Whats the problem with a welfare state?

whats the problem with a welfare state?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_Sweden_during_the_Cold_War
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It breeds mediocrity

Hmmm I'm a really gonna hafta think bout dat

It's a disaster when coupled with lazy nigs and illegal mexicans

I do not know, you want more family's like the blacks right now? That is what is wrong with it. It encourages half ass behavior and a dependence on the state while giving nothing back to it. You can not have a nation of parasites and not end up in a mud hut.

It's an inefficient system that creates weak men.

It enables people to save small versions of jpgs

then do you guys agree that the welfare state is a good systems without niggers and spics?

>82x125

/thread

No, white people are just as capable of being like shit skins, look at liberals and feminists. Its a great idea and looks great on paper, it fails in application due to lazy fucking people who want to abuse the system.

nothing, as long as you don't force everybody to participate in it. Your response to this will let you know what the welfare system is about.

Sorry, here have a rare

u wen shool n shit cracker
racist bigot

FUCKING CATHOLICS & MUSLIMS
DESTORING MUH WELFARE STATE!!!!!!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Ok, let's rephrase the question:

A perfectly functioning liberal state with a totally free market (like US)
VS
a perfectly functioning social welfare state (if that's even possible) with a high participation grade (like Scandinavia).

Bitch don't come at me sideways

The problem is exemplified in your picture;
it looks interesting but has no actual value behind it.
>good job saving the thumbnail, dickhead.

>A nation should invest into the people having a good standard of living
vs
>A nation should be a corporation and generate revenue

Holy fuck in what language do we need to say no in to make you get it?

Scandinavia has like 30 million people and most of them are well educated and have high iq. It's only place suited for welfare.

Scandinavia has like 30 million people and most of them are well educated and have high iq. Most of the world is not suited for welfare.

The welfare state entails an involuntary taxation. Until it is categorically proven that welfare is beneficial and worth the cost to the economy, why should my freedoms be infringed by theft and initiation of force?

Until it is proven, there is no good reason that freedom should be attacked in this way

You get parasites sucking off the teat of the State (aka taxes of the working man)

Blacks LITERALLY pop out children just for more gibs, and even with all the "minority enabling" social welfare programs Obongo has implemented, surprise surprise niggers are still lazy pieces of shit.

DESU though it isn't a race issue, just that no one would want to put in work when they can just get free gibs. Either cut down on them to "just enough to not die every month" or crack down on loopholes (see: Niggers spending their entire food stamps on malt liquor, etc) to get their lazy asses to work. They already have PLENTY of opportunities in America, even moreso when the standards are L I T E R A L L Y lowered for you if you're black, and they're still lazy pieces of shit

Even Scandinavia struggles with the level of public expenditure it has. Just look at the private debt in Norway

The welfare state is like a fat bitch that wont stop eating. No amount of food can satiate her and as she gets more obese pretty soon she's going to want your share too.

>Friend of mine got over 20K in gibsmedat studiefinanciering
>still in his first year due to constantly switching
>will be a gift if he finishes his study

And that's just a single case. I severely dislike having to pay for do nothing fucks like that. Going to vote VNL next election, they seem to have the right idea welfare and EU wise.

reduces the need to better yourself to survive.

easily abused by illegals and real citizens.

pretty gay tbf

The perfect solution is a voluntary/optional public welfare service. Every public service should be optional for all citizens and be financed exclusively by the clients it can absorb. That way everyone who believes in the state can willingly trust his taxes on said service, and whenever it stops working as intended measures will have to be taken in order for it to function properly again.

Welfare is the literal act of subsidizing poverty. You get more of what you subsidize.

These can both be a descriptive of a welfare state. The government acts as a corporation by collectivizing and regulating public services.
The United States probably has the smallest welfare state of any western country and it still suffers from most the problems described in this thread.
The welfare state has some major weaknesses, but most of these /can/ be resolved. Of course I believe the state should dump any individual who can't earn back the money they cost.


I'm not trying to defend the welfare stare and I'm far from an expert on the matter, altough I believe investing in human resources is generally a good idea. It's just that Sup Forums really looks down upon it, while it's not as terrible as it seems (think of the labour laws, free education, affordable healthcare, etc.) It's about distributing wealth and knowledge more evenly, so that people who aren't blessed by being rich can develop their worth without being a wagecuck for their entire life (sry for bad english).

The problem with the welfare state is it transfers money to unproductive people. Government run make work programs that pay would be better.

The system in the United States is created not with the intention of helping people transition out of poverty and unemployment, but keeping them there.

Ideally, we should require labor from those receiving of the generosity of the state and citizenry.

I'm not wholly opposed to aiding those in need, but where able, they need to earn our generosity, to remember the value of earning their keep.

>a
>fucking
>toothpaste

The welfare state requires a constantly increasing taxbase. Here in the US we have social security as a public pension. Each pensioner requires three taxpayers on average to support their benefits.

So the system inherently requires constant growth. So when the nation reaches it's population capacity, or there's economic turmoil that causes the government to run out of money, things get fucked up real fast. See Venezuela.

On top of that it makes immigration a real issue, as 3rd worlders will come in huge numbers not for freedom, but for free stuff. But you already know this.

