Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

Entitlement - Wikipedia

quote:

---

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to something, such as to welfare benefits, based on established rights or by legislation.[1][2] The term may also reflect a pejorative connotation, as in a "sense of entitlement". A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

​

In the United States, an entitlement program is a type of "government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right...whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, although sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special 'entitlements' under certain programs."[3] Examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.[4][5]

​

Originally, the term "entitlement" in the United States was used to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got the name because workers became "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system. In recent years the meaning has been used to refer also to benefits, like those of the food stamps program, which people become eligible to receive without paying into a system.[6] Some federal programs are also considered entitlements even though the subscriber's "paying into the system" occurs via a means other than monetary, as in the case of those programs providing for veterans' benefits, and where the individual becomes eligible via service in the U.S. military.[7]

---

One could argue that anyone working and paying for food and lodging etc are contributing to the US economy, and that this entitles them -- they have a basic human right -- to at least a living wage. They are paying into the system when they purchase products and services and they deserve a fair dividend from their work.Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

quote:

---

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

​

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

​

Article 23.

​

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

​

Article 24.

​

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

​

Article 25.

​

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

​

Article 30.

​

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

---

The basis of such entitlement is seen in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and as such already applies to all human beings.Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, Food Assistance, Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans programs, etc. are both entitlements and basic human rights.The more civilized a nation becomes the more aware it becomes of the burden it bears to ensure basic human rights for all people, and that this burden starts at home, taking care of the people in such a civilized nation.http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

​

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ....

---

The congress has the power to enforce basic human rights (promote the general welfare) and to fund them (power to lay and collect taxes).The burden of taxes should be pro-rated on the amount\degree of benefit one realizes from participation in the US economy -- those that benefit more should bear more of the burden of ensuring that this system continues.http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/congress.htm

quote:

---

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

---

Is the pursuit of happiness an entitlement, a right, or both?

Thread copied here from the Entitlements - what's so bad about them? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I have no problem with limited entitlements as long as the family on welfare doesnt live above the means of the family that makes just enough to be ineligible. I think that fairness is a basic precept.I dont want to end up being just above the cutoff point and having eligible people receiving more than I earn. The same amount (within reason) is ok, though. I make just under $25,000 per year, so I am the level just above them.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I'm not really understanding what you're saying.Do you mean, for example, that if I get laid off and sign up for unemployment, that I should not be able to make more than $25,000 per year?

well i suppose that wouldnt work now would it? If you paid more into the system you should be compensated accordingly. The problem arises when people who have not paid into the system end up taking more from the system than they gave.Besides...unemployment is a form of insurance. There should be limits, I think. A guy who made $200,000 a year shouldnt automatically get that much unless he paid enough in. I think a capo should be set, if there isnt one already. Welfare is different. People should get just enough to eat and pay rent...basic subsistance needs.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I hope you don't mind if the kids have ice cream and cookies once a year.What kind of communities do you build with children who get "just enough to eat...basic subsistance needs"?

I disagree entirely.All people have just as much right to the pursuit of happiness, and to me that means more than just getting by. It means having the education and the opportunities to move up without stigma or prejudice.The worst "feel entitled" abuse imoshoie is kids that inherit millions from parents while doing sqat to earn it and then looking down on people that don't have that opportunity, as if their DNA were made of gold.So everyone should inherit from the success of the previous generation: 50% inheritance tax.Everyone should get $50.00 per day guaranteed income, and then what you earn is on top of that with no eligibility cut-off.Tax is 50% on all earnings over $50,000/yr. No loopholes.Edited by RAZD, : .

• Social Security should pay a living wage, it is a safety net, not a retirement plan, and if you want to retire on more then you should plan for that with an IRA.
  ​
• Likewise unemployment and welfare should pay a minimum wage. Disabilities should be covered through healthcare (expanded medicare\medicaid).
  ​
• So if everyone were given a US Economy Dividend that was a living wage amount, this could be run through IRS as part of taxes, and other departments could be closed. Minimum wage would not be an issue, and what anyone earns is on top of the basic living dividend, so you can work your way out of poverty. Because it would go to everyone there would be no cheating on eligibility.
  ​
• Feeding the bottom of the economic pyramid lifts all other levels. With a surplus of workers for jobs this would boost job creation by low and middle income people (where most new jobs are created). Trickle UP is a win-win proposition.
  ​
• Inheritance tax should be 50% -- why should heirs be entitled to millions their parents earned when they have not done anything for it? This would incentivise rich people to spend instead of hoard, and thus boost the economy.

To oversimplify a little, there are two kinds of people:1: There are the "zero sum game" people. I think they are sometimes called "conservatives". As they see it, if you give entitlements to someone, then there is less left for them. Out of kindness, they might support very limited entitlements for a short term to help only the severely needy. But they will always be critical of entitlements, because they worry that what is given to others implies less for them2: There are the "rising tides lift all boats" people. I think they are sometimes called "liberals". As they see it, a reasonable program of entitlements makes for a better society, and everyone benefits from that.

Maybe "unemployment insurance" should be separated from welfare. Unemployment insurance, which you pay into, would enable you to keep paying your mortgage, etc. if you lost your job. Welfare, which you don't pay into (directly), would give you enough to live on.

I agree with all of your points except that I think there should be limited inheritance tax. Lets say that the heirs get to keep the first $250,000 and then tax them 50%.

A progressive tax is always better than a flat one. I agree.

Right now, the limit is 6 million.

I think you oversimplified a little too much. Let me simplify in a different direction and see how you like it.There are those who, out of habit or disposition, feel they should work for a living and pay their own way.There are also those who think someone else should support them. "You owes me!" is a good description for this type. The reasons for the "owes" are many and often meaningless.As I have quoted in my signature, "If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay"--Jerry Pournelle.Those who are "obliged to pay" might, if the burden placed on them is too great, just give up and join the other side. "Going Galt" is one phrase that describes it.Another way of looking at it is: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." That was from Margaret Thatcher.As you noted above, "rising tides lift all boats." But falling tides lower all boats and pretty soon they are all sitting in the mud. If you look at the societies who tried to practice extreme forms of socialism or communism, you'll see this. North Korea is a prime example. Just compare with South Korea. Compare East and West Germany.You can only bleed the productive to give to the unproductive to a certain point, and then the productive will say "Hell with it."This is a lesson communists, the more extreme socialists, and other lefties simply can't learn. When they have run societies they have increasingly turned to authoritarian governments in an attempt to get more production from those who could produce, while removing all the incentives for them to do so. Didn't work, and never will.So, your #1 above is totally wrong. It is not "what is given to others implies less for them" but "if you take virtually all I have, why should I keep working?" It is hard to change human nature, although lefties of all stripes have been trying for decades--without success.And, your #2 would be valid if greedy leftists would quit trying to get more from the "golden goose," and work with human nature rather than against it. The progressive income tax is one example. If the tax rate was reduced as people earned more, almost everyone would earn more! The total tax base would be increased overall. People would work to have more income, rather than less. This is an entirely different way of looking at things, and unfortunately lefties simply can't see it.If you want less of something, just tax it. Lefties should learn from this, but they haven't yet and I doubt they ever will.So, go ahead and flame. Flames from lefties are as meaningless as the collective outrage they hurl at anyone who disagrees with them.

So you're a #1, zero sum type.That was simple.When there is a shared endeavor and one person takes more than the others what do you call that? Are they entitled to a greater share?Edited by RAZD, : ...