From Thomas Freddi: Some remarks on a possible project of "welfare". I think there is unanimous consensus that the poor in society should be helped. The differences arise on how to do that because the aid has the desired effect.
assist our neighbors is a social duty as well as Christian. If solidarity had spread among people spontaneously, in sufficient quantity to meet all the needs, should not create any institution to implement it. The aid would take place in the best way, without having to create the superstructure, which inevitably lead to a reduction of efficiency and dispersion of resources. The spontaneous solidarity, acting without intermediaries (which we call "direct solidarity") would also have the advantage of the tax imposed by law, to be self-controlled and to aim more precisely where there is greatest need. The direct solidarity is therefore to be preferred over other organizational forms of solidarity, public or private, because it arrives at its destination yet full of human warmth that constitutes an essential element of the aid provided, which is however lost when the help becomes anonymous and depersonalized.
In past centuries the providences to the poor have this feature, even if they were provided mainly by church institutions. Unfortunately, in modern society, one can not exclusively rely on the spontaneity of private initiatives. Would be insufficient, and would not give guarantees of a fair distribution. At least today it is commonly believed. In fact, the state intervened in all developed countries, secularizing this function, making it public and at the expense of the whole community. However, for the reasons stated above, it would be convenient to give way to solidarity and to maintain direct individuals the opportunity to take direct action towards the needy. Because this mode successful and expands, it must recognize, however, a corresponding tax credit to those who practice it, to avoid giving a double contribution. Everything must be done as if the share of taxes for redistribution was anticipated.
The "welfare state" can be defined as the set of institutional arrangements to implement in practice the principle of social solidarity. The state, through welfare, shall ensure that all those who for various reasons are in need (basically anyone with an income below a preset value, for which they are defined as "poor"), may receive financial support from companies (subsidies) to make them self-sufficient and able to live in dignity.
In other words, redistribution of income allows all members of society to take advantage of economic freedom, without which man loses the dignity and sense of belonging to a community. A redistribution of income between the two sides turns out to be advantageous, as well as to ensure everyone a minimum subsistence in accordance with the principle of solidarity, even to maintain an economic balance between consumption and production. From a macroeconomic perspective, in fact, the overall volume of production is closely related to the volume of domestic consumption, and these are greater the higher the number of consumers commodity.
In the case of redistribution, however, there is a limit that is well respected, beyond which it has adverse effects, until it got a real character of expropriation. This occurs when the major income earners are seen removing a portion of their income is too high, so they are lacking the incentive to produce new wealth. We must be aware that, in those conditions, in the absence of sufficient resources, each project can not survive welfare redistribution and excessive ends up damaging the very people to whom it is directed .. Once exposed
these general considerations, the issue focuses on ways in which achieving the "welfare state". It is here that the greatest differences occur, especially with respect to government intervention and the space to be left to private initiative.
We propose below demonstrate, through examples and using macroscopic data, which, if you avoid losses, it is possible, despite the current economic conditions of our country, create a welfare system entirely satisfactory, with very fair results in social terms.
If it is assumed to allocate a part of the redistribution of income taxes (certainly not the most famous of the "tenth" of old memory), in Italy you can count a total annual figure of respect to at least 120 billion euro.
The first condition is to make it clear that, consistent with the reasons set out above, the destination of this hypothetical amount should be exclusively reserved for those who actually is in need. According to research recently conducted by prof. Tito Boeri (T. Boeri-R.Perotti "Less than welfare pensions" ed. Mulino), most of the current cost of "welfare" goes to Italy in the pockets of those who need less.
Therefore it becomes essential to define the state of necessity of every citizen. To avoid misinterpretation, the definition must be simple, and should not give rise to doubt, to appeal or dispute.
To do this we suggest you follow the following criteria: 1
. Is determined with extreme accuracy, "the annual net income individual" (RIANI) any natural person over the age of eighteen, regardless of membership status and family where he is.
2. As a tribute to simplicity and to avoid possible bias, it is appropriate to ignore the savings from living together. Living with family or in any other form of living together is therefore an economic benefit incentive.
3. The RIANI must include any payment of any type and origin, including any pension, also net of taxes.
4. The calculation of RIANI must take account of assets, movable and immovable property owned by the person. If the assets do not generate revenues directly (eg a house owned by the person lived), special tables will translate well in the ownership of the equivalent income.
5. The aid products and services provided in kind by private or public institutions and private (non-profit organization) are not counted in individual income.
6. Children under eighteen years shall be borne by the parents. Possible measures for families and for demographic purposes are considered to be outside of this project.
7. The condition of poverty giving entitlement to benefit must be self-certified with a special statement signed by the individual. Perceiving the benefit without being in the conditions provided by law is in effect a fraud on the community and is equivalent to tax evasion.
8. To all those who are in a position to have an individual income RIANI less than the "X", as determined by the minimum subsistence shall be paid a subsidy equal to S = X - Rian.
9. The subsidy S (whose value is always less because tax-exempt) shall be paid in two ways: some form of "vouchers" payable to the person. They must be spent by the parties in a timely manner and for the purposes specified, but with freedom choice of organization providing services, public or private. The other part, in cash, with delivery in 13 months a year. The first category, the insurance for accidents, health, school, ... .. and so the state is considered a must for every citizen, to avoid unnecessary energy consumption, the concerned destinations to the minimum necessary to good relations in society.
