What kind of Social Welfare do you support/tolerate?

[Riffraff]

Exept for 10, 17,18 I would support most of these measures, although I would prioritize education and health benefits over benefits for unemployment (these payments really shouldn't be very high) and military.

 

[Elrohir]

To clarify:
I am all for letting different religious societies be able to practice their religious beliefs and that is something that should be funded by the community.
But in my societal model, charity of this kind would not be needed and said organizations should be able to spend their allotted money on other activities.

So the community should fund religious functions, not individual donations? What if members of the community don't want to give their money for such a thing? (Like if a Christian doesn't want to support a Buddhist temple, or an atheist doesn't want to give money for a Christian church, and so on)

 

[Cannae]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Maybe
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Yes
12. No
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. Yes
16. No
17. Yes
18. No
19. Yes

 

[Tycoon101]

Why do many of you feel that money should be put towards the arts, but not towards religious institutions? Is there any fundamental difference that separates the usefulness of artists from the usefulness of religious institutions?

 

[CaptainF]

The less government power, the better.

 

[Richard Cribb]

So the community should fund religious functions, not individual donations? What if members of the community don't want to give their money for such a thing? (Like if a Christian doesn't want to support a Buddhist temple, or an atheist doesn't want to give money for a Christian church, and so on)

So what? Since the whole system is based on taxes, it happens that money is spent on things certain individuals object to. Such is the nature of a democratic system, and those people have to accept it and/or work to get political changes more in accordance to their ideas and principles.

The less government power, the better.

That depends on the situation. A lot.

 

[downtown]

That depends on the situation. A lot.

I agree. I can see why you'd be frusterated discussing social welfare with a bunch of teenagers sometimes

I just cannot fathom how one can justify not spending money on an orphanage...'specially if you a) oppose abortion, or b) say that "social spending isnt needed because people should care for themselves

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why do many of you feel that money should be put towards the arts, but not towards religious institutions? Is there any fundamental difference that separates the usefulness of artists from the usefulness of religious institutions?

Art can be enjoyed by all. It's not about usefullness. Religious institutes allready get taxbreaks for their charity work don't they? (or so I heard).

edit: Now about the religious art, like the ones in church, I would be in favour of spending money to preserve and exhibit those as well.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

1. Short-time grant for unemployment
No.

2. Long-time grant for unemployment (homeless people and such)
Definitely not.

3. Funding for public school on level of primary/secondary
Yes. But I also want public school run a whole lot better than they are now.

4. Funding for public school on level of university/college/institution/research center
No. This is a complicated one since our society expects 'everyone' to get a college degree but this has come about because of government funding of college level education. Tax payer money shouldn't be spent on people getting an Art degree. However, I do see how it can be beneficial to the country to help students get educated in 'useful' subjects such as engineering and medicine. But all in all, once over 18, citizens should be responsible for themselves.

5. Funding for orphanage/refugee center
Yes. I also wish it were easier for potential adoptive parents to adopt children.

6. Funding for public training center (for immigrants/misdemeanors/young unemployment)
No. Actually I am not quite sure what this is. Train people for what?

7. Funding for public hospitals/medical center/mental illness center
No.

8. Grant to those who suffer currently incurable diseases (AIDS and such)
No.

9. Grant to hospitals if epidemics/plague breakout
Yes. I think an epidemic would constitute a nation emergency and therefore funding to contain it would be appropriate.

10. Compulsory medical insurance
No.

11. Funding for the police
Yes, certainly.

12. Funding for investigation equipments (such as cameras around street corner)
Hell, no.

13. Funding for rehab/prison
Prison yes, rehab no. I also think we should get rid of victimless crimes so that our prison system wouldn't cost us so much money.

14. Grant to those who don't have money for a lawyer and may face unfair judgment. (Guantanamo anyone?)
Yes, but I don't know what Guantanamo has to do with this. Those that are in Guantanamo are not American citizens and therefore don't have the same rights that American citizens do.

15. Funding for intelligence/crime prevention center (FBI and such)
Yes, but not to the extent it is today. I see the FBI and such as a logical extension to the police force.

16. Funding for military
Yes, of course.

17. Funding for artists/arts
Hell, no

18. Funding for religion organizations
Double hell, no.

19. Private/religious organizations for social welfare and chastity
Triple hell, no.

20. We shouldn't fund any government at the start
No, government is a necessary evil. Though I think that the 16th amendment should have made the maximum income tax 10% for all people except in a time of war or national emergency which only congress could declare. We would also need another amendment which would state that the federal government would be obligated to have a balanced budget except again in times of war or national emergency. Not only would government be more streamlined by necessity but it would limit the president's power to go to war. I would not be adverse to small social programs as long as they could be run with these rules.

