Quote:
|
I oppose benefits by right because I don't believe in that right. I don't believe that we have an inalienable right to any sort of assistance. It is charity given by the rest of us. If you collect benefits then I hope there is a feeling connected to it of thankfulness that other people were kind enough to lend a hand at their own expense. If the government gives you $100 is it any different from my friends and I putting together $100 for you from among us?
|
Think of it more as society's savings club. When we are in work and solvent, as most of us are, most of the time, we pay in. If we are having difficulties and require that extra assistance, we draw on the savings. Unless a system is very badly managed and underfunded, having a benefits system increases people's economic viability/activity. Having a larger disposable income means people are less inclined to throw that income into the grey economy, instead they are more likely to put it into the open economyby buying things from shops. They are less likely to raise children in a chaotic and damaging environment and less likely to succomb to crime and drugs.
As long as the benefits are accompanied by better access to training and education and efforts are made to stop the 'race to the bottom' on wages which leads to factories closing in Detroit and reopening in Mexico, then people who are helped in this way are far more likely to rejoin the working population rather than become further and further isolated from it. Having returned to work someone is then putting back into the savings fund. If it's managed correctly, many of the people using that savings fund are also the people who pay into that fund.
In terms of the minority who will always disconnect themselves from the mainstream and take from the system without attemtping to pay back in: I consider that an acceptable loss leader on getting the majority out of poverty and social exclusion, back into economic activity and able to contribute to increasing the country's wealth/health.