Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacheguy
I agree with the rundown nature of much public housing. I think though that this is one reason all neighbourhoods should be exposed to it. People with economic and political power should be exposed to social issues and the impacts of policy decisions. Once the marginalized are out of sight they are out of mind. If you want real life examples of this just talk to folks in the leafy suburbs of Ottawa or Washington. You would think we are living in some sort of ultimate utopia.
It's the same argument when it comes to two tier medicine. If everyone has a stake in solutions they are more likely to be found. It is also a reason neocons strongly favour means testing social programs. The real goal is to reduce the political cost of downsizing or limiting these programs. The fewer people who benefit from the programs the more vulnerable the programs are politically. The rhetoric sounds good...cost reductions, targeting those most in need blah blah blah. Universal programs do provide benefits to some who don't need them (but still want them and vote for them). Progressive tax policies can clawback much of the benefits that accrue to wealthier folks as in the case of oas.
|
I like the idea of putting Manitoba Housing in SkyCity, except that others will consider it ghettoization of the marginalized in the core
. But seriously, nobody should have to live at the corner of Graham and Fort.
Otherwise, government programming
should be vulnerable. The largest problem with government budgeting is that most of it isn't; once a program is in place, it's impossible to ever stop funding it. The solution to that isn't to enact 'progressive' tax policies - those who have earned wealth are not the government's whipping boys. The goal should not be to continue to grow government's involvement in every aspect of one's life - it should be the opposite. And that's why there's a certain amount of discomfort in subscribing to and subsisting upon these programs. That's the incentive to move off the rolls. If Manitoba Housing was such a comfortable existence, it would remove incentive to leave and would otherwise create incentive to move in. The same goes with things like medicine. Open up the second tier and let those who are willing to prioritize their health pay to avoid the otherwise complete inefficiency of the system.
The whole Greek situation is a very instructive for anybody who wants to believe in government assistance in nearly facet of one's existence. The Greeks didn't just one day crash back down to earth. Over many years - really going all the way back to Helenic Democracy - they implemented policies that left everybody without any incentive to advance along with a complete safety net. Early retirement ages, guaranteed government jobs with pensions that flowed to the children upon death, bonuses at nearly every corner for things like using a computer, showing up on time, and working outside. Giving workers a 14 month work schedule, almost 100 "crown" corps to stash the population, most of which operated at losses, and on and on. And it was all designed to get everybody comfortably ensconced in a life dependent upon the government. Of course, Greek workers became some of the most unproductive in the world. They had to cook their books to be accepted into the EU, and the only reason they did that was because they figured countries like Germany would bail them out in the interests of trying to keep the Union intact. Basically, a permanent subsidy of their way of life. But the other thing thing the Greek's loved were progressive tax policies. Naturally, since everybody knew the Greek way of life was just a shameful waste, those enterprising folks who managed to earn above-average incomes and squirrel away decent nest-eggs just moved it all offshore and stopped paying their taxes. And who wouldn't? It would be unconscionable for somebody to pay their income into a pool that allowed people who accomplish nothing to retire in their 40s with full pensions. Naturally, the bureaucrats in the taxation department couldn't be bothered to collect it either, 'cause that would resemble work. The whole thing became a vicious cycle where incentive cannibalized itself to a point where the entire population became resentful of having to work at all. The point is that bloating the government is not an endless solution - eventually people start scaling back their productivity and willingness to pay.
With the exception of things like disabilities, the government's form of subsistence should be uncomfortable lest it become an acceptable way of life. And to some, it will no matter what. But to those who need a hand up, it's a useful tool in delivering the message that this is as good as it gets when the government it involved. It should stay that way.
Prev
Linear Mode
