“Why do you think then that I still have a job despite being more expensive to hire than them?”

I don’t know. Singapore still recognizes a limited number of medical degrees (8 schools for the whole of India for instance) under the Medical Registration Act even after it has been greatly expanded. An Indian or Filipino medical graduate cannot come in here on a whim to set up a practice. Can you imagine what would happen to the wages of Singaporean medical doctors if there were no barriers to their entry in the *free* market you espouse? You obviously command a wage differential because there are institutional barriers to competitors. Can you lay claim to that wage differential?

I don’t wish to wish to repeat my arguments on the economic advantages of social welfare. All I can say is that they are usually made by professional economists.

“Subsidy distorts the true cost and value of goods and things and makes men who are given help think that they have earned them by right.”

Subsidies distorts the value of everything that is subsidized – education, roads, hospitals, public security, national defence, etc, all of which you were and are a recipient.

People on public assistance in Singapore are indeed a sorry sight.. because they can get so little from the public assistance relative to others in developed countries. No one in his or her right mind wants to be in a situation to be eligible for social welfare in Singapore. If they were such fantastic deals, why don’t you quit your job and try going on public assistance. Ask yourself, what do the families of the mentally and physically handicapped get in Singapore?

Voluntary charity from private altruism is not enough, especially in Singapore. Even the amount of blood we get from voluntary blood donation (which are given out of pure altruism) in Singapore is not enough. As you have admitted, some things are more efficient when collectivized.

As for taxes, they are compulsory and meant for funding the promotion of the overall good of society. Following the line of reasoning that you promulgate, why should the childless and businesses subsidize you and your kids’ education? They too get nothing directly in return.

Society does get something for public assistance. Public assistance is a safety net and provides an insurance for those who are out of luck to ensure that they get enough basic housing and sustenance. Safety nets in the form of civil defence, policing and public assistance are collective social insurances. The handouts only exceeds the paid contributions when people actually use them. When your house is on fire, do you think your personal tax contributions to civil defence would cover the cost of the mobilization of the equipment and personnel to fight the fire?

Because they have money, and they have money because they have something of value to offer in exchange for it. They have earned it. Of course, they may also have inherited it, stolen it, robbed or cheated to attain it, but I assume you agree with me that these cases are not what we are looking at in this discussion?

“Why do you think you are paid more than a Filipino or Indian doctor?”

Why do you think then that I still have a job despite being more expensive to hire than them? And how long do you think these doctors remain in the service and why?

“1. Social safety nets promote consumption which in turn stimulates economic growth. If we do not have enough social safety nets, people tend to save excessively which is bad for economic growth.”

And taxing people more is supposed to stimulate expenditure? I pay enough income tax to have to consciously budget for it each year – that amount of money could have been used by me to make many smaller purchases, or saved to make a few larger purchase. The money would have been spent anyway, but now it is taken from me to be spent on things which I have not chosen to spend on.

“2. The lack of safety nets also discourages people from having children. If you see many starving people on the streets, your tendency to save increases and you’ll avoid consumption.”

And taxing people who earn more to subsidise those who do not so as to encourage them to have children is preferable to leaving these people their money so they could have more children?

If I see many starving people on the streets, my tendency is to make sure I earn enough money to be able to provide for my children. I will not have children and expect the state to feed them using money taken from other people. Will you?

“3. There are other arguments about how the dearth of entrepreneurship can be attributed to the lack of social safety nets.”

And I suppose I can in turn argue that taxing people who make more money blunts the enterpreneur spirit. Why take the risk and raise the money to start a venture when I will be taxed more than if I just drew a salary? Or why bother to make sure that my venture is sound if it doesn’t matter that I fail because the state will catch my fall?

As for your moral arguments, I have only this to say:

Some people need help, and I am not against charity or helping people. What I am against is the belief that society has the right to forcibly take the money from those who have earned them rightfully to help these people. You have the right to give your own money to the poor as guided by your moral principles, but you have no right to help the poor with money that is not yours. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is robbery as much as taking from the poor to give to the poor (or rich) is. If you want to feel noble, buy it with your own money, not mine.

The fact that people need help is no justification for society to take from some to give to others. This is not charity – it is state-sanctioned parasitism.

