Enforced Prostitution

[noel emits]

This is not even close to being true. In the UK government spending is approximately half of GDP, most of which - suprise, suprise - goes on education, health, pensions, and unemployment benefit.

So I'm talking about unemployment benefit and you put that at the end of a list that includes such minor expenses as education, health and pensions? And you don't even include defense in the list of things that go to make up 'half of GDP'. Yes, like Rich says it would be interesting to see a breakdown of those figures with everything included in public spending.

Many people who receive unemployment benefits will themselves have paid substantial amounts in tax and national insurance, that's what it's there for, so they have paid for it themselves. Also why is it necessary? Ineffectiveness and inefficiency in education, the cost of housing created by a market system that favours landlords and developers, oh and the unemployment benfits systemn itself which discourages short term irregular work which is all that's available to many people.

 

[vimothy]

So I'm talking about unemployment benefit and you put that at the end of a list that includes such minor expenses as education, health and pensions? And you don't even include defense in the list of things that go to make up 'half of GDP'. Yes, like Rich says it would be interesting to see a breakdown of those figures with everything included in public spending.

All four make up the "welfare state" & they're not listed in order of magnitude. Saying that the odd stinger missile or corporate fraud make such large amounts of spending "minimal" is simply wrong. (Defense is about 2.5% of GDP, or just under 6% of total government spending).

 

[vimothy]

Many people who receive unemployment benefits will themselves have paid substantial amounts in tax and national insurance, that's what it's there for, so they have paid for it themselves. Also why is it necessary? Ineffectiveness and inefficiency in education, the cost of housing created by a market system that favours landlords and developers, oh and the unemployment benfits systemn itself which discourages short term irregular work which is all that's available to many people.

I'm not disagreeing with this, I'm just saying that the welfare state is expensive. (Oh and the inherent ineffectiveness of nationalised systems aren't in and of themselves sufficient justification for their existence, IMO).

 

[noel emits]

That still doesn't show what proportion of 'social protection' comprises unemployment benefit which is what I was talking about specifically. Also that chart appears to be from the MOD. I can see there's load of other data available online but I haven't got the time to look at it right now. Also how is this stuff accounted for? It's very difficult to get accurate and reliable figures of 'public spending' when so much is hidden behind PFIs and other scams and wheezes.

 

[noel emits]

(Oh and the inherent ineffectiveness of nationalised systems aren't in and of themselves sufficient justification for their existence, IMO).

The justification is the needs of people. Inefficiency is just an analysis of why the need is there.

 

[vimothy]

The justification is the needs of people. Inefficiency is just ana analysis of why the need is created.

The fact that the welfare state is ineffective is not sufficient jusitification for the welfare state.

That still doesn't show what proportion of 'social protection' comprises unemployment benefit which is what I was talking about specifically.

Social Protection is the term used in international statistical guidance for the functions of government relating to the provision of cash benefits and benefits in kind to categories of individuals defined by needs such as sickness, old age, disability, unemployment, social exclusion, and so on. In the United Kingdom, Social Protection comprises personal social services and social security.​

Also that chart appears to be from the MOD.

So?

 

[noel emits]

The fact that the welfare state is ineffective is not sufficient jusitification for the welfare state.

Not the inefficiency of the welfare state. The system fails people and rips them off in many ways, not least in putting the interests of business first.

So?

They have an interest in reducing the quoted defense spending statistics in figures provided for public view. There are many ways to account for things and portray figures. It might be correct but that wouldn't be my first port of call for reliable information.

 

[IdleRich]

"The fact that the welfare state is ineffective is not sufficient jusitification for the welfare state."

But why on earth would it be? Who said that it was?

 

[vimothy]

They have an interest in reducing the quoted defense spending statistics in figures provided for public view. There are many ways to account for things and portray figures. It might be correct but that wouldn't be my first port of call for reliable information.

They're civil servants working with the same figures that everyone else uses. I think this in fact reflects badly on you -- you're looking for some figures that push up defense spending relative to areas you feel more favourably about, such as health and education (although if you read the MoD press release, it does say that UK defense spending, in real terms, is the second greatest in the world).

But why on earth would it be? Who said that it was?

Noel -- or at least, that's what I read into this:

Also why is it necessary? Ineffectiveness and inefficiency in education, the cost of housing created by a market system that favours landlords and developers, oh and the unemployment benfits systemn itself which discourages short term irregular work which is all that's available to many people.

