The debate "The unemployed should not receive state benefits. nWhy or why not" was started by
January 2, 2019, 7:53 pm.
By the way, Vvvvvvv is disagreeing with this statement.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 48 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
UnleashedPatriotism posted 1 argument, Thinkinghead posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
SMNR, UnleashedPatriotism, LucyTheDebatorQueen, killer, Thinkinghead and 15 visitors agree.
Vvvvvvv, TheExistentialist, Nemiroff, Nanjinga_90, WiseWords, politicsislife, TJefferson, Kronicle, historybuff, freakofnaturespitbucket and 38 visitors disagree.
the state shouldnt exist at all as per your first sentence? or did you leave out a word?
i get your point, it makes sense ideally... but in reality, what do you think will happen to this country if there was an economic downturn (as is often the result of laissez faire economics)? what will happen when a sizeable portion (5-10%) of the nation losses employment, cant afford their rent, and end up completely removed from the economy?
what would a decreasing consumer base do to businesses? and what options will those people have going forward? what will the net effect be on the individuals as well as the nation?
State shouldn't exit. Everyone should be responsible for his own wealth. If there weren't taxis, which rob us almost half of the money we earn it would be easier. Solidarity should be volunteering, if someone is passing a bad moment could be voluntary help by family, friends or private organisations that each person could support according with his own values or interested. If state administrate solidarity politics rob some of the money and decided how that money (which is not theirs) should be spend
Also, this would make social services massively uneven. If people in one area decided they didn't want to provide any social safety net, or just the absolute minimum required, who is going to protect the unemployed people in that area?
In the area I grew up in, there is a couple of quite rich families that are very influential. They have been able to convince town councils to do things that they otherwise wouldn't have or shouldn't have done. Your plan would give control of the social safety net to men like that who would much rather provide the least social safety net possible if they can keep their taxes a little lower.
With all due respect, that sounds terrible. Let's say there is a specific area that relies on coal mining. Well coal isn't a very sought after commodity these days. So coal mines close and a large number of people are put out of work. This results in less money in the local community being spent at businesses, as the main source of earnings is gone, as well as a large number of unemployed people.
Your idea would mean that the local communities would have to provide the "social safety net" for these people. But they are clearly not going to be able to do that since the entire local economy is going to be hit. By comparison, areas of the country that are much richer will have a much lower unemployment rate, because they're all rich. So their taxes wouldn't have to support anyone.
Your plan is essentially to offload social systems from the central government which would be much better able to cope with situations like this and to force it onto the local communities that will be much less able to support people. All this would do would be to help rich people and hurt poor people. Is that your intention?
I vote not simply because "state" it's too far removed from the individual for my taste.
I am all for the idea of social safety nets, however, I prefer them as close to the individual receiving it as possible. This would mean cities and counties collect the taxes & distribute it to programs residents vote on.