For advertisement

Sample

3/22/2008

Welfare for the rich

Why are we bitching over a few hundred dollars for the poor when we readily spend millions for the rich who don't need them? Got such things? Just open your eyes and see through the veneer of respectability. Oh, as for the poor, we need to be very careful. Giving them too much welfare will erode our strong work ethics and personal responsibility. 'Sui ah.' Very well said. In reality, our system is paying millions to redundant old hags to keep them employed by creating many redundant positions and with handsome payouts. Many of these old hags have outlived their usefulness and are either working at half capacity or not at all. But with their millions in wealth that can let them live comfortably for another century, they continue to enjoy welfare in the millions. I read this statement from Ravi Menon, Second Permanent Secretary in Trade and Industry when he spoke at the Asia Research Institute Seminar, 'What does it mean for a person's sense of self worth and dignity? What does it mean for the work ethics? What does it mean for the family?' I have touched on the first question in my post yesterday. For a person who is receiving more than he is worth or contributing to an organisation, and he unashamingly stretches out his arms to collect the gold, what does it say to his self worth and dignity? And if one does not even work and proudly receives his gold, what does it say of his work ethics? As for his family, he might just tell them he deserves the gold. Or he might just say, with a wide smile, 'Take it and enjoy it while it lasts.' If a small amount of these money were to be given to the poor, it will make them feel very rich. But giving to the rich, it will only make them richer and regard the extra money as peanuts. And some will even complain that it is too little, and not having to work for it. But as a kind of welfare benefit, work for it is not necessary.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Welfare for the rich, workfare for the poor.

Matilah_Singapura said...

The reason that forming a welfare state is 'bad' because it has moral hazards has never been explained fully by writers like myself who are decidedly anti-welfare state.

Once you have a welfare state -- and the politicians decide to 'look good' by 'helping the poor', you crack open Pandora's Box.

The BIGGEST recipients of State welfare in any welfare state are The Rich and The Big Businesses.

The US has a welfare system, but the biggest amount of money goes to protecting US farmers -- especially corn and cotton, US Steel industry, US Postal service, various industries like textiles and footware long uncompetitive to the 'cheap and good' stuff from China... and of course the Grand Daddy of all welfare payments -- the Military-Industrial Machinery, who can suck virtually as much money as they like, for any 'project' as long as it 'protects America'. Companies receiving the Big Welfare payments include Boeing, Raytheon, General Electric etc.

And the poor... they still stay poor. One thing in common -- welfare is addictive. If you are poor it is HARD to get out of the 'entitlement mentality' so that you might reclaim your self-dignity and become a worthy individual once more.

If you are rich, welfare is so addictive that you con yourslef into believing it would be foolish to quit.

Welfare for the rich? Get used to it. It is here to stay.