Talk:Welfare state/Archive 1

Non-neutral
First off I am a full supporter of the welfare state and think its the best way of going about things, however, I've got to say that this is biased in favor of a welfare state. If you give the argument and evidence for the welfare state, you have to give the argument AND evidence against.

"Some states with extensive welfare programs are wealthy, active first-world states, while more often they tend to be impoverished third-world states". IMO the article is still biased against the idea of a welfare state. Most states are impoverished third-world states anyway (I don't have any sources right here, but I could guesstimate that there are 30 wealthy countries, 50 in-between and 100 poor countries), and even so there are quite a few wealthy welfare states. Sabbut 07:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks to me that the article is now biased heavily in favour of the welfare state (e.g. Many of the myths advanced in this paragraph are punctured by...), and possibly worse, it reads too much like an essay (littered with references where opinions are presented as fact). If anything these references should be at the bottom of the page, and linked to online sources (this is a web-based encyclopedia, after all), but it might be better if some of them were scrapped completely.

One of the problems with Wikipedia is reducing articles to "he said this, she said this", but where articles become "this is true because so-and-so said this" it shows why such a position is necessary. Someone looking up "welfare state" wants to know what it is, not to receive an argument one way or another. StuartH 06:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * As this page stands, it appears to be heavily biased in favor of welfare-statism, presenting schoolboy rebuttal (without even qualifying it by saying "advocates of the welfare state claim...") of grossly oversimplified arguments against welfare statism without presenting either the arguments or the facts that favor liberalism over the welfare state. I've given it the NPOV tag in the hope that somebody can come along and balance it out. - Bkalafut 05:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto. - Jerryseinfeld 21:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Heavily biased in favour of the welfare state. It pains me to see Wikipedia suffer from a persistent left-wing bias. [Delsheol]


 * Welfare statism is not exclusively a left-wing phenomenon. Many right-wing regimes have developed welfare states - there are two examples much in the global news in recent months, and a major example in Europe in the mid 20th century that had global military repercussions. I think it is probably only from an American perspective (possibly shared by a few other western states) that welfare statism can be said to correlate with left-wing political ideas, since in these states there has long been a correlation between economic ideology and leftist political ideology; but this correlation is hardly inherent. It pains me to see Wikipedia suffer from persistent oversimplification in subjects pertaining to political and economic theory, and I suppose it is sentiments such as the above, with unacknowledged and questionable presuppositions, that lead to it.

This article is extremely biased in favour of the welfare state. There's a short bulleted list of vague arguments for and against, followed by what is clearly an opinion disguised as fact. I support the idea of a welfare state, but this isn't the place to be expressing one's personal opinions on a subject. If no one is able to properly balance out the "Arguments for and against the Welfare State" section, perhaps it should be scrapped altogether. --Azkar 19:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem of balance in this article. Arguments have been put on both sides. However, while the "grossly oversimplified" arguments against the welfare state (all made by previous contributors) are assertions made without any evidence, the rebuttals are backed up by citations and evidence. Someone recently went through these arguments removing the evidence for the welfare state, leaving only assertions against; it cannot be justifiable to replace evidence with mere assertion, and I reverted the previous version. But would it be more appropriate to delete all the arguments from "Ironically ..." onwards? Paul Spicker
 * As it stands, I think that's better than where we are. The article shouldn't be a debate about welfare states, with evidence being cited, etc.  More appropriate would be a discussion of what each side thinks.  Cite papers, etc, by supporters of each side, but don't have evidence supporting or arguing against the welfare state itself. --Azkar 06:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revamped article
I went ahead and posted a redid article that I made. I took off the cleanup and neutraliy thing because I claim to be completely and totally unbiased- not really, but I really don't care about welfare states, so that's my claim to be unbiased. If you don't like it, I can't stop you from mutilating it, but with all due humility, I think that it is better than it was before.

Why did you revert it?--Alkafett 11:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You posted your proposed revision yesterday (16th May) and have not allowed time for discussion. I reverted the article because the amendments were in every sense inferior to the article they replaced. First, your revision substituted a particular view of the welfare state for three alternative views. Second, it removed most arguments both for and against the welfare state. Third, it eliminated links and references. Paul Spicker

Where exactly is the problem?
The only problem I see with the article is the quite poor for and against list. The rest of the article seems to be simply a description of welfare states, and as such is NPOV. What I would suggest is the simple removal of the for/against section, and leave the rest as is.
 * This removal guts the article of its NPOV, in documenting arguments for and against the welfare state. Keeping them both there creates a wider scope of what various groups think of the idea, and removing it achieves just to maintain NPOV is not justifiable.  It can be rewritten.  --Knucmo2 23:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not give outside links to the for and against arguments? -Mike Some of the arguments are VERY reaching, especially the morality argument. There are 4-5 unproven causal relationships proposed there!!! I believe an outside link is necessary. If not, they should be removed. - Joe

This is untrue
Within developed economies, however, there is very little correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure (see A. B. Atkinson, Incomes and the Welfare State, Cambridge University Press 1995). There are individual exceptions on both sides, but as the table below suggests, the higher levels of social expenditure in the European Union are not associated with lower growth, lower productivity or higher unemployment, nor with higher growth, higher productivity or lower unemployment. Likewise, the pursuit of free market policies leads neither to guaranteed prosperity nor to social collapse. The table shows that countries with more limited expenditure, like Australia, Canada and Japan, do no better or worse economically than countries with high social expenditure, like Belgium, Germany and Denmark. The table does not show the effect of expenditure on income inequalities, and does not encompass some other forms of welfare provision (such as occupational welfare).


 * great points, please add these with sources. futurebird 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"there is very little correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure"

This is untrue, and bias. It has been documented in numerous places that the more money spent on welfare programs the slower the economy grows.

Ah yes. The wonderful numerous places. In numerous places my extremeties are huge too... but what are thoose places really? And do they exist anywhere beside my brain? *sarcasm off* Provide statistics, credible such, PLEASE... Until you do I'm going with Cambridge press.

