Neubarth
At the Ballpark July 30th
- Thread starter
- #41
I've constructed an argument based on an understanding of the impact of the franchise (going further than a static public choice approach such as the median voter model). Its possible to demonstrate the severity of any underprovision by comparing across countries. For example, we have the evidence into welfare state effects that- by ensuring a more generous safety net- enables more risk adverse behaviour that then encourages social mobilityYou are assuming under-provisioning. There is no evidence nor reason necessarily to think this.
You are assuming in your argument that social mobility and a more equal distribution is the optimum outcome for a society. I don't disagree that countries with a more extensive welfare system can bring about more social mobility, such as in Canada or Sweden. However, it can also be demonstrated that increased welfare spending slows economic growth. In the United States, economic growth is generally considered a better outcome than government spending to increase social mobility and general economic welfare.
Toro, the taxation to support the Welfare state is what destroys companies and drives them from the taxing state. Most legislatures do not understand the principle. Taxation destroys the bottom line.. Taxation may be great for the politicians and their careers, but it destroys the economy.