Umm...perhaps they might be asking them to 'refocus' the budget? Not so much take more and tax more. I think people are looking at the money there is and want it divided into neater pieces. Or from your paradigm, less taxes (but they don't pay a lot anyway) so they basically want more ?

I don't think they want greater taxes.

But in terms of agency costs, yes..its very inefficient.

Hi Ben, good to hear from you.

Yes and no. I described the matter as if a tax-hike is involved; but the underlying argument is actually indifferent with respect to the baseline taxation minus the issue of "parent support by the state". No matter what the baseline is, the question of what each agent puts into the system (whether by way of additional taxes or a reallocation of existing taxes) vs. what he gets out, and how all that compares to doing without the state and providing for his parents from his own resources, will still arise. My only contention is that in each case, it has to be that the citizen expects to get more out of the system than he puts in--if he is a rational agent, ergo, he expects the shortfall to be met by the contributions of others.

(It is entirely possible that there are altruists out there who are making the argument because they would like to put more into the system than they expect to take out--but the usual formulations do not suggest that the proposer is coming from this angle. And in the cases where the proposer is coming from this angle, I have other problems. But, another day.)

I am not entirely sure but I suspect that that what's going on is that the "not uncommon line of argument" basically amounts to asking the state to provide essentially private goods (this is compatible with the fact that such private goods may well have positive externalities, but they are still essentially private goods). And my argument is basically pointing out the underlying consequence of such an appeal. What do you think?

(Incidentally, I am by no means arguing that all appeals to other people are by that token illegitimate, wrong, etc. Many are perfectly legit and even offer compelling reason for others people--"us"--to step in. But we need to be clear that that's what we are asking for.)

Hui Chieh,

I'm interested to tackle the part you left out, which is you think is the reason for people trying to shift the burden of aged parents to the state.

Another question that I have that is it a given that children must take care of their aged parents? Just because that is common practice doesn't mean that it's a given. Is it the duty of children to take care of aged parents, or is it the duty of people to take care of themselves in old age?

And, if you're wondering my take to the above question, I would support my parents in their old age, but I wouldn't want my kids to support me in my old age.

Aaron:

Sounds good.

I should be clear about one thing: my post is not about the "the reason for people trying to shift the burden of aged parents to the state" if by that you mean something like people's motivation. I am quite willing to believe that even those who propose the "not uncommon line of argument" are not thinking in the way laid out in my post. Rather, my point is that whatever their true motivations (which could well be noble), we should be clear sighted about just what is being asked for. So you are right in saying that the "reasons" (i.e., motivation) is something I've "left out". I did so deliberately.

Incidentally, my argument can also apply if we are not talking about children taking care of parents but people being responsible for their own retirement. The same questions about what they expect to put in and take out can be raised. (As pointed out in my previous comment, I suspect that it is really an instance of a more general argument to do with any attempts to get the state to provide essentially private goods through public means.)

Hui Chieh,

So, if I read you correctly, you seem to say that it is more of one's responsibility rather than the state's responsibility to take care of oneself (or one's aged parents for that matter). If the state takes over the provision of this "private" good, despite the positive externalities, there is inequality in that some social actors will end up paying more to compensate for those who cannot afford to pay the market price of taking care of oneself/one's aged parents.

Based on my above interpretation, that means that we have to discuss the role of the state in society (and the related issue of whether taking care of the aged in the society is a public or private issue). In Singapore's context, my opinion the role of the state has been more as a facilitator rather than a guardian. In the so-called western "welfare states", the state seems to function the other way round. I'm not sure whether my dichotomy is correct, so I would like to hear your input.

Aaron:

Personally, I am inclined to the position that it's ultimately the individual's responsibility (barring special circumstances) to see to his own retirement and that of his parents rather than the state's (i.e., "other people") responsibility. But this is meant to be a personal view--I see it as my responsibility to see to my own retirement and the responsibility of my siblings and I to provide for our parents in their old age, barring special circumstances. I am not really interested in pushing for the position that everyone should think this way--it is really their own decision--and my post was certainly not an attempt to present a positive argument in that direction.

But it is one thing for different people to make different decisions about what they owe their future selves or their parents; but it is presumably something else again for them to ask other people to shoulder those responsibilities. But if my argument in the post is right, that seems to be the outcome of asking "the state" to step in.

If we are going to go on to discuss the boundaries of the state's responsibility, then presumably we should all be clear minded about just what is it that we are asking for, whichever direction one is coming from. In particular, I am hoping that people will see that in asking for the state to take on this or that financial responsibility for some private good, one is basically asking for other people to foot the bill for that good.