 

[Tycoon101]

Art can be enjoyed by all. It's not about usefullness. Religious institutes allready get taxbreaks for their charity work don't they? (or so I heard).

I dislike a great deal of art. Just because someone says that they are an "artist", that does not not mean that I agree with them. If I enjoy smashing cars together and calling the resulting mess "art", who is to judge? Should I get a tax break on account of my supposed "art"? I can sell this "art" for lucrative amounts of money, so I can gain money from both tax payers and art lovers.

edit: Now about the religious art, like the ones in church, I would be in favour of spending money to preserve and exhibit those as well.

Religious art is often donated to religious institutions. Much religious art is part of the architexture of a religious institution. Would you say that the government should buy these religious buildings when they are failing, pile art within them, and call the building a "Religious Art Exibit"?

 

[mdwh]

I am all for letting different religious societies be able to practice their religious beliefs and that is something that should be funded by the community.

How would you choose which religions receive money? What about all the people who do not belong to an organised religion, but perhaps have an individual religion, or if not, they still have beliefs?

Would there be any restrictions on the usage? (E.g., it's one thing to pay for upkeep for a Church, another thing if the religion then uses that for political campaigning to enforce its beliefs, for example.)

 

[mdwh]

Why do many of you feel that money should be put towards the arts, but not towards religious institutions? Is there any fundamental difference that separates the usefulness of artists from the usefulness of religious institutions?

One is producing something, the other is a particular type of beliefs. I don't see how they're related - you might as well say "Well, we fund education, so surely we should give money to people who preach that fairies exist?"

My main concern though with giving money to organised religion is not the idea of giving money to something that might give people comfort (even if it's nothing to do with me), it's the power that mainstream religion wields in influencing others through a variety of means (politically, trying to convert people, influencing children and so on). Organised religion is rich and powerful enough, if anything it's secular organisations and non-organised religions that need help.

Edit: Actually I think the comparison to art works the other way - I'm not overly convinced for the need to fund art, but the main reason for doing so is as a form of protectionism, to protect locally produced art from getting put out of business from everything churned out by America.

But if that were to apply to religion, then if anything this would mean that the mainstream religions (i.e., Christianity in the US/UK) do not get funding, but minor and non-organised religions *do* get funding.

Christianity is doing fine, and it's problems are not due to either a lack of power, money or supporters. I mean, I think people would be a lot less likely to support public money going to Hollywood or the mainstream music companies!

 

[Ayatollah So]

Prettywell anything where there's a positive payout (on investment) is acceptable: and there's a host of such programs. In addition, charity programs for the weaker members of society are acceptable

Well summed-up. It's worth mentioning that charity programs have big positive externalities too, since everyone who cares about raising the "floor" of their society benefits from the effects of not only their own tax dollars at work, but those of others as well. That's why leaving it up to voluntary donations alone will result in under-investment in charitable works. Just as, to take another example, leaving basic scientific research up to voluntary donations/efforts alone would result in under-investment in science.

@ REDY: great sig.

 

[Princeps]

Wrong thread!!!!!

 

[CaptainF]

That depends on the situation. A lot.

By and large, though, it isn't the right course of action.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I agree. I can see why you'd be frusterated discussing social welfare with a bunch of teenagers sometimes

Indeed.Spoiled yougsters with capitalist avatars spouting out corporate mantras leaves a very foul taste in the mouth.

I just cannot fathom how one can justify not spending money on an orphanage...'specially if you a) oppose abortion, or b) say that "social spending isnt needed because people should care for themselves

Probably a lack of life experience, especially concerning hardship, combined with a strange ideology basically supporting capitalism (or the fabled free market)for the poor and socialism for the rich (Have a look at the conservative nannystate in my sig).

How would you choose which religions receive money?

Allow me to quote myself:

Yes, provided they are not breaking any laws or violating central human rights.

That means that I am against public support of organizations that is for instance discraminating women or other ethinicties on a principal basis, as well as those that are encouraging violent actions. And no, I am not only or particulary thinking of Muslims.

What about all the people who do not belong to an organised religion, but perhaps have an individual religion, or if not, they still have beliefs?

