Should Thailand Have A Uk Welfare System?

[weegee]

Why all the discussion???? it's simple....you cant have a Social Security System in a third world country...it's impossible.

For Thailand to try this on....would turn into a complete disaster, the infastructure is not, and never will be, in place to support such a DREAM.

DAAAAAA Wrong answer! Do not pass Go. Pay me $200.

http://www.sso.go.th.../eng/index.html

We are even...lol. You didnt pay me for my Vote

[samran]

In economist land (where I've escaped from) these are called effective tax rates. As person graduates to less welfare and more emplyement, their welfare (for instance) decreases by $2 to $3 for every dollar they earn. At the extreme - it produces what is an effective tax rate of 75% on any new income they earn.

The problem since day dot for policy makers is how do you produce an equitable safety net but avoid these high effective tax rates which discourage people from moving up the ladder.

As such, people in the story aren't scamming the system - they are making rational economic decisions. ie. If I work more, I might be handing back $3 of every $4 that I earn. Even your mild mannered conservatives understand that principal.

It isn't any secret that around these income/welfare thresholds making people move up the ladder is a challenge. But until they find a way around that - the people who are in those income/welfare brackets are going to be cheap fodder for the tabloids and the lunar right who haven't thought the issue through (though I doubt many of them have even read this far...)

Edited December 13, 2012 by samran

[weegee]

In economist land (where I've escaped from) these are called effective tax rates. As person graduates to less welfare and more emplyement, their welfare (for instance) decreases by $2 to $3 for every dollar they earn. At the extreme - it produces what is an effective tax rate of 75% on any new income they earn.

The problem since day dot for policy makers is how do you produce an equitable safety net but avoid these high effective tax rates which discourage people from moving up the ladder.

As such, people in the story aren't scamming the system - they are making rational economic decisions. ie. If I work more, I might be handing back $3 of every $4 that I earn. Even your mild mannered conservatives understand that principal.

It isn't any secret that around these income/welfare thresholds making people move up the ladder is a challenge. But until they find a way around that - the people who are in those income/welfare brackets are going to be cheap fodder for the tabloids and the lunar right who haven't thought the issue through (though I doubt many of them have even read this far...)

EXACTLY!!!!!

[AntMan1]

In economist land (where I've escaped from) these are called effective tax rates. As person graduates to less welfare and more emplyement, their welfare (for instance) decreases by $2 to $3 for every dollar they earn. At the extreme - it produces what is an effective tax rate of 75% on any new income they earn.

The problem since day dot for policy makers is how do you produce an equitable safety net but avoid these high effective tax rates which discourage people from moving up the ladder.

As such, people in the story aren't scamming the system - they are making rational economic decisions. ie. If I work more, I might be handing back $3 of every $4 that I earn. Even your mild mannered conservatives understand that principal.

It isn't any secret that around these income/welfare thresholds making people move up the ladder is a challenge. But until they find a way around that - the people who are in those income/welfare brackets are going to be cheap fodder for the tabloids and the lunar right who haven't thought the issue through (though I doubt many of them have even read this far...)

The horrible right as you call them i.e the working class taxpayers who earn around 26K are well aware that these people would be daft going to work when theyre on such a good number. But it should not be an option.

But the generous with other peoples money lefty's call them names in this debate, pretty astounding really.

Good thing with Thailand is it doesn't have as many of these politically correct, common-sense-less leftys.

[samran]

In economist land (where I've escaped from) these are called effective tax rates. As person graduates to less welfare and more emplyement, their welfare (for instance) decreases by $2 to $3 for every dollar they earn. At the extreme - it produces what is an effective tax rate of 75% on any new income they earn.

The problem since day dot for policy makers is how do you produce an equitable safety net but avoid these high effective tax rates which discourage people from moving up the ladder.

As such, people in the story aren't scamming the system - they are making rational economic decisions. ie. If I work more, I might be handing back $3 of every $4 that I earn. Even your mild mannered conservatives understand that principal.

It isn't any secret that around these income/welfare thresholds making people move up the ladder is a challenge. But until they find a way around that - the people who are in those income/welfare brackets are going to be cheap fodder for the tabloids and the lunar right who haven't thought the issue through (though I doubt many of them have even read this far...)

The horrible right as you call them i.e the working class taxpayers who earn around 26K are well aware that these people would be daft going to work when theyre on such a good number. But it should not be an option.