It is an entirely possible that it is exactly the equitable thing for others to foot the bill in some circumstances--hence my various "special circumstances" qualifications. I am open to persuasion. But whatever the case, at least we need to be clear just what is it that we are asking for--something often obscured by an easy going invocation of "the state" (or "society") as a bearer of responsibility.

Perhaps I did not make my point obvious. I think there are 2 sets of rational individuals. One who will prefer that others subsidized his obligation to take care of his parents (Mr Y). The other who will prefer the state to reallocate resources. (Mr X). The difference is that one pay taxes (x) and the other does not (y).

Regarding the rational individual X, he might rationally prefer for the Government to pay the amount of taxes he has to pay anyway towards his own parents, and does not mind it overspilling to other people's parents, rather than on some other 'good' that he might not think its that 'good'.

What Mr X wants ultimately is to pay as little taxes to maximize the value of public good to himself. But since now he has to pay taxes...

In other words, if Mr X, a filial son, has to pay 60 tax dollars, and his parents will to receive 20 dollars in welfare, and 40 tax dollars will go to the public coffers, he will choose this over paying 40.x-60 tax dollars to the public coffers and his parents receiving no welfare.

To Mr X, it does not matter that the savings for less than 10 dollars come from defense budget spending or anything that does not maximise his public utility. He, perhaps like a minority of Singaporeans might value public utility (say national service) to be really really jialat and will not want to fund it. These folks are really sneaky.

In other words, I think Mr X wants the state to reallocate (in a sneaky fashion) and the other chap (Mr Y) which I think reappears more in your argument wants to get Mr X to pay more.

Mr X best strategy is to get state to reallocate and then say he don't want to pay for people like Mr Y. Mr Y best strategy is an increase in Mr X's personal taxation without reallocation of budget (since I assume public utility is a +), so his parents get some from X. The state's best strategy is to command them that....

Regarding the discussion about 'obligation', have you guys not heard of Maintenance of Parents Act (the first private bill to make it to an act - if I don't recall wrong vis-a-vis Walter Woon - again I might be wrong).

Section 3 reads,

Applications for maintenance orders.
3. --(1) Any person domiciled and resident in Singapore who is of or above 60 years of age and who is unable to maintain himself adequately (referred to in this section as the parent) may apply to the Tribunal for an order that one or more of his children pay him a monthly allowance or any other periodical payment or a lump sum for his maintenance.

But!

Maintenance orders.
5. --(1) The Tribunal may make a maintenance order if it considers that it is just and equitable that the respondent should maintain the applicant and that --

(a) the respondent is able to provide maintenance to the applicant after his own requirements and those of his spouse and his children have been supplied; and

(b) the applicant is unable, in spite of efforts on his part, to maintain himself through work or from his property or from any other source.

Ben:

Ok, I think I get your point better now, though I am still skeptical that it will make a lot of difference to my argument.

Let's say that Mr. X currently pays $60 in taxes. He wants the government to reallocate $20 from, say, defense, to provide a safety net. It's stipulated in advance that he doesn't care that by so doing, some of the benefits will rebound to Mr. Y who pays no taxes.

One thing that could be said is that Mr. X might well be among those "other people" that my argument refers to. He is being altruistic since in order for the state to reallocate the $20 so as to provide a safety net both to him and to Y, it will have to turn out that he gets less out of the system (less than $20) than what he puts in ($20).

I could be wrong, but I don't think that when most people make the "not uncommon line of argument", they usually do so from the position of Mr. X. If that's what is going on, then they are essentially saying "the government should not be talking to people about family values, encouraging them to look after their parents, etc.--since I am willing to help subsidize others in providing a "safety net" for their parents." The rhetoric of the argument is drastically different now.

Second. Whether or not Mr. X appreciates the value of the public good that is provided by that $20, if it really is a public good, he is already enjoying its benefit (in fact, it will cost more to excluded him from enjoying the benefit...). On the other hand, if Mr. X feels that the money is inefficiently spent, etc., it seems that his case is best made by asking for more scrutiny and efficiency. (Think GAO in the US.) Getting the government to reallocate that part of the budget from the provision of a putative public good to a private good (though distributed widely) seems a rather round about way to do things.

In any case, as you pointed out earlier, it is entirely possible that Mr. X would prefer that the government simply reduces taxes by $20 flat and forget about the safety net thing.

