Economics-Why is there so much debate about the role of govt. providing welfare?

Question

Why is there always so much debate and anger about the role of government in providing a saftey net (welfare)?

Answer 1

It's such an emotional debate because everyone is forced to be on one side or the other. Every adult is affected in some way. Either you pay more in tax than you receive in benefits, or you receive more in benefits than you pay in tax. They directly affect one another, and virtually everyone is in one of those categories - and let's face it, everyone likes their money.

As a result, the people who pay more tax than they receive as benefits, look at the other group and say "How come that after I went to school for years to secure my future, got a job and worked my way up the ladder, my hard earned cash is being taken by the government and being given to some bum who is either too stupid to get a job or just can't be bothered, and sits around on his couch watching daytime TV and scratching himself all day?"

And of course the people who receive more benefits than they pay in cash look at the other group and say "Well I'm a law-abiding citizen, I've always done what the government asks of me, I always pay my taxes even though I'm strapped for cash all the time. What does $100 or $200 mean to some fat-cat who drives a BMW and spends that amount every night at dinner? That could pay my rent this whole month, it means so much more to me. The government has an obligation to give it to me since under the law I am an equal citizen to anyone no matter what they earn, and they have a moral responsibility to help us poor downtrodden folks."

As a result, when economists debate it (and there are economists who support both sides, the efficiency of the free market and the necessity of government intervention), politicians jump in because it is something that resonates very deeply with people. Is it fair to rob the rich and give the poor? It's a moral issue that pretty much anyone can debate about for ages and never convince anyone else. The end result of all of this is that while it is basically an economic question, it will always become heavily politicised, with the rhetoric and anger that you describe.

Answer 2

It comes down the question of do we promote efficiency or do we promote equity. The United States almost always goes on the side of efficiency to keep the economy growing. However, those on the other side of the fence believe that this is an unfair practice. Basically, providing public assistance slows down the economic growth of a country, and capitalism is founded on the idea that government should stay out of the market system (however government plays a role in any economy, and no economy is truly capitalist).

Answer 3

When people debate "welfare" they are usually referring to the small amount of the total expenditures on welfare for citizens that goes as cash benefits to single mothers. I have often thought that it arouses so much anger because of male biological instincts not to support other men's children, which is also exhibited by the historical condemnation of adultery by women, but not always by men, in most societies.
There are also people who believe that government taxation and redistribution of income is inefficient and so makes most people, even poor people worse off in the long run. They generally object to all government welfare programs, such as social security, farm subsidies, home mortgage insurance, and programs to aid corporations and even student loans. Their debates are usually more reasoned and rarely angry.