Objections to This Welfare Program
(Continued from; A
Lending Hand - A New Kind of Welfare System)
Some will claim this would be an unwieldy welfare system.
Yes, it would be a major task to set this up and run it efficiently.
But the fact that Social Security is currently handled at a cost
of less than 1 percent of disbursements for administration suggests
that this isn't a problem that is unresolvable.
Others will point out that late-life welfare could not be
repaid, especially if Social Security and Medicare are treated
as welfare programs that pay out only to those who need help.
Of course, without millionaires and other high-income citizens
getting these benefits, the money going out would be far less
than what we spend now. Furthermore, there would be large repayments
from estates after death. Even those with low incomes often own
real estate and other assets by the time they are older.
In any case, since there is no repayment now, whatever is
collected would be a huge improvement, fiscally speaking, over
the current situation. Finally, the idea here is to not only
create a system that is much more affordable, but to also truly
help those who need it. Most of us probably don't have a problem
with feeding and taking care of the old who are poor and will
never repay the help.
A few thinkers will despair at the idea that people have to
pay for what was once just a helping hand. As mentioned, though,
the limit on payments is 10 percent of income, and repayments
happen only after a certain threshold, which prevents any effect
of permanent impoverishment. And if people can afford to repay
the help they received, what's wrong with asking them to do so?
It may make the whole system more acceptable to most people,
both recipients and taxpayers. After all, the recipients are
only asking for a loan, and the taxpayers can pay less in the
end.
Also, the system, by allowing all the help currently offered,
but at a lower cost due to repayments, greatly increases our
ability to help people. If there is a need for more help at some
point, we get to spend everything that we do now, and then everything
that is repaid in addition. Only when we get beyond that would
we have any additional cost to taxpayers versus the current situation.
It could be argued that there will be low rates of repayment,
but compared to what? Nothing is repaid in most welfare programs
at the moment. In time we might see as much as 50% of distributed
funds repaid, since most people truly only need help for a few
months or years in their lives, meaning they would not accumulate
great debt in such a system, and could repay it in a few years
time. The payment from the estates at death would also greatly
contribute to the repayment rate.
Some might worry that this debt aspect hides the nature of
what is just welfare, and will encourage more government spending
as a result. Because of the repayments, it certainly allows for
more spending and additional programs if they're deemed worthy.
But there is another aspect to this system that would keep spending
down. It is the cost imposed on the recipients--something missing
from the current programs. Let's look at that in more detail.
There are many people accepting government help right now
who don't need it. If you don't know this you probably don't
have many friends who are enrolled in the various programs that
exist. A man may technically qualify for rental assistance and
Medicare assistance due to his attention deficit disorder, for
example, even though if this were not available he would find
a way to pay the bills (I know of more than one case like this).
He may plan to get back to work eventually, but the lure of easy
money is seductive. On the other hand, if he was incurring a
debt that would need to be repaid, he might be out there getting
a job tomorrow.
I also know families that abuse the Medicaid system by taking
their children to the doctor or hospital for every little sniffle.
They would not be there so often if they were paying, even if
they could pay later when their income went up. And I think it
is safe to assume that they will still obtain medical care for
their kids in the case of real emergencies, even if this meant
incurring a debt. If not, the problem is in the parenting, not
the welfare system, and could be addressed by child protective
services agencies.
With these and hundreds of other possible examples, we can
see that there would be a reduction in the use of these programs.
Certainly, some people who really need help and perhaps can never
work to repay, would collect for a lifetime, but they are the
minority, and would get the help they need. Others, who are at
the edges of need and greed, and know they'll spend much of their
lives working for a living, will prefer not to incur the debt,
and so will decline to apply for help they don't really need.
We can only speculate as to how much this system would reduce
demand for government services and financial help. I suspect
that a quarter or more of recipients in most programs would voluntarily
remove themselves. That would be a huge savings in itself, before
we even take into account the repayments from those who do receive
help.
The Moral Objections
The primary moral objection is the one that a small minority
have with all government assistance to individuals. It is the
idea that it is never fair to take from some people to give to
others. This argues against all government welfare and transfers,
although even those who hold these views usually are okay with
transfers to themselves, such as tax-supported education for
their children even when they could afford to pay tuition.
In any case, the argument is only consistently and strongly
held by a tiny minority, making this a non-issue in terms of
the politics of creating such a system. Already almost everyone
believes in welfare or redistribution of wealth of some sort,
only arguing about the amounts and purposes. I personally think
it isn't ideal to make some give up their money for others, but
it is a matter of values. It is simply more important that we
feed the hungry or house the homeless than allowing myself or
anyone else to keep every penny we make. And as for those who
argue against the poor getting help while their middle class
children eat up tens of thousands of tax dollars attending public
schools... well, it's hard to take them seriously.
I would without a doubt be more strict in requirements for
help (or at least in monitoring recipients to be sure they met
the necessary criteria), and in the forms it takes. In a world
that lives largely on rice and beans, for example, it might not
be terribly unfair to restrict which foods are purchased with
food stamps (although it's perhaps impractical to have such rules).
Name brand packaged foods and steaks are not necessary for health
after all.
I think the expense of more case-management to help people
become independent--and to exclude those who don't really need
help--would be repaid in savings many times over in the long
run. But these are details that can be worked out. They don't
really touch on the basic arguments for helping people when they
need help.
Those who object to any government programs might recognize
that this system will at least cost far less than the outright
payments made now. In that sense, even if they have moral qualms,
they can see that this would be a step in the right direction.
Continues here... Other Welfare Possibilities
|