I am aware of the parents maint. act. Note however that the act does not actually make it automatic that children support parents: a relevant party has to bring suit. From the POV of the act, it's thus not completely the case that children have the obligation to look after their parents but that parents have the option of making their children do so, if they so choose.

Hui Chieh,

Similar to you, I do wonder why should it be the state's responsibility? Just because there's the presence of something called the state? If we take the state out of the equation, what are we going to do with the elderly? At least for me, I don't think that it's the state's duty to take care of the elderly. I would rather the state try and provide an environment for people to earn good money to take care of themselves.

Haha. Roundabout is right. I cannot however contemplate another rational reason why people who pay taxes are asking for such welfare - and most people I know who are asking for this welfare are falling/will be falling into this class. And asking for scrutiny and efficiency is important - not sure how it is to be done though in Singapore. And I think regarding your uncommon line of reasoning does assume that people who does such a reasoning do not pay those taxes which I find not often the case. Perhaps the right and simple explanation is altruism but altruism is hard to explain.

Regarding the Parents Act, yes. Reading Sections 3 and 5, it basically requires parents to seek the order, and even in that case, the tribunal must find the child able to pay. As you have implied, the range covered is very limited - probably the unable parent whose child simply refuse to maintain the parent. So there is a limited legal obligation.

And I think its the state's partial duty to take care of the elderly. And these can involve making elderly friendly building ad infinitum. But handouts - thats another story altogether.

Huichieh, great post to ignite the brain cells btw, but I don't quite get the last part about how it will "render it this much more persuasive." For me, it renders it less persuasive - unless you mean persuasive simply by it being logical. The revisited formulation sounds to me like

"All you people just wnat to use people money to siam taking care of your parents."

while the first one sounds like

"The Gahmen cannot talk about what family values this family values that. They not helping also what. Talk so much. They should give welfare."

Cheers

Hi Ben:

For the last part, think "irony". :) (The reference to Machiavelli was meant to be a give away.) Incidentally, the aim of the post is precisely to point out that in many cases, the two formulations are equivalent (whether or not the proposer realizes it).

I have separate issues with the altruism possibility. In a nutshell: it's all well and good for individuals to feel generous and want to contribute towards other people's welfare. But doing so by asking for state provision of welfare is to ask for the general enforcement of this 'altruism' upon other people--who might or might not share this same generosity. This is tantamount to "imposing one's virtue upon others" and to that extent, prima facie problematic. People who feel generous should consider donating to private charities, or starting such charities themselves. Or even just write a check for relative or friend or person you read about in the paper who is having it hard in his/her retirement.

Hehehe... hilarious. However, small nitpick on the two being 'equivalent logically' (loosely based on a symbolic logic way)! Let's just play spot the logic hole and forget social, economic, political implications for one.

Assuming I accept all arguments in the post. All we have proven is that effective payer of elderly welfare is 'other people'. We need additional steps to prove that 'other people' are 'weaseling out'.

However, lack of proof is not proof of lack. Suppose I accept the premise that 'other people are weaseling out'. Now, I would like to the following test: in order for any agent to 'weasel out', it implies that they must be capable of denying me taxpayer's money (because as stated in the post, the financial resources come in the form of taxpayer's money).

Now, in the original statement 'the state' is possibly true. Certain elected and unelected individuals are capable of denying me taxpayer's money.

In the modified statement, 'other people' under the proposed test, are incapable of denying me taxpayer's money, they don't have any say in where the taxpayer's money go! (it also turns out that they have no say on whether to pay tax either... where do you think this is Hong Kong?!). Thus, 'other people' are incapable of denying me taxpayer's money. But the test claims that if 'other people' are 'weaseling out', they must be capable of denying me taxpayer's money! So the assumption that other people are weaseling out is wrong (modus tollens and all that)!

In order for any two statements p and q to be logically equivalent, they must have the same truth value (either both true or both false). But one is true and the other false. Thus they are not equivalent.

P.S syntax, not semantics.

RSE:

I trust that you enjoyed the post.