Proposed "Welfare capitalism" merger
"Welfare state" and "welfare capitalism" are two seperate concepts. They should each have their own article. However, roughly half the current "welfare capitalism" article is not on it's title topic, but concerns state welfare. I propose removing this material from that article instead of a merger. matturn 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, As no one seems to have objected. I'll see to it that it will be done creating a better distinction between the articles. Lord Metroid 13:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, do not merge.futurebird 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that it needs repeating, but I agree... no merge. I'm removing the template.--ragesoss 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The cost of welfare - to the poor!
In the UK, the welfare state was born in the 1940's. Apart from Lord Beverbrook who said that it would weaken the family (50% are now born out of the comittment of wedlock), the general view was that this is the only way to deal with poverty. The poor then paid no income tax, and no Value added Tax. Today, after ten years of a powerful left wing government with a huge majority, it is estimated that the poorest 20% of the population pay £34bn in taxes, and collect £41bn in benefits; and that their tax has increased, and their benefits decreased in these years, as a % of GDP. The Times. Sept 03, 2006. David Smith. Economics Editor. If the tax on the earnings of the poor was moved to a tax on unearned income, on to land Rent, much of the need for welfare would recede. Their earnings the just basis of all private property, the carrot to greater effort, would not be taken from them by force; and handing it back as a political gift would not de-motivate them - not reduce their self respect, give them a way out of the underclass. If compassion replaces passion, we can do better than a welfare state; we can start by letting them keep their just earnings, and take revenue from unearned income. This would be just the beginning. Haydon B. 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology typo?
The Etymology section says: "The English term "welfare state" is believed to have been coined by Archbishop William Temple during the Second World War, contrasting wartime Britain with the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany." I can't tell if that's supposed to say "...the 'welfare state' of Nazi Germany", or if it's correct as it is. Sorry, forgot to sign, last time. Oliepedia 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrasting. That means they are opposite. So no, not a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.1.230 (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2009

POV
The "Criticisms" section is written as a POV defense of the welfare state. Each paragraph consists of, "Here's the criticism, and here's why it's wrong" rather than "Here's the criticism, and here's the rebuttal." But a simple change of language won't fix this. Either a rewrite or a deletion would be best; why does there have to be "criticisms" anyway, when there's already "arguments against"? I'll check the history, and if this is a recent work of a single contributor, I'll delete it. Otherwise, someone more familiar with the arguments than I should redo it. Calbaer 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted some relevant portions. The entire section is nonsense.--Rotten 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the 'Free Institute of Economic Research'?
This unaccredited institute has been putting articles on subjects like Welfare Economics, European Union, and related. I have tried to find about them online, to no avail. It is a breach of NPOV to use wikipedia for self-promotion and advance of private agendas.


 * I agree. When you search google :http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Free+Institute+of+Economic+Research%22


 * this talk page is all that comes up.futurebird 22:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a breach of NPOV to use Wikipedia for advancing private agendas? You wouldn't know it looking at this article or the global warming article... or any politically controversal article for that matter.--Rotten 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have removed some silliness/vandalism to this article. SmokeyTheCat 10:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes
I realize I need to do some reading on this subject, but I was expecting to find some mention of John Maynard Keynes, Keynesian economics or Keynesian Welfare State in this article. Is the article flawed in this respect, or is it me who is ignorant?--Ezeu 01:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it could do with some Keynes. Go on, add some :-) matturn 12:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In so far as Keynes/Beveridge gave an intellectual credibility to the Welfare state, yes. No advocacy of their points, or their Austrian opponents, though. --Knucmo2 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

economic theorists have pretty much destroyed Keynesian economic theories (in fact, Frederic Bastait did this 100 years before Keynes was born). Why should disproved theories be included? Matteo 07:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of Welfare States
There are various different types of Welfare States (e.g. Liberal, Corporatist, Social Democracy) and most (if not all) Western European and the West fall into one of these typologies and in Welfare Studies, these typologies serve as an important distinction. This article fails to describe these typologies (also doesn't go into the history of the Welfare State quite good enough) and this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

John Maynard Keyness II, General Theory - he matters-
John Maynard Keynes's intellectual heritage ( stimulate aggregate demand) can be seen on the militarist re-armaming policy of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, later on FDR civil welfare policies, WWII gave rise to the Military Industrial Complex which uses either or both high taxes or heavy borrowing (consequence government debt deficits for the elusive national defense/WOT) to finance Military Keynesianism's policies and keep the demand for these industries alive. The issue is moral and ethics, there is always duplicitousness in politics over taxation viz-a-viz borrowing to finance militarist spending. --220.239.179.128 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is Biased (unbalanced and globalize tags)
There is an entire section for "discussion of the criticisms" (which actually promotes them) while there is no discussion of the arguments in favor of welfare states. This is clearly an example of American bias. --Nat (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have added the unbalanced and globalize tags to the top. MilesAgain (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "arguments against".
I have removed the reduced morality factor because the same elements of the argument are present at motivation and incentives. Alexemanuel (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil-rich Arabian states
This article focus too much on European states. Here is a link about Saudi Arabia where the wedding costs, honeymoon, household appliances, and gold of newly wedded folks is paid for by the state."Saudi Arabia holds its first mass wedding, paid for by the government..."--71.108.3.163 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Total monetary expenditures by the United States per capita...
are higher than most Western European countries, so how is the US not a "welfare state"? I'd rather get $34,000 that the meager, paltry sum of 24 grand that you get in Sweden, or the anemic and cruel 24 grand that you get in France. ;) --Rotten 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As the welfare state article states pretty clearly, these figures (which come from the second column of the table) refer to "GDP per capita (PPP US$) in 2001". They don't refer to "total monetary expenditures per capita". Since the first column of this table describes "welfare expenditure as a percentage of GDP", it's easy to calculate "welfare expenditure per capita (PPP US$)": all you need to do is multiply the figures in the two columns and divide by 100. The results...

US: 14.8 * $34,320 / 100 = $5,079

Sweden: 28.9 * $24,180 / 100 = $6,988

France: 28.5 * $23,990 / 100 = $6,837

I have to say, Wikipedia would be better served if Matteo and Rotten read more carefully before adding items to articles.