 

[vimothy]

Not the inefficiency of the welfare state. The system fails people and rips them off in many ways, not least in putting the interests of business first.

If the state were really so predatory, there wouldn't be a welfare state to have this argument about.

 

[IdleRich]

"Noel -- or at least, that's what I read into this:"

I read that as saying that the benefit system is set up in a way that disincentivises some people from working ie it's problematic because it's a cause of people staying on benefits and becomes a vicious circle, I don't think he's arguing that that is a good thing.

 

[vimothy]

I read that as saying that the benefit system is set up in a way that disincentivises some people from working ie it's problematic because it's a cause of people staying on benefits and becomes a vicious circle, I don't think he's arguing that that is a good thing.

I agree that the current benefit system deincentivises work for those claiming. I think that Noel's "Citizen's Wage" is a good, Hayekian, idea (if I'm interpreting it correctly). However, he does seem to be putting education system inefficiency, housing market inefficiency, and benefit system inefficiency forward as reasons explainging why we need a benefit system / welfare state.

"Also why is it necessary? Ineffectiveness and inefficiency..."

To me that seems contradictory -- the failure of government regulation and the public sector to match private sector efficiency is not an argument in favour of the public sector. But then, we're coming at this from very different perspectives.

 

[Mr. Tea]

This is kind of redundand (lol) since Noel and Rich have already made the point very well, but I can't help but think Vimothy is willfully misreading me here:

This is not even close to being true. In the UK government spending is approximately half of GDP, most of which - suprise, suprise - goes on education, health, pensions, and unemployment benefit.

I wasn't talking about health, education or pensions...

Social Protection is the term used in international statistical guidance for the functions of government relating to the provision of cash benefits and benefits in kind to categories of individuals defined by needs such as sickness, old age, disability, unemployment, social exclusion, and so on. In the United Kingdom, Social Protection comprises personal social services and social security.

...and I wasn't talking about disability/incapacity benefit, child benefits or anything else. I was talking solely about the 'dole', i.e. Jobseeker's, i.e. money paid to healthy adults who could, but don't, work.

 

[vimothy]

This is kind of reduntand (lol) since Noel and Rich have already made the point very well, but I can't help but think Vimothy is willfully misreading me here:
I wasn't talking about health, education or pensions...
...and I wasn't talking about disability/incapacity benefit, child benefits or anything else. I was talking solely about the 'dole', i.e. Jobseeker's, i.e. money paid to healthy adults who could, but don't, work.

Actually, I wasn't even responding to you. I was responding to Noel, who said,

I don't know about the cost to the pubic purse, I think that's pretty minimal even in total in comparison to say corporate tax fraud / avoidance or maybe a couple of cruise missiles, or a botched civil service computer system. You know the whole system haemorrhages money and state benefits are a tiny proportion in comparison.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Actually, I wasn't even responding to you. I was responding to Noel, who said,

Yes, and he was responding to my post about the cost of unemployment benefits. We were talking about that, and only that, not any other kind of benefits or welfare state services generally.

 

[vimothy]

Noel wrote,

I don't know about the cost to the pubic purse, I think that's pretty minimal even in total in comparison to say corporate tax fraud / avoidance or maybe a couple of cruise missiles, or a botched civil service computer system. You know the whole system haemorrhages money and state benefits are a tiny proportion in comparison.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well fair enough, I'd missed that bit. But I think he probably just meant the kind of benefits I was talking about. Unless I he didn't, of course.

 

[noel emits]

"Also why is it necessary? Ineffectiveness and inefficiency..."

To me that seems contradictory -- the failure of government regulation and the public sector to match private sector efficiency is not an argument in favour of the public sector. But then, we're coming at this from very different perspectives.

Obviously there are many causes of unemployment, perhaps not least the fact that there should still be such a definition. But the erosion of sustainable jobs is a combination of government policy and permitted business practices, I'm certainly not calling out government inefficiency in favour of private sector, that's your phrase vim. To me though that's kind of beside the point. Social security is seen to be necessary for people's welfare so that's justification enough if we hold it implicit that government is there (in principle) to serve the people. If not then we are approaching this from very different directions.

So it would be interesting to know how much of the money used to provide unemployment benefit actually reaches claimants and how much drains away in administration and bureaucracy, and how that would compare to something like a citizen's wage which would require vastly less management.