Is it ever moral to go on welfare?

[Uncle Rich]

Where are the pirates among you?!?!

I'd say anything that helps speed up the destruction of the welfare state is generally good, such as draining it and making it economically unfeasable.

We're living in nations where 95%(figure of speech) of people think we should have some level of social services, and half the people want to open up their wallets further for you to take more money from them.

As long as you don't risk going to jail or being fined, and it doesn't infringe on your goals in life, take advantage of every stupid little program offered by the welfare state. Always vote against it and openly denounce it, but if it takes little effort, take it. At some point reality hits people that government is inefficient and at worst, demand stricter rules on the handing out of tax money.

I think it was Milton Friedman who said something about, we don't want government programs to be efficient and inexpensive, we want the opposite so people realize government shouldn't be doing these things.

Taking more out of the system than you put in is irrelevant since the system is immoral in the first place, and the majority of people want the system in place to some extent.

I agree with this and let me tell you why.

Thinking about "what would happen if everybody else did this" is a typical Kantian attitude.

Why should you sacrifice yourself just to keep an immoral born-dead system artificially alive?

I am living in Germany. My country is far more socialised than the US.

The worst thing to do here is to accept a job with a low wage as an employee.

Because if you do, a very high percentage of your working time would be stolen from you by government "insurances".

For public healthcare you pay ~13% +/- 2% of your salary depending on which public health fund you choose.

However all of them have to provide exactly the same healthcare benefits and differ only in efficiency.

Old-age pension insurance is 19,5% of your salary. The money is first mooched by the bureaucracy of the "old-age pension insurance", then the rest of it is paid to today's pensioners. You don't know what you might get out of it in the future.

Unemployment insurance takes another 6,5%. Same re-distribution system as the old-age pension "insurance".

Now they have taken away from you 39% already.

Suppose you don't pay individual tax because you only earn the untaxable minimum of ~8000 EUR / year.

Then you pay 19% "value added tax" for nearly everything you buy.

As housing rents are not subject to VAT yet I assume that you pay half of your 8000 EUR for consumption, so I assume you pay 9,5% of those 61% for "value added tax", so they have taken from you ~45% of your earnings.

So as an employee you usually work for the system half of your time if you earn that less money that you do not have to pay tax.

If you have a very high income (48500 EUR+ / year) you can avoid some of the "insurance" at the price of an increased tax.

If you are self-employed the situation is different.

You can get private healthcare for ~ 60 EUR / month (if you are young and healthy) and that's it. Healthcare is only an obligation for employees.

Additionally you will need ~ 100 EUR / month for tax and legal advice as German laws are very, very complicated.

You might cash in many government subsidies if your business is in the right sector.

The downside of being self-employed is that if you violate complicated tax laws or one of all those "fair competition" laws you can often only hope for mercy.

Also many people are artificially prevented from getting self-employed because you need an allowance for many kinds of business that is usually not granted, e.g. as a craftsman.

As a receiver of welfare social workers help you to fill out the forms, in fact you only have to appear to be "believable in need".

They pay ~350 EUR / month + housing costs.

You receive free healthcare and free legal advice. You don't need tax advice.

Additionally the government even pays your court cases against the government. The case might take years while you are still in the need of benefits.

Sometimes receivers of welfare are "unofficially" self-employed (e.g. as craftsmen) and enjoy the freedom not to have to explain how they make their living to tax authorities. As bank accounts are controlled more and taking money would be illegal because of their welfare status, they will resort to barter: I repair your car while you paint my living room. I invite you to a skiing holiday in my government-paid flat in the alps in the winter while I visit you in yours at the coast in the summer. I might exchange self-grown potatoes against healthcare, etc.

So if you want to be "self-employed" without all the government hassle it often seems very practical to "officially" become welfare-receiver. Everybody is happy, no questions, no envy. Depending on your situtation it may be illegal but there are lawyers who will figure out your situation and give you the right suggestions.

You might enjoy to write a novel or a computer program. Or become a part-time-farmer just for growing your own healthy food. Or even a doctor taking care for "illegal" immigrants in exchange for free lunch at the restaurant belonging to their only "legal" family member.

Use the system where possible, because it is already there.

I just would be unhappy if you would become a dull bum drinking alcohol, smoking marihuana or taking other drugs and watching TV all day.

Welfare often supports this behaviour, but it is also possible to create something good (for you) if you live on welfare.

Kindest regards,

Uncle Rich

[John McVey]

Like (a stack of) here and other places.

I was referring to this particular thread, but point taken.

JJM

[$$$]

For public health-care you pay ~13% +/- 2% of your salary depending on which public health fund you choose.

(off topic - You're allowed to choose your health care! Not here in socialist health care Canada. Your taxes are crazy though.)

I'd like to add that I think draining the welfare system isn't a futile idea either, in case someone brings that up.

It seems to me, in my own country, since the mid 1990s the population in general became fed-up with the way the welfare state was being run. Since the mid 1990s we have had tax cuts in most provinces and nationally. We have had a reduction in debt and few deficit budgets across the country. The central bank has been more responsible, concentrating on keeping inflation down. I think government has become slightly more efficient in many areas, more privatizations, public-private deals (still better than 100% public),lowering restrictions on business and free trade.

Spending has still gone through the roof though as more wealth has been generated over this time. Overall though, people have a new lower tolerance level of the welfare state.

I'm guessing many other nations have experienced this as well.