130.56.65.24 03:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I misread it and I apologize... however a big reason I misread it is that I was sure that the US GDP per capita PPP was in the 40's (and the column headers in the graph make it seem like it's a percentage of GDP)... but if you read the source itself (the UN HDI report), it puts the US at $34,000 and the Netherlands at $27,000. Is that graph accurate? If it isn't it should be updated. --Rotten 07:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if compute the total amount spent, the US pretty much falls right in the middle.--Rotten 07:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the Netherlands. Hopefully the rest of the table is okay... 130.56.65.25 05:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

USA isn't a welfare state. It's a if you don't have money, get out of here state.
 * Medicare, Medicaid, social insurance, puplic schools —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bismarck's state socialism
The article should not use terms that are not generally used. Bismark's Germany was an absolute monarchy with a militarized aristocracy (the Junkers). I notice the reference is from F Hayek. While he was a prominent theorist, he should not be cited as an authority. --The Four Deuces (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I don't think you have given compelling reasons why this sourced information should be deleted from the article. Bismarck's state socialism was an inspiration to the Fabians in Britain, for example, in their aim for state welfare measures.--Johnbull (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the term "Staatssozialismus" was used by Bismarck, who was a conservative, in reference to his welfare policies, the term has a different meaning from ordinary usage, where it means Communist, and Hayek and his followers use it to refer to any government intervention. Perhaps you could put it in quotes and reference it to the Wikipedia article State Socialism. --The Four Deuces (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was used by Bismarck himself and his Liberal (Bennigsen) and Radical (Richter) enemies to describe his welfare policies I don't see the problem. And I'm finding it hard to believe that Wohlfahrtsstaat did not turn into "welfare state" in English. I have amended the sentence to make it clear Hayek is arguing it.--Johnbull (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "State Socialism" is rarely used in reference to Prussia except by liberal opponents of the welfare state, and some supporters, and even then it is usually capitalized or put in quotations. This is what Bismarck himself actually said in 1884 about the expression:

'The liberals saw the state subsidy as 'state socialism'...

'If you accuse me of socialism, I am not deterred. Where is the permissible limit of state socialism? Without it we cannot carry on. Every kind of poor law is socialism, ' he said. (Bismarck, Edgar Feuchtwanger, 2002, p. 221)

Encyclopedia articles should not be phrased in the language of any one school, and theorists (whether Hayek, Marx, Keynes, or Bill O'Reilly) should not be cited as sources for information about historical figures.

Liberals see the world as divided into two ideological camps: believers in freedom (themselves) and statists (everyone else), which is why they invented the term "state socialism" in the first place. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant - it is a point of view.

Incidentally, most historians and non-liberal theorists believe that Bismarck introduced "state socialism" either to win over socialist supporters, to provide national stability, or because he actually cared about people, not that he was trying to turn Prussia into a socialist state. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't see why Asa Briggs and Archbishop Temple (who is just as contentious a political figure as Hayek) are allowed as sources but Hayek isn't. I have added the caveat "Friedrich Hayek argues..." in order to compromise with some of your objections but you want this sourced information removed from the article, which I think is wrong. I don't see why varying view points have to be censored when it is clear who is arguing what. I have now put the words state socialism into quotations. This is what Bismarck said to his opponents in 1882:


 * "'Many measures which we have adopted to the great blessing of the country are Socialistic, and the State will have to accustom itself to a little more Socialism yet. We must meet our needs in the domain of Socialism by reformatory measures...'&mdash;W. H. Dawson, Bismarck and State Socialism (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1891), p. 62."


 * Incidentally W. H. Dawson is not a liberal but is a supporter of Bismarck's state socialist legislation who has written other favourable books on German socialism.--Johnbull (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

social insurance = socialism ??? what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The data on this page is inaccurate
According to this page, the United States spends 19.4% of its GDP on welfare (including education). According to the page for the USA, the nominal GDP of the United States was $13.794 trillion in 2007. 19.4% of that is $2.676 trillion. According to the CIA, the United States' total expenditure for 2007 was $2.73 trillion. So, uh, I may be pointing out the obvious here, but the claimed $2.676 trillion that the United States spends on welfare is greater than the $2.73 trillion which the CIA claims is the total amount of money spent by the US government. -NorsemanII (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The figures reference a book published in 2004 and appear to use 2001 numbers. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The cost/efficiency of the Welfare State
The cost efficiency of the Welfare State is greatly dependent on the route it takes.

If the purpose is only to rectify existing poverty and destitution, then this will become ever increasing inefficient and therefore, equally expensive. If alternatively, the purpose is to equaly rectify any existing problem, as also to prevent/pre-empt future such problems, it will in the short term cost slightly more, but in the long term the ongoing cost will decrease as the efficiency also increases.

While the necessity to rectify existing/historic problems will eventually fade out, the necessity for pre-emptive prevention will never decrease, but is well known to cost only 10% as much as cure.

Skimping on rectification of existing/historic problems will only sabotage any hope, or opportunity of ongoing/future prevention. Skimping on pre-emptive prevention oft renders it a completely "Pink Elephant", and a total waste of space and resources.

Skimping in either case is an extreme retrograde step, both for the provider, as also for the "recipient". The entire State becomes ever increasing less efficient, to the point where the State is rendered totally unviable. When any product, service, or real estate becomes completely unsalable, it is possibly long since beyond rescue/redemption.

When a ship goes down, it could be due to an unviable crew/compliment, or unstable freight, possibly an unviable ocean/weather (real-estate). Either way, a sinking ship takes as much freight, crew/compliment, as possible with Her.

Is this a form of Natural Justice?

Even in Utopia, with 110% eficiency, and completely devoid of any existing poverty or destitution, a first class policy of pre-emptive prevention is vital, in order to prevent any fure problem, thereby maintaining, and servicing, the "State" of Utopia! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillBuffallo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The cost/efficiency of the Welfare State
The cost efficiency of the Welfare State is greatly dependent on the route it takes.

If the purpose is only to rectify existing poverty and destitution, then this will become ever increasing inefficient and therefore, equally expensive. If alternatively, the purpose is to equaly rectify any existing problem, as also to prevent/pre-empt future such problems, it will in the short term cost slightly more, but in the long term the ongoing cost will decrease as the efficiency also increases.

