|
I will support Ray Harrell. Sweden is not at all
dismantling its wellfare state. And it works very well in many ways. I read last
wednesday (yesterday) that the German businessmagazin
"Wirtschaftswoche" in cooperation with researchers from "Empirica Delasasse" has
ranked 214 European regions, all of EU + Swiss and Norway, according to
innovation, industrial strength etc., and the overall strongest
of all European regions is the Stockholm region. A wellfare state can produce a
strong society!!
And the primary schools in Sweden are among the
very best i the World, much better than both in Norway and England, according to
a new international report that I recently saw, and it is not private schools.
All children in Sweden learn til read and write and all the other
stuff etc. And one important reason to this is that Sweden spends a
very large lot of money on schools. The wellfare state works if it is
properly funded. What happens in England is that funding is lacking, and then
the politicians say that it does not work - it is of no use - it is just a
waste of money. And it gets worse. But it does not have to be that way. The
primary schools in Sweden works very well, and they cost a lot of money. It
happens one gets what one pays for!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:07
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Re: Retreating
welfare state (was: A conservative Christian economists view of Social
Security)
I don't know about that Keith,
The one thing we can say is that the Communists
in a perpetual war with the West were not able to do it at home. Who
knows what would have happened if they had tended to their own people instead
of being so evangelical. The same problem with the churches
here. They are being run ragged with the policies of outreach
that fail to minister to the needs of their own
congregations. You should go on the Music Ministry lists and
listen to the decline in graded choirs for example. That's your
constituency. And I don't see where private enterprise has done
jack sh... when it comes to the "music of the spheres" here in a huge market
with weekly performances. They have to keep running back to
their manual because they aren't doing much thinking about home for
themselves. . Eventually it will all break down, because at its
heart even their manual doesn't support them in
their economics. Also, the Americans' who have immigrated to
Germany to work in the Arts speak of it being a heaven while here is a
hell. They aren't immigrating, I might add, to England either in spite
of your 14 orchestras in London. Do you have labor laws that keep
our instrumentalists and the Russians out? We have absorbed
a body blow here from the very institutions that the American propaganda
machine demeaned, the old Communist arts system. They have flooded
our market with superb musicians, superbly trained and have driven down an
already low standard of living that is only lower in Capitalist Russia
today. And finally, why are all of those people marching in France
and what about the articles that Tor Forde keeps sending from Norway and
we don't have any Chinese, Swedes or Danes on this list. I
deal with them in my business and they aren't crying the same tears you and
I talk about all the time. So maybe the issue is
cultural. Maybe Soros is right. Or maybe you are
a fundamentalist after all?
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:34
AM
Subject: Retreating welfare state (was:
A conservative Christian economists view of Social Security)
Ray,
I
am very far from being a member of Terrell's constituency but I think he has
a stronger case than you care to admit. It should be more than
apparent now than the welfare state in developed countries does not diminish
poverty or degradation -- and is a very expensive way of not doing so also!
The welfare state in the developed countries can only exist now by
the assent of the non-poor who vote in elections, so those people have to be
bribed, albeit very subtlely. Over my lifetime there have been more and more
ways in which the middle class receive more subsidies and state help than
the poor, whatever complexion of government is in power. However, as the
burden of taxation grows then the bribes have necessarily become less subtle
in order that more of the voters are included in the net.
However, as
in Soviet Russia, there's a limit to how much the state can tax and
redistribute without the whole country falling into a state of
demoralisation. (Of course, I realise that the USSR didn't have a formal
taxation system -- redistribution was done in other ways.) Even in the
arch-welfare states, such as Sweden, they are cutting back on taxation and
welfare redistribution as quickly as they know how. We are probably reaching
the limits of taxation now in developed countries (as the condition of
France and Germany well testifies) and the only way that a right-wing
government in America and a left-wing government in England can maintain the
system is by bribing the middle class.Terrell has a very telling sentence in
his article:
<<<<
Cutting benefits will succeed
politically only if a large number are "grandfathered" into the current
benefits setup.
>>>>
. . . which is exactly what is
happening. I don't know the figures for America, but the latest dodge in
England is that a middle-class family earning up to 75,000 pounds per year
(US$120,000 -- a very adequate income you'll admit) is receiving family
credits! I doubt whether the state system (and, remember that there is a
large state-employed lobby whatever political party is nominally in control)
can get away with much more, and I think there will have to be a retreat
fairly soon. Some recourse to Terrell-type nostrums will have to take place.
It will probably produce more problems than we have now but it will at least
be affordable.
Keith Hudson
At 00:21 12/06/2003 -0400, you
wrote:
Since we don't have conservative Christian economists on this
list. I think it is a liberal thing to do to be sure that we
read a few of the people who Bush listens to. This man says he
didn't vote for Bush. I suspect Bush is too liberal for
him. I invited him to the list but he declined not very
respectfully. But I think his view is important to know and
answer. I'm sure that Kutlow and Kramer on MSNBC agree with the gist
of what he says although they probably are not of his faith or
rationalization. Both claim to have the ear of the White
House.
REH
Social Security and the Family
Timothy D. Terrell
April 4, 2003
Families in our society are fragmented in ways that would have
been difficult to comprehend centuries ago. This is all the more strange
because we are better able than any of our ancestors to communicate and
meet with family members. The market economy has produced a wide variety
of machines that allow us to speak with and see people across thousands of
miles, and travel distances in a few hours that would once have taken
weeks. With this capacity to keep in touch with family members, why is it
that we have a greater disregard for family connections than did previous
generations?
