason - welfare payments.

That's what I'm saying. Welfare systems are a magnet for migrants, and migrations have to be stopped for the sake of the welfare state. Imagine a world without any welfare. There would be much more freedom to travel and move, that's what I want.

[BADecker]

Welfare programs are also a strong reason for Africans to immigrate to rich countries, which close their borders very precisely not to let foreigners gain access to welfare. Welfare and borders are the same thing: restrictions to freedom.

Welfare payments are the primary reason for people from the third world nations to immigrate to Western countries. For example, take the case of Afghan migrants. The richest country in the world (Qatar) is nearer to Afghanistan when compered to the European nations. Qatar is also culturally similar to Afghanistan. But still, Afghan migrants prefer Europe. The reason - welfare payments.

That's what I'm saying. Welfare systems are a magnet for migrants, and migrations have to be stopped for the sake of the welfare state. Imagine a world without any welfare. There would be much more freedom to travel and move, that's what I want.

Right! If you stop the gigantic welfare financial drain across the board (or even reduce it), you'll never get elected a second term. The only way left is to eliminate certain classes of people. Eliminate the ones whose vote is going to affect you the least when they go south (pun intended).

[tommorisonwebdesign]

Welfare programs are also a strong reason for Africans to immigrate to rich countries, which close their borders very precisely not to let foreigners gain access to welfare. Welfare and borders are the same thing: restrictions to freedom.

Welfare payments are the primary reason for people from the third world nations to immigrate to Western countries. For example, take the case of Afghan migrants. The richest country in the world (Qatar) is nearer to Afghanistan when compered to the European nations. Qatar is also culturally similar to Afghanistan. But still, Afghan migrants prefer Europe. The reason - welfare payments.

That's what I'm saying. Welfare systems are a magnet for migrants, and migrations have to be stopped for the sake of the welfare state. Imagine a world without any welfare. There would be much more freedom to travel and move, that's what I want.

Right! If you stop the gigantic welfare financial drain across the board (or even reduce it), you'll never get elected a second term. The only way left is to eliminate certain classes of people. Eliminate the ones whose vote is going to affect you the least when they go south (pun intended).

Yes that's true. People don't want to do things that are boring or learn a productive skill but boy will they do a lot to get to a welfare state. If we were to stop foreigners from getting welfare cheques, or as previously mentioned find a job for them and force them to work. It sickens me to se so many lazy people in the world.

[BCEmporium]

People is lazy by nature, you can't change that. Nobody likes to work, you may like what you do, but the borderline between work and a hobby is that by work it means you've to do it even when you're not up to it.
You may then only make people move by necessity, a way to do it pass beyond welfare is by using greed and wave them with a "better life", creating a fake necessity. But this will work only with some, for many and, in due time, for most, as long as you keep their basic needs supplied with welfare, they won't do anything else, never leaving poverty. But, heck! At least they don't need to wake up early morning.

[subSTRATA]

People is lazy by nature, you can't change that. Nobody likes to work, you may like what you do, but the borderline between work and a hobby is that by work it means you've to do it even when you're not up to it.
You may then only make people move by necessity, a way to do it pass beyond welfare is by using greed and wave them with a "better life", creating a fake necessity. But this will work only with some, for many and, in due time, for most, as long as you keep their basic needs supplied with welfare, they won't do anything else, never leaving poverty. But, heck! At least they don't need to wake up early morning.

exactly, why put forth the effort to find a job when you have a nice check that comes in the mail for you? there needs to be an incentive to push people to find work; welfare is meant to be a crutch for people that cant find a job, and it should be expected of them to find something within half a year the the very most. cutting people off after a certain period of time seems like a good first step, extensions would be called for in certain extreme cases, but those should be reviewed on a case by case basis.