But the generous with other peoples money lefty's call them names in this debate, pretty astounding really.

Good thing with Thailand is it doesn't have as many of these politically correct, common-sense-less leftys.

I called them the 'lunar' right. Not horrible.

You are right - it shouldn't be an option.

But this is an issue that is in the hands of basket weaving kumbaya singing lefties.

So here is a suggestion - try and figure out how you balance a sensible safety net (which people clearly want) with the need to provide incentives to move off that safety net.

The labour economists would love nothing more to get rid of those spots along the graph with those perverse incentives that you mention. Easier said than done though.

[TommoPhysicist]

Perhaps the UK should take a leaf out of Thailand's books, remove welfare and have single mothers sell sex to foreign tourists.

Meanwhile, every British expat knows that in the event his/her life here goes to rat sh1t, he can return to the UK and put his/her hand out to the UK government, certain in the knowledge that he will be provided with the necessities of life, upto and including any healthcare that s/he needs.

Of course the rally cry goes up, "I'd never do such a thing" or "I swear I'll never set foot in that hell hole again".

Why shouldn't I return home to the UK at any time with my hand out?

Unlike some, I contributed in full all my working life.

I would certainly do it, if I had to.

Edited December 13, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[TommoPhysicist]

So here is a suggestion - try and figure out how you balance a sensible safety net (which people clearly want) with the need to provide incentives to move off that safety net.

It's actually very easy, provide basic communal living for anyone that needs it, provide free meal centres for everyone that wants it. Same as the Temples in Thailand. Give no money to anyone. It's giving away money that causes the problems.

Edited December 13, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[samran]

So here is a suggestion - try and figure out how you balance a sensible safety net (which people clearly want) with the need to provide incentives to move off that safety net.

It's actually very easy, provide basic communal living for anyone that needs it, provide free meal centres for everyone that wants it. Same as the Temples in Thailand. Give no money to anyone. It's giving away money that causes the problems.

There is some merit to that. I think in the west we've lost that communal nature to society.

The counter of inkind giving can be found in a a very good article in the Economist magazine a week or two back on how giving things in kind is rorted to the hilt in India, and that of what is funded by the government, only a fraction reaches those who need it. Most of it is sold off by corrupt middle men.

Based on experimental alternatives, you know what the most effective (and ultimately cheaper) option was for the taxpayer?

Direct cash transfers.

People in need still should have the ability to spend money on their particlar needs. Sure, if they are buying flat screen TV's instead of feeding their kids, then something is wrong, but my preference is for direct cash.

[TommoPhysicist]

People in need still should have the ability to spend money on their particlar needs. Sure, if they are buying flat screen TV's instead of feeding their kids, then something is wrong, but my preference is for direct cash.

Cash allows people the opportunity to cheat, steal and abuse from system (which is why so many do just that).

Food and accommodation doesn't, make it of a quality nobody but the truly needy would use but allow anyone to have without checks. Heated communal showers and sleeping, nutritious but bland food to eat at community tables. If they want to live like that for free, let them.

Edited December 13, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[samran]

Cash allows people the opportunity to cheat, steal and abuse from system (which is why so many do just that).

This is where we differ. I don't think many people do steal, cheat and abuse the system.

Sure, they are responding to the system of incentives which is placed in front of them, and are making the rational decision of what makes them better off.

But you set up the system the right way, there is an incentive to move off. Either via carrot or stick.

The point of my previous posts is that for certain narrow income levels - raising your income one more dollar is actually counter productive - so they don't. Unfortunately fixing that situation is easier said than done.

You are talking about a wholesale change to the system - based on the perception that this one narrow band of people is representative of the whole system.

Most people, working or not, would find that unpalatable, lest you end up with US levels of homelessness and economic and social backwaters from which generations of people just never emerge. But sure, if you want, go for it. But then you are in the territory of gutting pensions etc as well.

[Travel2003]

We must not forget that cultural differences must be part of the equation, or it will not work whatever we suggest.

Again, Norway has a almost too good welfare system, which I kind of doubt would work here in Thailand.

Even if they had the funds here, it would not work.

[AntMan1]

In economist land (where I've escaped from) these are called effective tax rates. As person graduates to less welfare and more emplyement, their welfare (for instance) decreases by $2 to $3 for every dollar they earn. At the extreme - it produces what is an effective tax rate of 75% on any new income they earn.