Edited April 6, 2007 by $$$

[Uncle Rich]

I'd like to add that I think draining the welfare system isn't a futile idea either, in case someone brings that up.

It seems to me, in my own country, since the mid 1990s the population in general became fed-up with the way the welfare state was being run. Since the mid 1990s we have had tax cuts in most provinces and nationally. We have had a reduction in debt and few deficit budgets across the country. The central bank has been more responsible, concentrating on keeping inflation down. I think government has become slightly more efficient in many areas, more privatizations, public-private deals (still better than 100% public),lowering restrictions on business and free trade.

Spending has still gone through the roof though as more wealth has been generated over this time. Overall though, people have a new lower tolerance level of the welfare state.

I'm guessing many other nations have experienced this as well.

In my country household deficits and national debt still keep rising and rising.

Politicians talk about "reforms" every day but nobody with brains would believe their nonsense.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 caused a greater acceptance of police state methods even in Germany.

Bank account and e-mail sniffing and interrogations of your neighbors are examples.

Germans don't have a problem with terrorism, but the media tells us so.

Welfare benefits also have been reduced after September 11. But not bureaucracy, public "insurance" costs and tax.

When you demand liberalization, "reformers" just cut down your benefits and buy a bigger gun.

The ideal government victim is the employee, the even more ideal victim is the mortgage-paying employee, because he can be taxed to death and often will work himself to death just to keep up the illusion of owning an own house which belongs to the bank which belongs to or has their boys in the government.

Governments do not really want you to be self-employed or unemployed.

So these both styles of living are subject to increasing control, risk and pressure.

Making believable that you are in need of benefits has become harder in Germany and also in Great Britain to reduce freeloading.

But at the cost of more bureaucrats that now sniff in bank accounts and ask neighbours about your personal situation.

At the same time more bureaucratic laws are introduced to control private life and the business sector as a sacrifice for the "fight against terrorism" - where there is no terrorism in Germany.

In reality those laws only help tax-collectors and benefit-recollectors.

So at the moment the welfare state is in a situation where it realizes that mooching-by-distributing becomes harder.

Instead of giving up and leaving people on their own they resort to guns.

Because they "feel" that they "have to" make people good if they don't sacrifice theirself for their "humanitarian" system voluntarily.

That's the philosophy of the "welfare" system.

Please tell me where Galt's Gulch is or where we can build it.

Kindest regards,

Uncle Rich

Edited April 6, 2007 by Uncle Rich

[hunterrose]

It is moral to break law only as part of a wider campaign of civil disobedience actively aimed at bringing a bad government or political system down by force, and we are absolutely nowhere near that stage.

Why not?

I kind of wonder if ... welfare will corrupt you.

It got Anakin!

Please tell me where Galt's Gulch is or where we can build it.

Keep your eyes open...

[John McVey]

Why not?

Firstly, because key freedoms are still in place. We are still free to promote Objectivism and all we stand for, still free to elect our government representatives, still free to petition the said representatives for redress of grievances, and all manner of other means of changing the system without using force. I see the topic has already been discussed before (something for a FAQ, David?).

Second, because we as yet simply do not have the numbers to maintain the proper form of government without resorting to force and hence violating the very rights we would be supposedly protecting.

JJM

[K-Mac]

Last January, my husband was laid off from his job. He filed for unemployment and started receiving payments while looking for work.

Reasons the payments upset me:

1.) I feel like I'm depending on someone else

2.) I feel like I am giving someone else permission to make decisions for me and/or living by someone else's terms

3.) I feel like I am accepting stolen money

Reasons the payments do not upset me:

1.) My husband's employer was an idiot, irresponsible business owner (who will soon be out of business and rightfully so) and we should not be punished for his mistakes

2.) The payments allowed us to "get by" and sustain our current lifestyle while my husband was finding a new job

3.) We pay taxes and my husband's former employer paid unemployment insurance premiums (albeit forced to do so by the state/feds) so that the benefit could be paid out/back to us in the event of unemployment

Being new to all of this, I would like some feedback on the Objectivists point of view when it comes to receiving welfare (of this nature and others.) Am I correct to feel conflicted about accepting the payments?

[knast]

Being new to all of this, I would like some feedback on the Objectivists point of view when it comes to receiving welfare (of this nature and others.) Am I correct to feel conflicted about accepting the payments?

Hi Kelly,

I will quote Ayn Rand's answer to this particular question:

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today's society. We are frequently asked the questions: "Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, privare or public?" and: "Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?"

I shall hasten to answer: "Yes"...

The right to accept [public scholarships] rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have.

...

[T]he advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents... The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer some small restitution, the victims should take it... (Ayn Rand, The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, (New York: Meridian, 1989), pp 40-42.)

The principle is of course the same for welfare or public unemployment aid. I hope this answered your question.

[K-Mac]

I think you answered it. Basically, we should not feel guilty for taking the unemployment funds because part of our income has been taken from us, albeit against our will, for that purpose?

[Inspector]

I think you answered it. Basically, we should not feel guilty for taking the unemployment funds because part of our income has been taken from us, albeit against our will, for that purpose?

Remember also that "upset" does not mean "guilty." Being unemployed and reliant on the whim of a bureaucrat who decides if you "need" the money (that you paid for while you worked) still stinks.

[K-Mac]

Remember also that "upset" does not mean "guilty." Being unemployed and reliant on the whim of a bureaucrat who decides if you "need" the money (that you paid for while you worked) still stinks.

You're right, I don't feel guilt. It makes me angry.