Should The Government Achieve A Welfare States?
Introduction
“Using government to achieve a welfare state involves using other people's money, taken by force — and that is a fatal flaw that leads to fiscal catastrophe."1 Ultimately, welfare states do more bad than good for a country and its people. They create temporary solutions for problems that require many resources and time. Even with the problems welfare states correct, they still create more problems that they fix. These glitches can be seen through the United Kingdom. The tax structure and welfare benefits seen in the United Kingdom highlight the problems of a welfare state. People are taxed at high rates to provide funding for those are unemployed or cannot work. Without strict unemployment benefits, some people choose not to …show more content…
When a person is living comfortably while receiving free support from the government then they have no reason to work. So why work? The government’s support makes finding a job the less appealing option. There is no need to work if you live, eat, and have spending money provided by the government. This lack of working effort creates a stagnant unattractive economy.
One example of economic inactivity is shown in a BBC news story. One family receives €30,284 a year to live. The father has been out of work since 2001 because “The market for (his) skills dried up 10 years ago.”3 Instead of receiving training in a new field the father decided to stay on unemployment. There is no reason for him to find a job when he is being paid to sit home by the UK government. The U.K.’s unemployment benefits cover housing, cable TV, a bar allowance, and a cell phone contract. With more than the necessities covered by the government there is no need for someone to go and get a low paying run of the mill job. This creates a stagnant economy with no wealth creation. Individuals that are paid for doing nothing they do not contribute to a country’s social and economic …show more content…
When the government incentivizes unemployment it serves to sustain or increase unemployment. If the penalty for not working is roughly €30,000 in UK then it is not much of a penalty at all. There is comfort offered by not contributing to a country’s economy. Many people choose to not work and therefore do not have any social mobility. According to recent data by the deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, “Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse.”5 This data does not bode well for the U.K. unless something is done the country will remain stagnant both socially and economically for the foreseeable
“Using government to achieve a welfare state involves using other people's money, taken by force — and that is a fatal flaw that leads to fiscal catastrophe."1 Ultimately, welfare states do more bad than good for a country and its people. They create temporary solutions for problems that require many resources and time. Even with the problems welfare states correct, they still create more problems that they fix. These glitches can be seen through the United Kingdom. The tax structure and welfare benefits seen in the United Kingdom highlight the problems of a welfare state. People are taxed at high rates to provide funding for those are unemployed or cannot work. Without strict unemployment benefits, some people choose not to …show more content…
When a person is living comfortably while receiving free support from the government then they have no reason to work. So why work? The government’s support makes finding a job the less appealing option. There is no need to work if you live, eat, and have spending money provided by the government. This lack of working effort creates a stagnant unattractive economy.
One example of economic inactivity is shown in a BBC news story. One family receives €30,284 a year to live. The father has been out of work since 2001 because “The market for (his) skills dried up 10 years ago.”3 Instead of receiving training in a new field the father decided to stay on unemployment. There is no reason for him to find a job when he is being paid to sit home by the UK government. The U.K.’s unemployment benefits cover housing, cable TV, a bar allowance, and a cell phone contract. With more than the necessities covered by the government there is no need for someone to go and get a low paying run of the mill job. This creates a stagnant economy with no wealth creation. Individuals that are paid for doing nothing they do not contribute to a country’s social and economic …show more content…
When the government incentivizes unemployment it serves to sustain or increase unemployment. If the penalty for not working is roughly €30,000 in UK then it is not much of a penalty at all. There is comfort offered by not contributing to a country’s economy. Many people choose to not work and therefore do not have any social mobility. According to recent data by the deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, “Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse.”5 This data does not bode well for the U.K. unless something is done the country will remain stagnant both socially and economically for the foreseeable