The problem since day dot for policy makers is how do you produce an equitable safety net but avoid these high effective tax rates which discourage people from moving up the ladder.

As such, people in the story aren't scamming the system - they are making rational economic decisions. ie. If I work more, I might be handing back $3 of every $4 that I earn. Even your mild mannered conservatives understand that principal.

It isn't any secret that around these income/welfare thresholds making people move up the ladder is a challenge. But until they find a way around that - the people who are in those income/welfare brackets are going to be cheap fodder for the tabloids and the lunar right who haven't thought the issue through (though I doubt many of them have even read this far...)

The horrible right as you call them i.e the working class taxpayers who earn around 26K are well aware that these people would be daft going to work when theyre on such a good number. But it should not be an option.

But the generous with other peoples money lefty's call them names in this debate, pretty astounding really.

Good thing with Thailand is it doesn't have as many of these politically correct, common-sense-less leftys.

I called them the 'lunar' right. Not horrible.

You are right - it shouldn't be an option.

But this is an issue that is in the hands of basket weaving kumbaya singing lefties.

So here is a suggestion - try and figure out how you balance a sensible safety net (which people clearly want) with the need to provide incentives to move off that safety net.

The labour economists would love nothing more to get rid of those spots along the graph with those perverse incentives that you mention. Easier said than done though.

Make it a private system and keep the politicians well out, if you havent paid enough in then tough your family should take care of you when out of work.

[NeverSure]

In the US, "entitlements" as they are somehow called, comprise more that 1/2 of the spending. 47% of all adults receive some kind of government check. It started as a good idea and somehow spiraled out of control.

Now those who receive also vote, and they vote their pocketbooks. They vote for the person who promises the most. Those with ideas of how to cut back this spending are voted out. Politicians make promises of money to get votes.

And yes, a mother is better off on assistance than doing an average job because she doesn't have to pay for child care or the cost of dressing for or getting to work, or parking in many cases. She can make a sum on the side by doing child care for working mothers.

If ever the budget is to balance the giving must be reigned in. It's that simple. There is no other answer. But once you reach a tipping point where more voters are receiving than paying, it's too late.

[TommoPhysicist]

Most people, working or not, would find that unpalatable, lest you end up with US levels of homelessness and economic and social backwaters from which generations of people just never emerge. But sure, if you want, go for it. But then you are in the territory of gutting pensions etc as well.

Why would you be in the region of gutting pensions?

Welfare is non-contributory, pensions you pay for.

[NeverSure]

Most people, working or not, would find that unpalatable, lest you end up with US levels of homelessness and economic and social backwaters from which generations of people just never emerge. But sure, if you want, go for it. But then you are in the territory of gutting pensions etc as well.

The concept of homelessness in the US is an illusion promoted by bleeding heart reporters. Only those who choose homelessness wind up there. They are the drug addicts... Give them a home and they will trash it and soon be doing what they want to do - wandering and begging.

I just posted that in the US more than 1/2 of all government spending is on "entitlements" for the poor. It is still a country with homeless shelters run by private charities such as the Salvation Army and the Union Gospel mission. This is apart from government assistance. If someone is mentally ill or otherwise disabled, there is something called SSI which might be said to be early social security payments. There are food stamps and housing assistance. There is free medical care called Medicaid for the poor.

For some reason the press just loves to find someone on a street corner with a cardboard sign begging for money. What they don't say is that help is available and worse, that person may be receiving the help and still have the cardboard sign. After all, that person has all of his time free.

One news reporter decided to follow some of these people when they took their cardboard signs and left for the day. A person walked a couple of blocks, got into a car and drove home. When confronted about it at home, the person simply said he could make more money with the sign, pretending to be homeless, than by working!

[citizen33]

The thread starts with a story from the Daily Mail, but does it capture the big picture? The trend for many years in both the USA and UK is towards an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth with those at the top capturing a progressively larger slice of the cake, even when compared to the middle. I'd accept that a substantial welfare bill burden is falling on that middle group, but I'd say a bigger factor is that they have not been able to share in the increased wealth arising from economic growth. An average worker in a service industry gets no more in real terms now than 20 years ago. To me the big picture is that the narrowing of income and wealth differentials that came about as a result of post-war welfare states is now being reversed.