While the necessity to rectify existing/historic problems will eventually fade out, the necessity for pre-emptive prevention will never decrease, but is well known to cost only 10% as much as cure.

Skimping on rectification of existing/historic problems will only sabotage any hope, or opportunity of ongoing/future prevention. Skimping on pre-emptive prevention oft renders it a completely "Pink Elephant", and a total waste of space and resources.

Skimping in either case is an extreme retrograde step, both for the provider, as also for the "recipient". The entire State becomes ever increasing less efficient, to the point where the State is rendered totally unviable. When any product, service, or real estate becomes completely unsalable, it is possibly long since beyond rescue/redemption.

When a ship goes down, it could be due to an unviable crew/compliment, or unstable freight, possibly an unviable ocean/weather (real-estate). Either way, a sinking ship takes as much freight, crew/compliment, as possible with Her.

Is this a form of Natural Justice?

Even in Utopia, with 110% eficiency, and completely devoid of any existing poverty or destitution, a first class policy of pre-emptive prevention is vital, in order to prevent any fure problem, thereby maintaining, and servicing, the "State" of Utopia! --BillBuffallo (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh what? You cite no reliable sources and just seem to express a personal opinion. This isn't a page to talk about the benefits/disadvantages of having a welfare state. This is a talk page for discussing how to improve the article based on reliable sources. Of course, this article as it currently stands is, pardon my French, complete crap and needs a total rewrite. Dendlai (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Entitlement programs produce welfare states in America
The United States spends so much on government entitlement programs because these programs generate a welfare state without falling under the legal definition of one. The United States Government has created "infinite loops" whereby undesirable bad behavior is rewarded in government hand-outs. The result of rewarding single-parent mothers to have babies out of wedlock has resulted in more African American babies born out of wedlock in the United States today than born into stable two-parent families. This perpetuates the problem and only makes it worse. These children born out of wedlock are much more likely to themselves have babies out of wedlock. Without there being any viable terminating condition this produces what programmers call an infinite loop.


 * What makes you think this discussion page is an appropriate venue for your to spew your opinions? This page is for discussion of the article, not for a biased sermon. --12.214.190.227 (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "The result of rewarding single-parent mothers " - sermon made by a typical ameriturd dumbf**k. Most americans are singing on Sunday in the church & deliver cookies "for charity". The same people deny a minimum of social security to the homeless, the unemployed, ... --84.141.19.9 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a typical ignorant European asshole proven by the above drivel. Get a life dumbass.

Welfare programs and property crime
Matteo keeps inserting a source into the welfare state article which he (or she) claims supports the idea that welfare programs increase crime. Unfortunately, Matteo has obviously not even read the source he (or she) keeps inserting. The source is available at:

http://ei.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/XXXV/1/120

Here is the abstract from this source:

"A simple economic model of criminal behavior shows that welfare payments will reduce the time allocated to illegal activities under risk aversion and other reasonable assumptions. This theoretical prediction is confirmed by the empirical findings: using a set of cross-sectional U.S. state data for 1987, it is found that cash or in-kind welfare programs have a negative and often significant effect on property crime. More general programs such as public housing seem to have a larger effect than those aimed primarily at women (AFDC). Medicaid and school lunch programs apparently have little effect on property crime."

So, the source finds that "welfare programs have a negative and often significant effect on property crime". A "negative effect" means a reducing effect. A "siginificant" effect means that the effect is statistically significant, that is, it is unlikely to be the result of random error. So, the source finds that welfare programs reduce property crime.

This would have been obvious to anyone who had actually read the source. Thus, the conclusions to the source argue that:

"It is found that welfare programs, at least those examined in this paper, have a negative and often significant impact on property crime. This important finding suggests that the view that welfare causes crime has to be treated skeptically. Our measures of welfare programs suggest that property crime can be reduced by increasing per capita welfare payments, recipient-population ratio, or maximum benefits in a state...My results seem to indicate at least one positive dimension of welfare programs: they can reduce property crime."

130.56.65.25 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah that's why scandinavia is a criminal's heaven, while there's nearly no crime in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL ... indeed you can find everywhere such crap as "u.s. has the lowest crime rate worldwide" and other nonsense. Open skull, remove brain, welcome to america. --84.141.19.9 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Social Democrats
There is a paragraph under criticisms that begins with "Socialists and Marxists criticize welfare state programs as concessions made by the capitalist class[...]" It is ok, however it should be noted that maintaining the welfare state is the "must" of most European social-democratic parties. It should be made clear because there is usually some confussion between socialists and social-democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.152.51 (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

disingenuous
I'm really shocked at this discussion. Is this representative of Wikipedia contributors??? There seems to be a general inability to distinguish between a factual discussion based on historical and philosphical considerations, and a partisan political debate. I went to this article for more information of the development of the concept of the welfare state in the 19th century, NOT to canvass the views of those who are for or against the idea - and I have to say that it is those who are against the concept of the welfare state who seem least able to appreciate the fact that this is a diverse historical phenomenon which deserves rather more than a knee-jerk "I'm for it"/"I'm against it" approach. As someone rightly pointed out, there is no FOR and AGAINST section on, say, articles on the Industrial Revolution, or the Reformation. I'm also amazed at some of the trivial (and incorrect) claims made, e.g. on the translation of "welfare". I am in fact a professional translator, and I can certify that "bien-être" (which translates literally into "well-being" in English) is an excellent rendering of the word "welfare". There seems to be a lot of grasping at straws, solely in the defence of partisan political positions, and I find this disgraceful on a site supposedly dedicated to the sharing of KNOWLEDGE.Thelwnapw (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Thelwnapw


 * For much the same reason I deleted the template added to the article today and for good measure blanked the template. It seemed to have been created without prior discussion and was weighted with articles related to fraud and other negative aspects withou equal balance in the other direction. I had the distinct feeling that this was an underhand way of spreading negative feelings to the readers of articles. It is a rulke of Wikipedia that information is presented neutrally representing all main views. You only have to look to see that the template was created by a new editor account created today and developed and spread so quickly that it must have been done with considerable forethought. Ì have checked the discussion pages of the articles affected and no prior discussions had been held to determine whether this was an appropriate thing to do and if it is how it should be structured. There are plenty of links such as See Also and the Categories and Wikilinks that the serious reader does not need a template such as this. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity can be pro/con Welfare state
It´s strange to give Christian arguements against the welfare state, I think most Christians believe that helping the needy is a prime virtue, both individually and collectively.