Holy fucking shit so much this!
Have a (You)

There are a limited amount of productive people in a society and the government will eventually reach a point where they will be unable to reallocate enough resources from productive people to leeches. Welfare societies creates a class of entitled, lazy parasites who are completely dependent on government handouts.

The problem is that most people are far to shortsighted for such a solution. Take healthcare for example, most people don't expect to break their leg, so they won't participate in the program. They also generally won't put money aside in case something happens to them, thus when they do end up breaking their leg they are a liability to the state because they can't afford proper care. Also, the people who do have their health at risk will almost certainly join the program, making it unaffordable for the common man.
That's the whole point of the welfare state: investing in unproductive people in order to make them more productive. We don't live in an agrarian or industrial society any longer, so people with a low education grade are generally a waste to the state.
In the United States, most of the money gets in the pocket of corporations so they can increase their market power. This in turn leads to a larger income disparities, but it's very effective for the economy. Less inefficient government interference, smaller taxes, etc.

Generosity doesn't really exist on a large scale and the welfare state has never been about that. Citizens who require a large amount of social security should also pay themselves back. That's why the government should enforce strict rules for the people who want to reap social benefits.
Ofcourse, the welfare state should only provide essential needs and everybody should provide their fair share, be it money or labour. The increasing taxbase is the biggest problem, mostly caused by an aging population and immigration, but is it really the fault of the welfare state? These problems are evident in almost every western society.
I think that problem is smaller in reality. There are always people who refuse to do something with their life, I know some. Throwing free money at them doesn't work as history has learned us, that's why a modern welfare states don't do that anymore.

Nothing if enacted properly

>These problems are evident in almost every western society.
Because every western society has a welfare state. If the government didn't need an ever expanding tax base to pay pensioners and people on the dole, then population decline would be a non-issue.

You are under the illusion that there wouldn't be growing taxes without a welfare state. The population would still be aging. People would still be migrating to western society in search of wealth.

You know that nobody is paying the pensioners? They have earned that money themselves, the government has put aside a portion of their income for later.

Also, the government wouldn't be paying unemployed people without the assurance that they will get a job, that's why they get forced into work or get to live on the streets.

>I think that problem is smaller in reality. There are always people who refuse to do something with their life, I know some. Throwing free money at them doesn't work as history has learned us, that's why a modern welfare states don't do that anymore.
What? They spend billions after billions on leeches.

welfare state creates a gibsmedat mindset that eventually kills off any individualism in population - it's the "bread" part of bread and circuses in our age. Soviet Union and Sweden are good examples of this, because with additional brainwashing both created a system where someone who tried to reach higher is looked down upon

It's easily abused by immigrants

It's okay when limited to a universal basic income or providing the basic needs such as food and clothing for everyone. It's not good when it's providing phones, designer clothes, etc. to the masses at a rate which is superior than working minimum wage, and it's not good for it to scale proportionately with number of children, in fact, people on welfare should have their children taken in by the state if on the system for longer than two years. It's good to have a social safety net, but we need measures in place to make sure that that's exactly what it is and nothing more.

Somebody has to pay for it.

Its easily manipulated by lazy degenerate cunts and ruins it for the individuals which its designed to help.

Sup Forums is advocating for one now by backing Le Pen

THE TRUTH IS AND THIS IS THE BIGGEST REDPILL OF THEM ALL: Socialism and welfare states work if you're homogenous and not niggers. Nationalism in socialism boys

...

1. State gets all the power
2. Power corrupts
3. All hail the Dear Leader of The Democratic People's Republic of America

wow that sounds like a unique system. Take the best of both worlds. I think we could call it... national socialism, yeah I think that works.

Perhaps, but someone has to pay for this group of people. If you don't, they will perhaps get into debt, drugs or crime which costs the state even more. You'd have to pay more for prisons, police, rehabilitation centers, etc. and those expenses won't turn them in better citizens either. Atleast others will make use of the social safety net by improving themselves.
That all depends on the way its implemented. The Soviet Union is a bad example of this. It was not the mindset that killed individualism, but the government, in order to keep everyone in control. We can all agree that government control is inefficient for the market economy, but government regulations can be beneficial. The goal of a welfare state should not be to strip people of their freedom, there is nothing wrong with privatization, but to prevent a loss of human resources and invest in the proper people.

I'd go as far as to say that the welfare state is essential for our consumer society. By distributing the money more evenly, more people can spend money on goods, stimulating the economy. You simply can't have a large poverty rate in a modern society (you'd get an industrial revolution scenario)
Well I agree. This might be cruel of me to say, but I think that money to the worthless people in society should be brought to an absolute minimum (just enough to prevent them from going into crime), be it to disabled people, NEETs or pensioned people. Our society is a business, not a charity fund. When people don't earn themselves back, they shouldn't receive anything. However, the state should do their best to pour money to children, working class citizend, education, health insurance (because injured people cost money), etc.

Perhaps I should broaden the question to: what's the problem with socialism?

(I sound like a fucking commie)

Eventually you run out of other people's money.

And if you live in a bubble without any other political ideologies. And if you have the US to provide military defense for you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_Sweden_during_the_Cold_War

>but without the US you'd be helpless against the soviets!
Anyone would be helpless against the Soviets

>30 year old almost complete unsourced wiki article
>anyone would be helpless against the soviets, so it makes it okay that we're suckling off the defense teat of the US while simultaneously championing our own welfare state!