Perhaps one reason is that we are less dependent on
one another than in times past. Before the state began to provide welfare
in its various forms, unemployment insurance, and Social Security, the
family and the church were the primary sources of assistance for an
individual suffering hardship. The family would properly be the first
resort when individual resources were exhausted (I Timothy 5:8,
16). Thus, the individual who neglected family obligations, was
quarrelsome, or isolated himself geographically from the family became
exposed to greater risk.
The wider availability of insurance has
increased the ability of the individual to purchase protection from some
hazards. Yet even when insurance can alleviate some risks, there are
serious eventualities that would cause an isolated individual or small
family to suffer immensely if the family or church does not step in.
Insurance arrangements are better suited for those events that are
unlikely, expensive, and are not substantially influenced by the insured's
own behavior. Insurance is not for events that are likely. For example,
aging, and a decline in the ability to earn income, is a likely event in
the lives of most people. Saving is better preparation for retirement than
insurance. In the event that catastrophic loss destroys savings, or
higher-than-expected expenses mean that the savings are inadequate, the
family or church may be called upon for help.
Social Security is a
poor substitute for this kind of old-age "safety net," in addition to
whatever we might be able to say about its being beyond the legitimate
scope of the civil government. First, Social Security is a wealth transfer
scheme and not a savings plan or a charity. Money paid into the system
goes to fund the benefits of current Social Security recipients, and not
into actual savings accessible only by the contributor. Payments do not
stop when the total amount received comes to more than the person paid in
over their lifetime, plus any reasonable rate of interest. Instead, the
payments continue, courtesy of those still working (who have no say in
whether they pay in to the system or not).
Second, Social Security
does not allow for the use of discretion in relief of the impoverished.
Yet the Bible requires us to use discretion in deciding whether to provide
assistance, how much assistance to provide, and the nature of the
assistance (e.g., I Timothy 5:3-16).
Third, Social Security
does not allow unused benefits to be retained and passed on to heirs as an
inheritance. In contrast, family funds allocated to the support of an
elderly family member would remain in the control of the family if the
supported individual should not live as long as expected.
Fourth,
Social Security is poor stewardship of the resources used to fund the
system. Because it is a wealth transfer scheme instead of actual savings,
the money going into the system is not being invested in the economy. The
economy's rate of growth is substantially slowed by Social Security, as
several economic studies have shown.
Finally, Social Security
eliminates some of the economic benefits that come from having large
families. William Mattox, Jr., writing in USA Today (July 6, 1999),
notes Allan Carlson's argument that today's smaller families may be
related to Social Security:
- [I]t's funny how "maybe one" advocates never get around to
complaining about the fact that their Social Security benefits will be
largely financed by other people's children. Indeed, Allan Carlson,
president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, points
out that government old-age programs tend to disrupt the natural
economic incentive for adults to invest themselves in child rearing.
- Carlson says that if Social Security did not rob Peter to pay Paul,
Americans would be more apt to appreciate the long-term social-insurance
value of raising children. And Americans would be more apt to question
various economic projections about how ridiculously "expensive" child
rearing is today.
The presence of Social Security can
serve as an excuse for family members, and the church, to dodge their
responsibilities to widows and orphans. Because Social Security is
available, parents may not be as concerned about maintaining a close
relationship with their children, or church members with their church.
When one is not financially dependent on another, one may be less inclined
to resolve differences and pursue peace.
The church is a backup
for the family when the family cannot provide for its own needy (again,
see I Timothy 5:16). Yet the family should be the first recourse when
disaster strikes. Social Security bypasses the church, and makes the
church and the family unit less economically relevant, and therefore less
effective.
How, then can our society move toward a more family-
and church-oriented system of economic dependencies, and away from our
current dependency on the state? The first step will be a renewed
recognition of the mutual responsibilities family members and church
members have toward one another, and a preparation to meet those needs.
Families should save not only for vacations, houses, education, and
retirement, but for emergencies beyond the immediate family. Churches
should become sources of practical assistance, and not simply direct the
needy to state programs.
Next, the state can assist in returning
charity and old-age provision to families by phasing out Social Security.
There is no way to do this without someone losing some benefit they
expected. Some group is going to receive less than it expected, whether
those currently receiving benefits or those currently paying in to the
system. Cutting benefits will succeed politically only if a large number
are "grandfathered" into the current benefits setup. But the sooner Social
Security taxes are ended, the sooner money will be freed up to go into
personal savings and charitable efforts. Some nations have phased out
their own Social security systems by moving to required contributions to
individual IRA-type investments. The state has no legitimate authority to
require people to provide for their retirement in any fashion, but at
least the wealth redistribution aspect of old age provision would be
reduced.
As difficult as the politics may be, eliminating Social
Security is, I believe, a moral obligation. The closer we move to
reestablishing the family as an economic support network, the stronger our
society will be.
Timothy Terrell teaches economics at a small
liberal arts college in South Carolina. In addition, he is director of the
Center for Biblical Law and Economics, on the Internet at http://www.christ-college.edu/html/cble/.
Dr. Terrell can be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
|