 * Jesus himself was definately a socialist bloke. The early church operated as a welfare state. It's just that most Christians prefer to listen to their preachers & lay leaders and their selected verses than to read the New Testament cover-to-cover. matturn 12:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * see catholic social teaching


 * Wrong. Early church in Acts. References a story where a donator didn't give the full amount of his donation and was chastised by the leader of the church. Pastor said the land was his to begin with and didn't have to give it at all. Charity does not equal welfare state. None of the donations in the early church were obligatory. The early church understood that consuming the whole of the wealth in the church prevents the richer members from generating future wealth. A welfare state is an 'non-refundable' obligation placed on the public in the form of taxes. Taxes are not charity. In my personal experience, welfare state supporters give very little to charity and give even less to any church they may be a member of. Welfare destroys personal charity.
 * Jesus supported personal charity because it has two benefits--one for the giver as well as the reciever. Scripture also states it is "better to give than recieve". Welfare state reduces the desire and opportunity for personal charity. Jesus also supported the concept of faith in the full life provision from God. He wasn't socialist; he was requiring people to have faith in God to supply needs. If God were a socialist, he'd have major problems with Solomon and David.
 * I reference Scrooge who responded to an inquiry for charity with the concept that the taxes he paid should support the poor. Scrooge felt he didn't have any personal responibility because it was a responsibility of the taxes and the public. This idea extends quite farther back than the concept of a welfare state and was central to the warning of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The British Labour Party and Religion
If you look at the history of British socialism and at the Labour party in particular (though Tony Blair has stripped it of a lot of its socialist principles) you find religion played a huge part. Non-conformists, methodists- these were the people who pushed for an end to child labour, better working conditions and universal suffrage in the 19th Century and pushed for a modern Welfare state in the 20th Century.

People will interpret things to suit themselves- therefore a metodist like George W Bush can think Welfarism is somehow evil and that charity should only exist on a personal level; and another methodist will think it his or her christian duty to make a society with instituions which support the poor and vulnerable.


 * Mr Bush would not have got along well with Mr Wesley, the founder of Methodism. Just as Jesus would strongly rebuke most Christians in western countries if he came back tomorrow... matturn 12:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

European and anglo-saxon mindset diffs are irreconcible
>Yankees say welfare states make people lazy

Then what? As the world stands now the developed countries better get lazy. Less work, less pollution, stops the global warming. I really don't understand what the anglo-saxon race plans to do after they have finally managed to cover the entire planet knee-deep in DVD players and hamburgers.

The protestant mindset had made US people crazy work addicts, who despise the less fortunate. Europe is predominantly catholic and they don't think the meaning of life is to boost the economy, but rather the meaning of an economic system is to make life easier for all.

First of all User:195.70.48.242, boosting the economy does make life easier for all Heartandsoul8008 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea of welfare state is deeply embedded in european history. In medieval villages the ill, elderly and lunatic or paupered people were cared for by the community. In contrast England made laws to hang the poor for no other reason but them being pennyless. You will find British people very much in favour of the welfare state, especially with regard to health provision as frequent polls show. Please don't always lump Americans and British together. They have things in common but they are not the same.

European people are pretty frightened by the coldness of the US ways of thinking, seeking law instead of truth and placing the individual over mankind. Look at the "solidarity" disambiguation page in en.wikpedia.org. The meaning of "caring for each other indiscriminately" is given just one single sentence, not even a stub article! The concept of solidarity is one of the most basic ideas in the history of human ethics, hundreds of volumes were written about it. English Wiki doesn't care a damn. Solidarity led to the establishment of welfare states rather than economic considerations!

I think US people are really hopeless. But lets make a scenario: pacific coast is razored by a 8.5 earthquake, 125,000 dead, 500,000 maimed, 5 million homeless. May happen any minute (in fact long overdue as there is a big active fault line idling for 100 years there). What should happen to these people? Based on what the US wiki editors' contributions suggest, these people should all be gunned down as they can't afford their food, housing and medicare any more and they are just burden on the society. Not to mention 90% of L.A. and S.F. are sodomites who fornicate beastly and desecrate the human body so it was well-deserved Sodoma and Gomorrah for them...thinks the mid-West. Second User:195.70.48.242, Using guilt, neocheating, half truths, facts out of context and etc to promote your propaganda doesn't work on everyone! When you said or wrote and I quote "European people are pretty frightened by the coldness of the US ways of thinking, seeking law instead of truth and placing the individual over mankind." is contradictory and condescending because The individual or man or woMAN IS mankind.

The current U.S government does not and will never put the individual, mankind, and even law above anyone or anything except its own interests, which right now one of its interests is to form Mexico, Canada and The U.S.A into the North American Union just Like the European Union!

Politicians Don't give a damn about you or me and that Includes Hillary Clinton, Obama and the rest of em on the right and on the left. All they give a damn about is their own power, pocket, prestige and of getting more votes. Yes that includes The/a welfare State.

The libertarian way of thinking is: just leave us the hell alone! Heartandsoul8008 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:195.70.48.242 14:14, 11 Feb 2005


 * If Catholicism is so universally egalitarian, how does this explain Brazil where poor people are regularly killed by police sqauds (admitedly unlawfully) for being so? I agree that Catholics are *generally* more egalitarian than Protestants though. matturn 12:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon? Protestants?

What a load of old rubbish! People are always spewing out this sort of stuff. What does anglo-saxon even mean? Do you mean English-speaking? What about Britain, just look at the list in article, the UK spends substantially more than the catholic Spain. Canada has a fairly well-developed welfare system. What's all this stuff about protestantism. Germany was the birthplace of the protestant movement and they spend loads on welfare. Brazil is an overwhelmingly catholic country and is also has the worst inequality in the world.