At this point I feel that I am merely rephrasing what the author of the article has already stated, so let me add something from my personal experience.

I deal with people who rest on the “social safety net” which you have praised in the course of my work – they are a sorry sight. They have come to see what is offered in charity as entitlement. Their spirits are broken, and the only thing they can offer in exchange for this help the state gives is their need. Their need is sufficient reason for them to take. Their need is rewarded. The only thing we can expect and we do see is that their need will expand.

Subsidy distorts the true cost and value of goods and things and makes men who are given help think that they have earned them by right. “Public assistance” does not lift a man, it makes a beggar a tyrant.

But we digress. I suspect the author’s original aim to to direct our attention to those who take from us without our consent, and give to those who have offered nothing in return, and taken a commission in the transaction. I offer the above as my final comments, and I look forward to more from the author.

I don’t think that is true in real life. Why do you think you are paid more than a Filipino or Indian doctor?

Do you want the economic or the moral reasons?

Economic:

1. Social safety nets promote consumption which in turn stimulates economic growth. If we do not have enough social safety nets, people tend to save excessively which is bad for economic growth. Social safety nets and domestic consumption actually function as auto-stabilizers for the economy. Singapore has had see-saw economic growth for the last decade precisely because it lacks these domestic auto-stabilizers and lacks a developed consumption sector. If we see poor people starving on the street, we’ll save a lot more and cut back on our purchases. Thrift is great for the individual but terrible at the aggregate level.

2. The lack of safety nets also discourages people from having children. If you see many starving people on the streets, your tendency to save increases and you’ll avoid consumption. Unfortunately, having children do increase consumption and many people will avoid having or have fewer children. If you don’t think Singapore’s low sub-replacement birth rate is a long-term problem, then you can ignore this argument. Sure, it’s not a problem for YOU but it is a problem at the societal level.

3. There are other arguments about how the dearth of entrepreneurship can be attributed to the lack of social safety nets.

Moral:

1. Well, do you really want to see people starve on the street?

2. Economic hardship can be due to unforeseeable circumstances.

3. Some people are handicapped, started with a bad hand in life, etc.

4. Malnutrition can affect the mental and physical development of children.

5. Some people need a helping hand to get back on their feet and to help themselves.

“Do you stop to ask why the poor are poor, or is the mere fact that they are poor reason enough for us to tax those who are not to feed them?”

Sure. I ask that all the time. But first, have you asked yourself why the rich are rich?

And a man who kills a rich man should be punished more severely than a man who kills a poor man, since a rich man presumably enjoys life more than the poor man?

And a man who steals $100 from a poor man should be punished more severely than a man who steals $100 from a rich man, since the same amount represents a smaller portion of the rich man’s assets?

“In an unrestricted free market, the starving man will have to pay more for the bread if it is within his economic capacity to do so.”

No, in a free market the baker who tries to profiteer from the poor man will find his competitor selling his bread at a price that the poor can afford, and still turn in a profit.

“That is why we need the government to step in to subsidize bakers, flour and baking school to make bread affordable for the poor and hungry.”

And why should those who earn enough money to pay taxes subsidise those who do not earn enough to buy bread?

Do you stop to ask why the poor are poor, or is the mere fact that they are poor reason enough for us to tax those who are not to feed them?

Of course, it is a bit rich to compare the wealthy to starving people…

I’ll explain this again. The income you receive is not purely the fruit of your labour only. It is highly dependent on the kind of society and economic ecosystem that you live in. You can move to the Philippines and make less money or move to the United States and make a lot more.

What you perhaps cannot distinguish is the difference between the raw cost of something and its opportunity cost, the same kind of mistake that many Singaporeans make when they compare the cost of constructing HDB flats and the price set by HDB. Let’s say that you choose not to pay for that extra policeman. The risk to you is greater than the risk to a road sweeper. Your opportunity cost of not paying for that extra policeman is much higher.

Should you pay more? Well that depends. Do you think you should pay more for a new 5-room HDB flat in Toa Payoh Central than for an identical one in Sengkang even though their constructions costs are the same?

No, Fox – I have already acknowledged the need for taxes. Collecitvism is a necessary evil; what I disagree with is the fact that the rich are taxed more.