rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (01/07/85)
i'm posting this for a friend. please do not respond to me, respond to the address given at the bottem of this letter. ron -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re-distribution of wealth and government entitlement programs (such as welfare and social security) are wrong. Both ethically and practically. The graduated tax system, for the purpose of re-distribution of wealth through the welfare and social security systems, is wrong. It violates my basic property rights by forcing me to give up some of the money that I have earned so that it can be given to someone who the government has judged to be poor. If I have earned that money, I should be free to spend it as I see fit. This includes the decision of how much money I would like to give to needy people, if any at all. The idea of re-distribution of wealth also violates the basic rights of the needy, though in a more subtle way. It violates their right to pursuit of happiness. Who assumed that needy people don't want to be needy? If a person wanted to earn money, he is certainly free to, and there is no lack of jobs. If a person doesn't want to work, the government should leave him free to pursue the lifestyle of his choice. If he truly needs help, he can seek it among the private charities that are funded by money freely given by those who earned it. There are several ways that re-distribution of wealth hurts the country monetarily. First, since it is administered by the government (instead of private organizations), there is inherent waste that robs all, rich and poor alike, of money because of the bureaucracy. Secondly, it removes incentive to work from the poor and jobless because their needs will be met by the government. It keeps old people from planning for the future because they depend on social security, it leads un-wedded mothers to have more children just to get more benefits, and causes a host of other ills. Thirdly, it removes incentives from the richer people to advance them- selves. To work harder to advance yourself will only put you in higher tax bracket. And the harder you work, and the more you earn, the more money the government will take. I guess people don't realize it, but this is discrimination. A discrimination against talent and motivation, which must be the most counter-productive kind of discrimination that there is, because it cuts down the very best in us and promotes mediocrity. It slowly saps the strength of this country until we won't be able to feed anyone, much less the poor. The simple fact is, we can't afford the welfare system. We can't afford to feed the world. Look at the federal deficit. We have shortfalls in the budget because of the amount of money that the government spends on entitlements. We will have to pay for it someday. Who will be left to do it? The work force grows smaller all the time as its ranks are sapped by people who come under the government's care. When are we going to turn the trend around? Besides which, we are paying for the deficit right now. We are paying for it in terms of inflation (like we saw in the 70's) and in a tight money supply (like high interest rates in the 80's). This causes a shortage of capital needed to improve industry so that it can compete on the open market. The steel industry has already fallen prey to this effect. Who will be next? In effect we are eating the seed corn of our industrial society, a policy that can only lead to the collapse of our economy. And the humanitarians should remember: if our economy collapses, what are the poor going to do then? Replies to: Russell Spence ihnp4!ihlpm!russ AT&T Technologies Naperville, IL
adolph@mprvaxa.UUCP (Stephen Adolph) (01/24/85)
I always find it interesting when Americans complain about the tax system sapping the life blood and vitality of their nation away when Canadians are taxed much more heavily. However this is not my main point. Yes I agree the social welfare system is a massive economic burden, I am reminded of this every two weeks when Her Majesty's government freely takes its share of my meagre ( in my opinion ) earnings. However, consider this, did the poor make a conscious decision to be poor ? Did they have or will they have the opportunity to improve their stature ? One expression often used by those of a more conservative nature is the so called "welfare bum". I have no doubts these people exist ( there are even a few companies who fall in this category, but thats for another posting ), however many of those on welfare are there because of desparation and what is worse there is no path out for them. A reform of the social welfare system is required, but a reform which will open doors for those on welfare and lead to lives which will be productive. I am quite sure almost anyone on welfare would prefer to be a master of their own destiny rather than living on the good graces of the state. What kind of reforms are necessary ? Two which I would suggest are: 1) Improve educational opportunities. Face it, there are not many menial jobs around anymore even if there was someone who wanted one. Make continuing education widely available, ensure the children of welfare recipients know they can have the opportunity to advance to university, not just the exceptionly bright, but also the mediocre (like the rest of us). 2) Improve day care facilities. A large number of receipients are single mothers trying to raise a family. For them to attend school or work is almost impossible because of family requirements. These are two suggestions. I am quite sure that in many provinces and states there are programs similar to the ones I have mentioned perhaps they are working, perhaps they are not. The final question still remains though: Is there opportunity ? Without opportunity there cannot be reform. From the tall forests of British Columbia, Steve Adolph