A question relevant to Thailand and other developing countries is: is that good for economic growth? The Daily Mail's single mother is clearly a solid consumer of goods and services, but overall it seems that demand is falling as the middle and bottom are squeezed. As more income accrues to the top 5 per cent, demand for basic goods and services falls because demand from the top group is inelastic. That too may be unsustainable. Thailand may want a welfare state for the same reason that many Western nations started welfare provision - to allow population mobility and safeguard the productive capacity of the workforce in a period when traditional family support is breaking down. People who are not completely destitute also constitute a better market which will sustain further growth.

Edited December 13, 2012 by citizen33

[NeverSure]

An average worker in a service industry gets no more in real terms now than 20 years ago.

Why should they? They are supposed to advance themselves with education and/or experience and advancement. Those jobs are entry level jobs. If someone chooses to remain stagnant at entry level and has no ambition, then there he will sit.

Edited December 13, 2012 by NeverSure

[inzman]

Thailand has a welfare system. Have you seen how much money is donated to the temples? That's where poor Thais go for food and clothes and money when they need help, the monks sure can't spend all that cash.

[Berkshire]

In the US, "entitlements" as they are somehow called, comprise more that 1/2 of the spending. 47% of all adults receive some kind of government check. It started as a good idea and somehow spiraled out of control.

Now those who receive also vote, and they vote their pocketbooks. They vote for the person who promises the most. Those with ideas of how to cut back this spending are voted out. Politicians make promises of money to get votes.

And yes, a mother is better off on assistance than doing an average job because she doesn't have to pay for child care or the cost of dressing for or getting to work, or parking in many cases. She can make a sum on the side by doing child care for working mothers.

If ever the budget is to balance the giving must be reigned in. It's that simple. There is no other answer. But once you reach a tipping point where more voters are receiving than paying, it's too late.

Your comments sound very much like Romney talking points. These "entitlements" you speak of include social security, veterans benefits, federal/military pension, and of course, medicare. Welfare and food stamps make up a very, very small portion of this. So it's pretty much your average American who are the recipient of these entitlements.

I agree that entitlements are bankrupting the US, but it's more complicated than that. For example, I tend to believe that there's massive fraud in various programs. In medicare alone, I'd say the US gov is paying out billions in fraudulent claims every year. If they can just root out some of that, it would help make a dent. And then there's the tax cheats. And the corporate subsidies. And the bloated defense contractors. I can go on and on.

[transam]

Thailand has a welfare system. Have you seen how much money is donated to the temples? That's where poor Thais go for food and clothes and money when they need help, the monks sure can't spend all that cash.

You sure, the ones l know have a better phone than me and Internet. The poor GIVE money to the Temples.

[Travel2003]

Thailand has a welfare system. Have you seen how much money is donated to the temples? That's where poor Thais go for food and clothes and money when they need help, the monks sure can't spend all that cash.

I know about the donations but not how much.

So how much do the monks receive per year, in average?

[GuestHouse]

So you mean out of about 35 million people of working age there weren't a few Brits who could do the job and it was only foreigners who could, im thinking that you don't want to pay to train people as being the sole reason you imported foreigners. Lets be honest most jobs in the oil industry aren't difficult the money is good due to the locations/conditions one is expected to work in. But the oil industry is full of jumped up types who like to create the illusion that their job is some kind of black art that only the chosen few can do.

Most jobs in the Oil Industry are indeed pretty straight forward - But by no means all. So when someone with some of those non straightforward, highly technical skills comes along, the right experience, the right attitude it makes sense to hire them - Regardless of where they come from.

You maybe right there might be some of those 'Jumped up types' of people, you are almost certainly wrong when you say they fill the industry. And you are entirely right, there is no black art to any of the O&G business - in a varying scale depending upon which end of the business the 'Black Art' boils down to 'Professional Education/Training, Experience, Connections and a willingness to get off your @ss and do something in life.

Feel free to join us.

[GuestHouse]

8 million or so arriving in 12 years is an utter joke, we haven't got the infrastructure for it or the need for them, but lefty's are intent on the destruction of England and do seem content with their work despite the fact most are against it. Yesterday you pointed out that most arent westerners in Thailand are on some form of temporary visa thus are effectively tourists, yet today you infer to these people as now being something else as theyre living in a foreign country .... make your mind up.

This is an odd mix isn't it.

Ranting about foreigners in your own country (presumably from Thailand - someone else's country).