Just because the US has an antipathy to policies which they see as "socialist", does not mean that all protestant or "anglo-saxon" (which i presume means english-speaking) countries don't have good welfare systems.

The difference between the US and Europe is not some deep divide based on religion/ or ethnic group (the vast majority of Americans are NOT descended from the British). The main difference is history.

The welfare state has a lot to do with the class system. Europeans could see that poverty wasn't due to laziness or lack of ability, when people were institutionally prevented from breaking out of the boundaries of their class; and this was as true in republican and supposedly egalitarian France as it was in class-ridden monarchist Britain. That is what led to movements like the British Labour party who were responsible for creating much of Britain's modern welfare state.

PS the socialist and progressive movement in Britain, as in many countries was dominated by non-conformists (protestants); catholic parties have tended to be much more conservative.


 * If the vast majority of US people aren't UK decendents, where are their ancestors from? I thought the majority of US people were primarily decendent from Northern European (aka Celto-Germanic) (which is what people generally mean by Anglo-Saxon) places like the modern UK, Republic of Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia, northern France, The Netherlands etc. Mind you not all Anglo-Saxon people there are Protestant, Austria being a good example. matturn 12:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, a large part of the US population are descended from Northern Europeans. What I objected to is the lazy use of the rem Anglo-Saxon- the Angles and the Saxons were two tribes from Northern Germany who arrived in Britain in around the 5th Century AD and soon became known as the English. The term is often used to describe wither the English, the British or English speakers. This term doesn't describe the Irish, who describe themselves as Celts, culturally distinct from the British. The term certainly doesn't include the Scandanavia, France or even Germany. Less than 20% of Americans trace their ancestry back to British settlers, so talking about "Anglo-Saxon mindsets" as if the US and the UK were part of some unified culture is a bit silly. The US could just have easily been Dutch, German or French speaking if history had gone slightly differently.


 * Anglo-Saxon can be used to describe at least some Germans and Danes, given that that's where the Angles and Saxons (and closely related Jutes) came from :-) Note also that "British" does include many people that considered themselves Celts (or something equating with that) - Scots, Welsh, some Ulstermen (aka Scots-Irish), some Cornish and for a long time Protestant Irish too. "British" is not a synonym for "English". For that matter, the English of the 1500's-1950's weren't even completely Anglo-Saxon, they had strong streaks of Celtic, Viking (aka Germanic) and Norman (Celto-Germanic French) blood in them as well. Anglo-Saxon has long been a synonym for English and later British people and culture. The culture at least *did* become dominant in the thirteen colonies before they became independent. Only one US President didn't have English as their first language, but even he spoke it well. Today, all the countries in the world with the most cultural simularity to the US are cultural decendants of the UK. matturn 13:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair point, but if you look up to the original post that i was criticizing, the point I really objected to was the idea of "European" and "Anglo-Saxon" as two separate monolithic blocks, and splitting them up into Catholic and Protestant.

I still think the main difference, in terms of attitude to welfare, between Europe and places like the US, is that Europeans tend to see how bound people can be by their upbriging, whereas in America this is either not the case, or people don't want to believe its the case. A massive state-funded public health serive can exist in Britain. Can you imagine something similar ever coming about in the US, whatever the cultural similarities?


 * Yes I can easily imagine something similar to massive government funded public health services in the US, and I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. Please see Medicare (United States), Medicaid, and United States Department of Health and Human Services. Did you mean to say something like "Can you imagine a Universal health care system similar to the National Health Service being implemented in the US?" If so, yes I can imagine that too, but one run on a state level, instead on a federal level; see Chapter 58. -- Argon233&ensp;  T &ensp; C  @ &ensp; &notin; &ensp; 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy 195.70.48.242, your last para shows you really are clueless about internal US politics. Ever hear of disaster relief? Particularly since disasters obviously *take away* existing means and possessions, while welfare tends to give from those who earned it to those who never had it in the first place. As for the sodomy assertion, suffice to say it would be as random as saying 90% of Dutch are brain damaged drug addicts in favor of euthanizing themselves.

Finally, Americans are just as interested in truth as anyone else, and many simply believe that the best path to taking care of mankind is, to the best of society's ability, enable the individual to take care of himself. Based on the success of industrialized capitalist societies (welfare states or not), one would be hard pressed to deny that history lends credence to the belief. --66.171.5.104 22:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I recall one oft-quoted study of the economic success of Protestant Flemish vs that of Catholic Walloons in Belgium. Protestant people are generally wealthier than Catholic ones, for a number of possible reasons. matturn 12:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Flanders is (or was) firmly catholic, with no protestant minority in sight... I don't think religion has anything to do with the economic developments in Belgium. Besides, for most the time Belgium has existed, Walloon was richer than Flanders: more heavy industries, the same industries that proved to be a disadvantage later on. Pietrow (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Particularly since disasters obviously *take away* existing means and possessions, while welfare tends to give from those who earned it to those who never had it in the first place."

I would call it an DISASTER being born in the US in a POOR family. Maybe rename Welfare disaster relief. Can you even begin to COMPREHEND the diffrence of being born in the Bush family and to some black crack addict single mother?

Ok I really want to clear up some confusion stirred up by the first posters misguided, stereotypical view of a massively English descended America. The largest ethnic group in America is of German descent consisting of 15.2% of the population, second is Mexican (13.5% of pop), third is African American (12.9% of pop), fourth is Irish (10.8% of pop), and then come the English (8.7% of pop)(Though this stat is a little screwy because a lot of times Scots are counted in the English category (don't ask)). I don't know the rest of the list except that Italians are seventh (5.7% of pop) and a couple of other notables would be Scandanavians (3.7%), Polish (3.2%) French (3%), Native American (1.4%)and Chinese (1%) and but I don't know where they fit on the list. I hope this clears up some misconceptions. - DCR

---

Thanks DCR for the above post. The stats are even a little more skewier if you count the 10% of Americans who describe their ethnicity as "American". You could assume these are descended from the "older" immigrant groups e.g. Dutch, English, but they might not be.