10. To avoid duplication, the subsidy S includes all the other benefits of a social nature that are now in favor of the poor and low income earners. There should be no overlapping, sources of injustice and unfairness, if not in donations in kind by private individuals (as has been said that are not part of RIANI).
11. E 'be given the opportunity to individuals and businesses to contribute money to the needy (direct solidarity), with the possibility to deduct, within the limits of the grant attributable to each beneficiary, the amounts of taxes, and until the share allocated redistribution (tenth). To prevent fraud, it is appropriate that the donations are regularly documented.
12. That is the principle of horizontal subsidiarity according to which the government intervenes only when private organizations, in competition with each other, are not sufficient to provide the services of vouchers distributed. The intervention result is accomplished by not providing direct services, but only through the voucher be spent by the owners.
We look at an example: in respect of citizens of Italian nationality, the age of eighteen, with an income RIANI as defined in the preceding paragraphs, we assume that those who are in conditions to be entitled to the subsidy S to be seven in number million, a figure more or less estimated by Istat. The annual amount of 120 billion €, which is supposed to be devoted to welfare, will be distributed among all of them, as entitled, to the extent required to restore the value to the value Rian X. If, at worst, the seven million people are considered income to zero, the subsidy per capita will reach approximately € 17,000 per year (S = X = a 120 billion divided by 7 million). Even taking into account that a party must properly be imputed on the contribution of the parties concerned to ensure a retirement pension, there remains the possibility of providing a subsidy of all respect. In fact, if one considers that in many cases, the subsidy will only be supplementary to bridge the difference between Riana and X, the number of clients, with the same X, will also exceed the projected number of 7 million. This
elementary calculus, although very rough, leads to the conclusion that if you adopt the above criteria, the company we live in have the necessary resources to resolve very well the problem of poverty, welfare dedicating one-tenth of his income to the needy and ensuring an income of at least thirteen thousand euro per year per capita net imputed contributions to pension insurance and sickness and accident insurance. Why
in Italy this proposal was never realized and, in all likelihood, even today it is impossible? The causes are many, as in all complex problems, but there is no doubt that prevailing political reasons, and, basically, the resistance of the privileged classes who want to continue to participate in welfare while not needing one. We simply note that, without waste and concentrating resources available, the problem of poverty could be solved.
In developed countries where it is followed here (Scandinavia, Holland, Denmark in particular), the problem in front of which the rulers have found it was not economic, but of different nature. We need only cite what HHHoppe says: "subsidies with taxpayers' money (ie, OPM), the poor, creating an incentive to be poor in that it creates more poverty. By subsidizing the unemployed, it creates more unemployment ... This simple observation applies to the whole system of so-called social security ... ... ..... " In Actually, this is the problem. It is clear that people who receive the subsidy does not have an incentive to accept work, unless it is a very high value of remuneration.
If, for example, they are offered a job with a salary of 1,500 Euros per month and they already receive a subsidy of € 1,000, the loss of the subsidy means that the actual salary matched only 500 €. Working for 1,500 and receive 500 is not convenient for anyone. Should continue to collect € 1000, have all the free time to devote to leisure or to any undeclared work. Conclusion: there is no incentive to work and encourages regular undeclared work. But there are alternatives? I
difficult, but somehow groped can be met. You can impose an obligation to attend training courses riqualificanti obligation to accept any offer of employment, on pain of suspension of aid. A solution frankly we just shared, as all solutions that involve coercion. You could place an obligation, given that these staff have to the community, to play a socially useful work, possibly invented for the occasion. These solutions, unfortunately, already tested, showed the poverty of content, with the total absence of participation by workers. Basically, it achieves something very similar to the work arrest. And then there is the danger of turning these temporary employees in public buildings. Be excluded.
We believe more in some trade-offs, have already been tried with relative success, solutions to cushion the transition from being unemployed than employment, such as, for example, by gradual stages and, accompanied by heavy doses of social propaganda, such as to feel guilty about those who, given the opportunity, systematically refuses the job without good arguments.
On this subject, which shows that it is technically very complex, it is very important to consider the teaching of prof. Stefano Zamagni ("The economy of the common good" ed. New Town) with regard to the introduction of the "principle of reciprocity."
The ratio of individuals in the social fact is not only trade in the market, characterized by a weight of objects exchanged considered equivalent, but by a set of attitudes is not quantifiable, a deep ethical content, which also are donated each other, contributing so happy to make both actors of the exchange. The subsidy without reciprocity affects the individual in his pride, because it can only meet its physical survival, but this is not enough to make him happy and still participate in society. There is a part of man entails the execution of their personality, whether large or small, and they all need to be conscious of giving, including persons with disabilities, their limitations, but always giving. "Feeling useless is even more humiliating than feeling exploited," he recalls Zamagni.
An effective institutional system should leave ample room for economic participation of citizens, even outside of the rigid schemes of the market economy. Do not forget that the ultimate goal still remains the fulfillment of all the happiness and that happiness is an inner attitude that you can not buy.