Sorry if you can't get your head around the idea that if you are issued a Vacation Visitor Visa - you are legally on a Vacation Visit. - The clue is in what the Thai Government chose as a definition for the visa and a definition of the circumstances under which it is issued.

[Ulysses G.]

Cash allows people the opportunity to cheat, steal and abuse from system (which is why so many do just that).

Food and accommodation doesn't, make it of a quality nobody but the truly needy would use but allow anyone to have without checks. Heated communal showers and sleeping, nutritious but bland food to eat at community tables. If they want to live like that for free, let them.

This makes a lot of sense. IMO, developed countries should not let the poor starve or live on the streets - it is inhumane - but having to live in a (safe) dorm with cheap, nutritious food would provide the incentive to get a job for most people.

[GuestHouse]

I wonder how many TV members have in truth a return home to living on welfare ahead of them?!

[UbonOz]

Perhaps the UK should take a leaf out of Thailand's books, remove welfare and have single mothers sell sex to foreign tourists.

Meanwhile, every British expat knows that in the event his/her life here goes to rat sh1t, he can return to the UK and put his/her hand out to the UK government, certain in the knowledge that he will be provided with the necessities of life, upto and including any healthcare that s/he needs.

Of course the rally cry goes up, "I'd never do such a thing" or "I swear I'll never set foot in that hell hole again".

Well never say never and at least consider the freedom of choices having welfare and healthcare free at the point of need has given you in life.

I know, you never needed it - Nor did you need to buy life and welfare insurance in the private market.

The recipients of welfare benefits are not simply those claiming welfare cheques!

1 in 8 in the UK were not born there. I wonder why they are there.

Not for the weather !!!!

[geriatrickid]

Perhaps the UK should take a leaf out of Thailand's books, remove welfare and have single mothers sell sex to foreign tourists.

And you think someone would pay them?

Yes. There are people from foreign countries that look at UK men and women as exotic delights.

Foreigners in Thailand do the same thing with stubby uneducated barboy/girls.

[Ulysses G.]

I wonder how many TV members have in truth a return home to living on welfare ahead of them?!

With the economy in the West going the way that it is, maybe a lot of us and with not a lot of hope of things getting better in the future.

[rgs2001uk]

8 million or so arriving in 12 years is an utter joke, we haven't got the infrastructure for it or the need for them, but lefty's are intent on the destruction of England and do seem content with their work despite the fact most are against it. Yesterday you pointed out that most arent westerners in Thailand are on some form of temporary visa thus are effectively tourists, yet today you infer to these people as now being something else as theyre living in a foreign country .... make your mind up.

This is an odd mix isn't it.

Ranting about foreigners in your own country (presumably from Thailand - someone else's country).

Sorry if you can't get your head around the idea that if you are issued a Vacation Visitor Visa - you are legally on a Vacation Visit. - The clue is in what the Thai Government chose as a definition for the visa and a definition of the circumstances under which it is issued.

Yes indeed, the UK could learn a thing or two from the Thais.

Maybe we should ask the question, should the UK have a Thai style welfare system?

[StreetCowboy]

8 million or so arriving in 12 years is an utter joke, we haven't got the infrastructure for it or the need for them, but lefty's are intent on the destruction of England and do seem content with their work despite the fact most are against it. Yesterday you pointed out that most arent westerners in Thailand are on some form of temporary visa thus are effectively tourists, yet today you infer to these people as now being something else as theyre living in a foreign country .... make your mind up.

This is an odd mix isn't it.

Ranting about foreigners in your own country (presumably from Thailand - someone else's country).

Sorry if you can't get your head around the idea that if you are issued a Vacation Visitor Visa - you are legally on a Vacation Visit. - The clue is in what the Thai Government chose as a definition for the visa and a definition of the circumstances under which it is issued.

Yes indeed, the UK could learn a thing or two from the Thais.

Maybe we should ask the question, should the UK have a Thai style welfare system?

I can't see the pension being with having by the time I;m old enough to get it, anyway. I get a bit fed up with old fellas complaining about immigration, and scroungers on the welfare state. It wasn't the 18-year old dole scroungers, or the forty-year old unemployed-for-lifes that put that there; it was middle-class blokes now in their sixties and older when they were employed on final salary pension schemes by the government. Luckily, I can take a sanguine view on it, and I'm lucky that I enjoy my job, so I'm not too worried about working till I drop

SC