Anyway, this article is meant to be about welfare, so I think there are two points to address. Are there major differences in welfare provision between amongst developed countries? If there are big differences, then why do they exist? The original post in this thread was a bit unhelpful suggesting the differences were down to religion. Protestant Sweden and Catholic France both spend a high proportion of GDP on welfare.

There is a general perception in Europe that in the US, the poor are left to starve while sanctimonious baptists tell them they've only got themselves to blame, but I'm not sure that the reality is quite like that. Heartandsoul8008 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty much like that. USCitizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.52.44 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of this aticle is original research or unverified claims
I tagged the section "The welfare state and social expenditure" because the ONLY thing in it that was not original research was the raw numerical data. The graphics are original research. The contributor appears to have done the following:
 * Graph those numbers
 * Developed a mathematical formula to fit them
 * STATED THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION
 * exported those graphs to an image format
 * published those images on Wikipedia
 * had the NERVE TO CATEGORIZE THOSE IMAGES UNDER "SELF PUBLISHED WORK!"
 * then, used the images in the article they were editing!

This is probably the best example I have seen on Wikipedia of a contributor violating the policy against using original research.--Bodybagger (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that these graphs and the following 'conclusion' are unacceptable.
 * "'Overall, there is a slight positive correlation between increased spending on social services and higher GDP per capita as well as higher HDI rating.'"
 * There is no reason to believe that these data would follow a linear relationship, as opposed to some kind of non-linear one, if any at all. And, there is no indication that proper statistical methods or expertise were employed in this analysis.  I am not a statistician, but one can simply look at the graphs to see that if possible 'outliers', such as Mexico, South Korea, and Luxemborg were removed, there would actually be a level or slightly negative correlation represented by the remaining, much more tightly grouped data points in both graphs (in the 13-30% range of expenditures).  As a matter of fact, one can see that the majority of the countries that have particularly low GDP and HDI figures are those that do not have public education (as implied by N/A in the second column).  It is my bet that, if the figures in the second column of the data chart were used for these graphs, there would be a much tighter set of data points, and a linear regression would show a level, if not negative, correlation.  If anything, this only shows that there is a much stronger relationship between public education and GDP/HDI, than overall welfare spending.


 * In my opinion, these graphs (or at least the linear 'best-fit' lines) and this statement of correlation should be stricken from the article. --Dealbhadair (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

--> The data in the table in "The welfare state and social expenditure" section for "inclusive of education" is almost certainly wrong to the point of being in reverse order. This needs to be backed up with a newer/separate study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.32.57 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The numbers in the table seem to be wrong, according to CIA World Fact Book US GDP per capita PPP was $36,000, not $46,000 as the table claims. Ref http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2002/geos/us.html#Econ. The stats here are 10 years old, it would improve the article to use more recent data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AICrane (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

welfare expenditure colors
The article overall seems nuetral to me, but the little illustration's color scale seems biased towards welfare states by labeling them as green vs red. Red has negative connotations for many (look at the illustration for infant mortality or hunger levels) Its a rather small thing, but I think it would help a lot if you changed them to some other arbitrary color scale, like shades of blue or purple. 67.1.15.164 (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

slightly biased?
why do i now feel like all the worlds governments should become a welfare state?

-

I fully support a welfare state, and I don't find anything in this article biased particularly for or against the idea. It's done quite soberly and emotionlessly, really. Honestly, if there was a larger section AGAINST a welfare state in it, it probably wouldn't tip the scales as far as I'm concerned.

=
It is important to note, however, that under the liberal/labour party, due to the changes necessitated after years of conservative rule, the economy stalled out. Policies were enacted to relocate the poor, the former residuum, from squalor; they were living in condemned homes. There was no place to go, and the poor were forced to live in condemned homes, still paying rent, while on the 'dole', the government handout which didn't provide a living wage. The hated miners became recognized as the backbone of the working class, and were persecuted for it. The General Strike of 1926 resulted in a display of solidarity, and still a reduction in wages. Stoicism drove the miners in this case. See the evolution of the market economy in 19th c. N. American canal development for the American origin of class discrimination...Carol Sheriff, The Artificial River, 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.73.3 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section
The first paragraph of the criticism section is not good.
 * Some criticism of welfare states concern the idea that a welfare state makes citizens dependent and less inclined to work. Certain studies indicate there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries (see A. B. Atkinson, Incomes and the Welfare State, Cambridge University Press, 1995) and that there is no evidence for the contention that welfare states impede progressive social development. R. E. Goodin et al., in The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 1999), compares the United States, which spends relatively little on social welfare (less than 17 per cent of GDP), with other countries which spend considerably more. This study claims that on some economic and social indicators the United States performs worse than the Netherlands, which has a high commitment to welfare provision.

The first statement is a valid statement. It should be supported by economical papers, and evidence to suggest that this may be the case. The rest of the paragraph is a rebuttal against the first statement. Although, certain studies show there may be no association, other studies suggest that there is a correlation. The article completely forgets to mention that, and gives the reader the impression that welfare states won't make citizens less inclined to work. Even though it is a heavily debated topic.

This isn't the only problem. I will add a biased tag to the article, because the article is heavily biased. Camlon1 (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section should be completely removed. There is no good evidence to state that welfare creates dependence, far right think tanks like cato, or heritage should not be allowed as sources. They receive all their funding from big buisness and other vested interest.McGlockin (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read the Welfare State article for the first time. I agree with McGlockin and others that the Criticism section should just be removed or drastically revised (w/ NPOV) to briefly touch on main points only - Citizen Dependancy, Fraud, etc. with citations to outside/relevant/reliable sources. The section as-is brings down the quality and credibility of the entire article in my opinion. Dicarmino (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you account for the relative ‘backwardness’ of the United States in welfare provision?
US is a developed country: Industrialized, capitalist and democratic with a srong appreciation for the rights of citizens. Compared to most European countries US welfare provision is very low.

.......What explains the marked difference between the US and other developed countries? Ideology? A lack of organized labour, such as unionization? A stronger market?