[romjpn]

People is lazy by nature, you can't change that. Nobody likes to work, you may like what you do, but the borderline between work and a hobby is that by work it means you've to do it even when you're not up to it.
You may then only make people move by necessity, a way to do it pass beyond welfare is by using greed and wave them with a "better life", creating a fake necessity. But this will work only with some, for many and, in due time, for most, as long as you keep their basic needs supplied with welfare, they won't do anything else, never leaving poverty. But, heck! At least they don't need to wake up early morning.

exactly, why put forth the effort to find a job when you have a nice check that comes in the mail for you? there needs to be an incentive to push people to find work; welfare is meant to be a crutch for people that cant find a job, and it should be expected of them to find something within half a year the the very most. cutting people off after a certain period of time seems like a good first step, extensions would be called for in certain extreme cases, but those should be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Completely misleading. Those people stay like this because if they would work, they would have little more for a full time job : simply not worth bothering.

That's why I support a Universal Basic Income.
Ask yourself what you would do with 1000$/month. Yeah you could just sit all day long watching TV and play video-games but would you do that ?

[ObscureBean]

It is not possible to kick people off welfare. This has got nothing to do with compassion and taxpayers do not have a say in the matter, the system simply cannot afford to have too many unbound elements, especially in industrialized countries. Ideally, money needs to be an intrinsic part of the life of every single human being on the planet.

[redhack]

It is not possible to kick people off welfare. This has got nothing to do with compassion and taxpayers do not have a say in the matter, the system simply cannot afford to have too many unbound elements, especially in industrialized countries. Ideally, money needs to be an intrinsic part of the life of every single human being on the planet.

France tried this with maximum income tax. They failed at the end obviously.

[BCEmporium]

I've nothing against human nature, but politicians must answer two questions before starting to purchase votes with welfare:

1. Is it sustainable? Can you keep it 50+ years without bankrupt?

2. Are you up to hold the legit retired people when it comes out you can't continue #1 and therefore also can't pay the legit retirement plans people paid now?

@romjpn

You need to study basic economics man! Society is like a market: what you do is what you worth, what you own is your purchase power.
If you give 1K/month to useless people, then $1000 = $0.
Why? Because you are giving something to people that worth nothing, therefore that something becomes nothing. The initial impact of such measure will be more people sit on their ass, as result goods will become scarce as nobody produces them, and those who produce will have to wage way over 1K - otherwise they won't bother doing it and just pick welfare. So inflation will be massive and you hardly will be able to buy a single potato with those thousand bucks.

[countryfree]

It seems most people here are from rich countries. It's really awful how the welfare state appears like the normal thing. I suggest that instead of making cash handouts to the poor, the rich countries would pay them a one way ticket to Ethiopia. There, those folks would quickly learn to make a living, or die.

[romjpn]

I've nothing against human nature, but politicians must answer two questions before starting to purchase votes with welfare:

1. Is it sustainable? Can you keep it 50+ years without bankrupt?

2. Are you up to hold the legit retired people when it comes out you can't continue #1 and therefore also can't pay the legit retirement plans people paid now?

@romjpn

You need to study basic economics man! Society is like a market: what you do is what you worth, what you own is your purchase power.
If you give 1K/month to useless people, then $1000 = $0.
Why? Because you are giving something to people that worth nothing, therefore that something becomes nothing. The initial impact of such measure will be more people sit on their ass, as result goods will become scarce as nobody produces them, and those who produce will have to wage way over 1K - otherwise they won't bother doing it and just pick welfare. So inflation will be massive and you hardly will be able to buy a single potato with those thousand bucks.

Yes OK. So just explain that to  Herbert A. Simon, Friedrich Hayek, James Meade, Robert Solow, Milton Friedman and Maurice Allais .

https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7

Also, when Kuwait gave every citizen 4000$/month for a year the result was the lowest inflation they knew for several years.

You know, it's more complicated than you think.

I forgot those guys who advocate for a BI :

One of the world's most outspoken advocates of a basic income system is Belgian philosopher and political economist Philippe van Parijs. Other advocates include feminist economist Ailsa McKay, German drugstore magnate Götz Werner, Dutch political activist Saar Boerlage, French social theorist André Gorz, American political philosopher Michael Hardt and Italian Marxist sociologist Antonio Negri, American libertarian political scientist Charles Murray, New Zealand economist Gareth Morgan, Finnish politician Osmo Soininvaara, University of London economist Guy Standing, Brazilian politician and economist Eduardo Suplicy.

Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu.
A nice bunch of stupid people who do not understand the "economy basics".

It is not possible to kick people off welfare. This has got nothing to do with compassion and taxpayers do not have a say in the matter, the system simply cannot afford to have too many unbound elements, especially in industrialized countries. Ideally, money needs to be an intrinsic part of the life of every single human being on the planet.

France tried this with maximum income tax. They failed at the end obviously.

North European countries have much higher taxes and a biggest welfare. People are OK, the economy has not crashed.

[acroman08]

Why not rehabilitate them instead of just giving them money. Help them become a better person that can help them   selves support them physically and mentally then make them realize that there's no better person helping them but themselves.

[Snail2]

There is a big problem with cutting these benefits. What will you do with these people? Most of them doesn't have any competitive or at least some marketable work experience and skills, this kind of people used to have low work-moral, so even if someone would willing to employ them, they would be a pain in the ass for their employers. Probably keeping them on benefits is the most efficient way to keep them silent and calm. Without benefits many of them would turn to a violent mob or criminals pretty soon.

[Linuld]

Long-term welfare payments should be limited to the disabled and the elderly. Able-bodied adults under the age of 60 should be banned from receiving welfare checks for more than 3 months continuously. Canada is facing a severe shortage of manpower in some sectors (esp. masons, woodcutters.etc). The government should give them job training and compel them to join the workforce.

Then people without food would do what? Starting to steal like in old times?

The goverments plans to solve these things are so poor, it's not funny. They train people in stupid things on jobs that pay so low that it is pocket money. Since they can't simply create jobs that aren't needed.

If it would be so easy to create jobs then every country would do so. If you say these people have to do it somehow then you will create big unrest only.

There is no such easy solution.

[Linuld]

Here where I live in Texas it has become a source of great income for some, you'll hear talk of people aspiring to "get a crazy check" meaning disability which then gives them a monthly check, free healthcare, and food stamps. After receiving disability, the person is then able to visit one of the many shady psychiatrists operating here providing this service as it has become big business - the "patient" will receive suboxone (@ 90) which they can sell for up to $20 apiece, adderall (@60-90) which will go for @ $10 apiece, and valium or xanax (@ 30-60) - the prescriptions are free to fill with Medicaid/Medicare so that alone is an extra $2500 (or about that amount) combined with their monthly government check. Commercials run constantly on television here for disability lawyers as it has become a big business, it is amazing how people have manipulated the system and are profiting from it yet some in actual need suffer.

Wow, sounds crazy. And the government isn't acting against? I mean at least the police could follow the selling of medicine. And the normal people should push to stop that things.

I doubt that all politicians are that corrupt in your country that nothing can be done.

[Linuld]

There's a lot of research that shows that people on welfare will not look for or engage in work if the pay for that work doesn't exceed the welfare. We need to match the two...welfare should be paired back to not provide more than minimum wages or minimum wages should increase. The problem with minimum wages increasing is that it motivates prices (and the cost of living) to increase as well.

If welfare isn't linked specifically to the objective of getting people that can work back to work, it will never be successful.

Of course disabilities and addictions need to be handled differently but there should be much more surveillance over the appropriate use of government money...some rights should go away when one welfare.

In the Netherlands one gets around $ 1000 welfare if you are single and $ 1500 welfare if you have kids. As a plus you get around $ 90 for healthcare and a large chunk of your rent paid by the state. That does not mean one can sit on his or hers lazy arse. You have to proof that you look for a job and you have to do something back like cleaning the streets or help out at a school or retirement home.

In NED, what are the income qualifications or unemployment qualifications to receive the welfare? I'm curious where the country sets that bar.

You can't simply lower the welfare in order to make bad jobs more attractive. The welfare should be a minimum that is needed to life and take part on life. At least in my country that is the case. Though when you take into account that your rent for the flat is paid and your medicals then it is easily more than the average job.

Most people still want to work because they want to feel useful. They want to do something with their life. Maybe we need a change there that these parasites does not look like the heroes anymore but instead like parasites. The problem is, politicians already tried that. And it can't be done without blaming legit persons that can't work.

It really is one of the big problems of mankind that has no easy solution i think.