@jamesqf: I don't really know either, but the Anarchist Club sponsored the latest Marxism Conference, so I confused the two. I guess with a really strained understanding of 'socialism' you could postulate the ideal state as being a non-state because everybody knows what they're supposed to do by osmosis and is 100% reliable in doing so - in other words, a Skynet robot paradise. Just don't tell the luddite anarchists! =P
@Schaefer Light: "I believe that a reduction of govt support would encourage better lifestyle choices."
I disagree - it just punishes bad lifestyle choices, and punishes the next generation for the sins of the father.
Children born into poverty literally don't know better - they don't get the chance. How many poor people do you interact with on a regular basis? I doubt it'd be many except through the must cursory transactions, because people tend to self-segregate. Don't feel bad if that's true - I do it too. However, the consequence is that almost every role model a child can attempt to reflect will be one who has experienced significant bad luck or made bad lifestyle choices. So the deck is stacked against these people making good lifestyle choices to begin with. Take away the safety net that prevents absolute poverty, and you have a recipe for crime - people who don't have a strong positive outlook, with poor role models, without the resources to make a better life even if they know what they want, so they decide the best course of action is to take resources by physical force. At least with bread and circuses, the poor can be left to stew in their own juices quietly until the State or charities give them the non-financial assistance they need to get off the bottom rung - education, healthcare, guidance and motivation, etc.
"Welfare money should be used to prevent people from starving. It shouldn't be going to people who have TVs, stereos, cell phones, Xboxes, etc."
This is actually quite an illuminating statement, because there is an expectation that a person who has an Xbox, say, has sufficient resources to avoid destitution. Yet the poverty level in developed countries is a fair bit higher than starvation level. Adam Smith in Vol 5 of The Wealth of Nations described necessities as "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without." See
Wealth of Nations page 676 in that compilation. He goes on to discuss how ownership of a linen shirt and leather shoes is a de facto necessity. It is quite arguable that in these days a mobile phone as most individuals' primary communication device could be considered a necessity. You may be able to stretch the same argument for a TV or stereo as means by which an individual can feel connected to their society, much the same way attendance at church and the pub, or crowding around the wireless or waiting for the post were in the past.
But to a more practical matter: due to the great improvements in manufacturing capability, neither a TV nor stereo nor phone nor Xbox is so expensive that it is possible to prevent someone on welfare acquiring one without making it very likely someone else on welfare cannot afford to eat. This is largely due to the high proportion of household spending that is comprised of rent. For a basis of comparison, here in Melbourne rent for a one-bedroom flat can go anywhere from $200 in dodgy areas to $400+ in nicer ones. If you set welfare payments at a threshold where a recipient can only live in the dodgy areas, there are repercussions: a person who loses their job in the 'nice' area will need to relocate to a poorer one; the worse areas tend to have poorer job prospects, poorer public services, etc. But if you set the payment at a threshold where the person in the 'nice' area paying $400 can scrape by, the person in $200 a week housing suddenly can buy an Xbox every two-and-a-half-weeks (at $500) with the surplus. If we want to prevent people on welfare from being able to afford anything other than the bare necessities of survival, then obviously we cannot subsidise people without jobs who are renting in nice CBD apartments.
But let's take the argument one step further. On Gumtree, a local classifieds website like Craigslist, there are individuals who are offering rooms to sublet in apartments or houses, from $100 a week on up. If we argued that welfare should not suffice to rent a $400-a-week place because it lets someone in a $200 a week place buy Xboxes, then it also makes sense that welfare should not suffice to rent a $200-a-week place because it lets someone in a share house paying $100 a week buy Xboxes (~one every 5 weeks).
What about a person who is crashing on a friend's couch in exchange for doing the dishes? If we give enough welfare to let the person paying $100 a week rent survive... (MOAR XBOXES)
Do we allow enough welfare to let a person with a car keep it in running order, all the better for getting to the next job they get? Or do we force them to give it up and take PT, sacrificing access to certain employment because it is inaccessible via PT?
Do we give enough welfare for recipients to eat meat five days a week? Three?
The point I am trying to make is that there are compromises that must be made in order to create a fair and equitable outcome. At some point, those who set the value of transfer payments need to decide what should be sufficient for most recipients to survive. For those who have a more financially optimised existence, that amount will result in a surplus which can go to luxuries. I conclude that it is impossible to set a level of welfare benefits so low that it prevents any recipient from obtaining any luxuries, but is high enough to ensure that no recipient starves. The only fair option in my opinion is to set the quantity of benefits at a level that provides reasonable assurance that no recipient starves except through truly foolish choices (booze'n'smokes'n'pokies on payday), despite the fact that certain other recipients will have a surplus. Regrettably, no government short of a military state can force individuals to eat three square meals a day... Pass me that MRE. ^_^
Even the food stamps program (SNAP) is ineffective, because the stamps are largely fungible - they can be readily substituted for cash. The only way to avoid this behaviour in order to prevent the acquisition of illicit contraband PS4s is to literally control what items people get - good luck with that.
Obviously there is a point at which welfare payments become excessive and the withdrawal of benefits forms a substantial disincentive to work. This is the other fundamental issue with welfare design. One of the arguments for a 'basic income' is that it avoids the disincentivisation of work that other welfare schemes inevitably impose. The basic income is a guaranteed minimum income which is recovered through taxation rather than withdrawn as the individual earns income, set at a level which allows (almost all) recipients to meet basic needs, but would be ample only for the most frugal ERE types. Such an idea is politically unfeasible, but it does make for a nice talking point. What thinkest thou?
EDIT: Tried to correct a misplaced period; discovered it was a bug sitting on my monitor. I feel really smart now...