--129.215.149.99 12:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)CS

We've simply observed the anemic economic performance of Western European economies in countries of a decent size and decided we don't want the same. Judging by the number of people clamoring to get into the US, I'd assume most people would feel we've made the right decision. Maybe Western Europe can go it's own and we can go our own way. The US does have the right to make it's own laws and create it's own values, right?--Rotten 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The United States is able to be the super power of the world by leaving the weak behind. They think of poor and weak people as dead weight. If they don't have to support the poor and needy, then they can move ahead and do other things, like spend money on military, or business- things that Americans consider to be important. Likewise with their healthcare, if they make it so that only rich people can get healthcare, then the rich people won't have to wait in line with the rest of the poor people. One of the common responses of Americans to national healthcare is "you have to wait a month to get an operation".

Most Americans find the idea of Socialism to be repulsive. It is an American philosphy of "do it yourself" that mainly contributes to this. I would suppose a bit of rhetoric is in order: Others judge how just a society is based on how many of their poor people get welfare, Americans judge it by how many no longer need it. Yay for rhetoric, lol. Extreme welfare too often goes down the slop into communism. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the operation needed, the wait can be eighteen (18) months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.2.109 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

income tax
I have moved a sentence about the income tax from the criticism section to another area, as it is merely a statement of fact -- but I'm not sure it belongs in this article at all. hgilbert (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Evaluations and critiques
The article now distinguishes between empirical evaluations of effectiveness, critiques of economic effects, and ideological effects. These are quite different in purport. hgilbert (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

attribution
Anonymous editor, WP:WEASEL requires that statements be attributed (and WP:INTEXT details how). If you have some other justification for your reversions than "irrationality", discuss it here. Rostz (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Updating the Effects on Poverty Chart
I came across this study by Timothy Smeeding "Relative Poverty Rates and Antipoverty Effects in 8 Rich Nations at the Turn of the Century" and it has pre-welfare and post-welfare calcuations on Figure 9 or "Relative Poverty Rates and Antipoverty Effects in 8 Rich Nations at the Turn of the Century".

I think we need to add a third series of numbers based on Smeeding's calculations.

For reference, here is the old table with two sources.

--CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was 1960-1991 chose as pre and post? and are all those countries considered "welfare states"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of "% ‎of social expenditure over GDP in OECD states" photo
It appears to me that this map is biased in favor of higher rates of welfare. The color red is usually reserved for signifying high numbers while green is traditionally used to represent low numbers. However on this map, red and green are reversed and red is used on low percentages and green is used on high percentages, as if to say higher numbers are "good" and lower numbers are "bad." Can anyone explain why these colors were assigned as so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.42.98 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not always the case. High numbers are red in some cases (e.g. File:Mort.svg, while not in other (e.g. File:Gdp real growth rate 2007 CIA Factbook.PNG). It is just the way it is. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When I saw the picture, my first impression was it meant that the USA was in a 'bad' state, and the European countries that were green were in a 'good' state, or had a better amount of welfare spending. A red to green scale usually implies 'bad' to 'good'. (which is a false premise, since, as an example, there are negative effects to spending more such as a deficit and, eventually, default) So I searched the discussion page to see if this had been brought up - and sure enough, it has been. The image, as is, is not entirely neutral. It would be neutral without a 'green to red' scale. Perhaps a light blue to deep purple scale could replace it? --Captain Vimes (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Violation
I've removed the following two points from the "against" side of the "Debating the Welfare State" section because they are rather obviously non-neutral and seem to be original research (i.e. someone's private opinion) with no source citations or external references at all:
 * illogical - As more people go onto welfare, the people that have jobs will have to pay higher taxes, thus reducing the amount of money they earn from work. If the amount of money people get through welfare is near the amount of money that people earn through legitimate work, they will quit work to go onto welfare.  Obviously, this will increase the number of people on welfare, and this will require more money through taxes.  This cycle will logically continue until 100% of the population is on welfare and 0% of the population is working.
 * coercion - As government taxation is involuntary (if you don't pay, you will be imprisoned), it is unethical to force people to pay for something they would not pay for on the free market, as this would allow the government to force people to pay for things that they find repulsive, like war, the death penalty, the war on drugs, prohibition, slavery, Japanese internment camps, etc. If people want to pay for welfare, they can choose to do so, but they have no right to take money that they have not earned and spend it on their own interests.

If someone found reliable sources that described these as established arguments, perhaps they could be re-worded and added back in, but right now they don't seem very encyclopedic. —Edward Tremel 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the fact that they were in the "arguments for" category imply that they were biased? Anyway, I took out two of the arguments in favor (totally biased and unsourced) to balance it out. --Rotten 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even that they are non-neutral/unverified, but they don't even make sense. If you were a surgeon earning £50k a year, why would you quit your job to go onto benefits which amounted to far less than half? The more people on benefits increases government/taxpayers spending on it, not amount distributed. Ross (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * People often value their personal time more than money, though... -Captain Vimes (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Additions to US Welfare State Section
We introduced, in more detail, aspects of how the US Welfare state intersects with its unique racial and gender climate, citing Esping-Anderson's influential research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.144.219 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Modern Forms of the Welfare State
The article references that "In the period following World War II, countries in Western Europe moved from partial or selective provision of social services to relatively comprehensive "cradle-to-grave" coverage of the population." Whereas in reality not all Western European states adopted such an overarching welfare system, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.145.130 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

inacurate?
"an ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive[citation needed], because all aspects of welfare are considered; a "safety net" is not enough, nor are minimum standards.[citation needed] It is universal, because it covers every person as a matter of right."

Many welfare states simply provide minimum standards.eg unemployment benefit in ireland and not all aspests are always provided for eg creche care. no system is fully universal. This would be the basic income model of the social welfare state wouldnt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.157.1.180 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sub-sections to the criticism
For fear of being a little simplistic, there are two key directions of criticism for the welfare state. One is from the left/Marxist/socialist perspective, the other is from the Liberal/conservative perspective. Almost all the paragraphs in the section could be quite easily placed in one of each section. I think this would make things clearer for the reader by making the two strains of criticism against the welfare state clearer and distinctive. In addition, if these subsections were to be added, I hope to add more conservative/liberal criticisms to bulk that section out. There is plenty to be added in terms of economic criticism from the likes of Lawrence Summers and the term Eurosclerosis. Meangreenbeanmachine (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)