There is a difference between running an organization and being an individual, also cost-wise. As for atheists, as stated earlier some of your tax-money will always go to things you don't benefit from yourself or don't like. That's life.

Would there be any restrictions on the usage? (E.g., it's one thing to pay for upkeep for a Church, another thing if the religion then uses that for political campaigning to enforce its beliefs, for example.)

In principle no, except for that mentioned above.

By and large, though, it isn't the right course of action.

In today's situation the alternative to be governed by those whom we to a certain degree have chosen and to a certain degree can influence, is to be governed by those
whom we have not chosen and can't influence at all.
Do you think that is better?

 

[theimmortal1]

That depends on the situation. A lot.

I agree. I can see why you'd be frusterated discussing social welfare with a bunch of teenagers sometimes

I just cannot fathom how one can justify not spending money on an orphanage...'specially if you a) oppose abortion, or b) say that "social spending isnt needed because people should care for themselves

First of all, it seems you have a general disconnect between government spending and private spending. I do nto support taxation. It is theft. It is slavery. But that doesn't mean I do not support orphanages. That doesn't mean I do not support benefits. It means that those things must ocme from the private sector amongst willing participants.

Social welfare is generally for the people that are unable to support themselves to the degree they wish due to lack of intelligence/education or motivation.

If you wish to help the poor; donate to charity. If you wish to help orphans; start an orphanage, volunteer your team, give your money. Do not force me to hold the same ideals as you.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I dislike a great deal of art. Just because someone says that they are an "artist", that does not not mean that I agree with them. If I enjoy smashing cars together and calling the resulting mess "art", who is to judge? Should I get a tax break on account of my supposed "art"? I can sell this "art" for lucrative amounts of money, so I can gain money from both tax payers and art lovers.'

It's hard to judge what is art and what isn't. And I'm sure you can poke holes in my favoured situation, but I don't think the point of this thread is practicality. Every arrangement of philosophy proposed is full of holes in practise. It's like being against upholding the law because there will be people breaking it.

Religious art is often donated to religious institutions. Much religious art is part of the architexture of a religious institution. Would you say that the government should buy these religious buildings when they are failing, pile art within them, and call the building a "Religious Art Exibit"?

Many churches allready have tourist arrangements. About every major European city I have been in had some sort of church which had those.

 

[Grisu]

Non at all. You should be responcable for your self. If you can't plan your financing to afford your own needs thats not my fault nor my problem.

Law enforcement and military are not social wellfair programmes.

so if we don't fund social welfare programmes, why should we fund military and law enforcement. after all it's not my fault or problem that you can't defend yourself against criminals, terrorists and hostile nations

anyway, I support 1 through 15, 16 on a reduced scale

 

[Richard Cribb]

First of all, it seems you have a general disconnect between government spending and private spending.

Of course I have. There is such a thing as society. but I prefer the term public spending actually.

I do nto support taxation. It is theft. It is slavery.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for that sort of mind-numbing tedium, it is neither new nor exciting to me, and I find it immature and silly. First of all, if anything is theft, it is indeed private property. Secondly, if you compare giving a bit of your money to the community with being the property of somebody else, then don't expect me to take you seriously.

But that doesn't mean I do not support orphanages. That doesn't mean I do not support benefits. It means that those things must ocme from the private sector amongst willing participants.

Fine. If that is your opinion just keep it; I never said you couldn't.
But excuse me if I don't sound particulary enchanted nor interested. I find this to be too serious an issue to base its solution of it on the whims of wealthy individuals.

Social welfare is generally for the people that are unable to support themselves to the degree they wish due to lack of intelligence/education or motivation.

Social welfare is generally for people who lacks material ressources due to a number of socio-economic and/or personal factors. It is true that this can also lead to lack of education (not intelligence) and "motivation", after all being on the bottom steps on the societal ladder does things to you.
But please, stick to your version; so you can reside happily in your ivory-tower.

If you wish to help the poor; donate to charity. If you wish to help orphans; start an orphanage, volunteer your team, give your money. Do not force me to hold the same ideals as you.

Huh? Seems like it is the other way round; you are indeed telling me what to do.
I have already given my opinion on charity, and I don't feel for elaborating it, at least not at the moment.
Furthermore, I am forcing nobody to anything, but the whole premise in this thread ought to be that in any given society there are certain rules one must follow, despite whatever "ideals" one is holding.
And that is called growing up.