The short answer is: "equivalent" is not logically equivalent to "logically equivalent". The slightly longer answer is: of course there is a way for "other people" to weasel out--they can refuse to support me in calling for the government to implement such and such welfare program, or even elect the right people who would do such a thing. :)

Actually, we need to be clear about what is equivalent to what. My claim is that in many cases, proposing that:

(a) The state ought to bear the cost of providing X,

is tantamount to proposing that:

(b) Other people ought to bear the cost of providing X

--In that in order for (a) to obtain, (b) has to obtain as well; but the converse need not be the case. (My last comment in reply to Ben was the first time I used the word "equivalent" and I probably shouldn't have.) The argument for that basically makes up the post. (Again, I have to emphasize that the "in many cases" is not a dispensable qualifier since the above will only obtain if we are talking about someone who expects to get more out from the system than what he puts in; see my replies to Ben)

Note also that I am more than willing to grant that even in the cases in which my argument apply (the qualifier is true) (a) and (b) are intensionally non-equivalent (in fact, they are at odds with each other). The man who walks into the bar declaring "I am looking for the man who murdered my father" might well fail to realize that he is in fact looking for his best friend since he doesn't know that his best friend murdered his father. So even though at one level (read extensionally)

(c) A is looking for the man who murdered his father, is "logically equivalent" to:

(d) A is looking for his best friend

For instance, the objective truth conditions for success are exactly the same, it would be very misleading to simply leave it at that.

But apart from all that, I must say that what you said in your comment highlighted another important consideration that I didn't find the space to touch on: the fact that in general, once the government makes the decision, "other people" are no longer in any position to weasel out. This is part of the reason why it pays to make the proposal in terms of "the state" rather than "other people": making the proposal in terms of persuading the state to do something is precisely a way to sidestep the messy business of having to actually convince "other people" to pony up, despite the fact that were "the state" to agree, it will still be "other people" who pays. Apart from the fact that "the state" is really a smaller number of elected and unelected officials vs. the many more that makes up "other people", it is also easier to persuade "the state" to be generous with "other people"'s money (and earn the name for being compassionate while they are at it), than to persuade the actual payers to be generous with their own money. That's also derivable from Machiavelli's dictum.

Of course I know what you're pushing at (i.e. that the effective bearer of the burden is the taxpayer, state or not). That's why I said: "Syntax (usage of words), not semantics (meaning itself)" Oh, and technically logical equivalence simply means that both statements are either 'true' or 'false'. 'Grass is green in general' is logically equivalent to '1+1=2' because both are 'true' at least in classical logic. The one you're probably looking for is 'material equivalence'.

As for the entire issue itself, my stand is pretty much-- "Welfare or no welfare -- we're all paying tax anyway!" which of course is relevant to the point that 'other people' have no say what happens to the money they cough up. Anyway, I am of opinion that one of the many roles of the state to be generous with 'other people's' money... it's their job to be. What else are they going to do with all tax they collect? The problem is always the distribution. The fact that money comes from other people is well, just that, a fact; not a good reason or argument for or against welfare. It is only a valid point if you are arguing against taxation in general. Maybe that's because I'm not a -- what's the correct philosophical term for it -- consequentialist?

Machiavelli is so wrong in Singapore (him and his Prince). It's far easier to get people to donate money in Singapore than to persuade the state to give it up. Pardon the morbidity, but 'jumping MRT tracks' was more persuasive to the people than it was to the state. I'm sure that there are far more appropriate and less inflammatory examples but eh... I'm in that kind of mood.

RSE:

Hmm... I suppose it might depend on the textbooks you read. As far as I know (and this is what I was taught and teach my students), P and Q are materially equivalent if and only if they have the same truth values (in other words, P iff Q; see e.g., this). By claiming that they are "logically equivalent", on the other hand, we are saying that P and Q have the same truth values (i.e., they are materially equivalent) in all models (or in all substitution instances). One way that can be cashed out in truth-functional logic is to say that P and Q have the same truth tables. So while "Grass is green" is materially equivalent to "1+1=2", "either not-p or not-q" is logically equivalent to "not (p and q)".

Anyway, the point made in my original post need not involve any claim about equivalence, especially if understood in a technical fashion. (I first used that word in my last response to Ben.) As I formulated it in my previous comment, (a) and (b) are (colloquially) "equivalent" only in the sense that asking for the first is tantamount to asking for the second.

I don't get the reference to philosophical consequentialist. As I understand the doctrine, "Consequentialism... is a moral doctrine which says that the right act in any given situation is the one that will produce the best overall outcome, as judged from an impersonal standpoint which gives equal weight to the interests of everyone. Somewhat more precisely, we may think of a consequentialist theory of this kind as coming in two parts. First, it gives some principle for ranking overall states of affairs from best to worst from an impersonal standpoint, and then it says that the right act in any given situation is the one that will produce the highest ranked state of affairs that the agent is in a position to produce. Obviously, there can be as many different theories of this type as there are criteria for ranking overall outcomes" (Samuel Scheffler ed., Consequentialism and its Critics, p. 1).

So let's say that one is a consequentialist about actions of the state and let's restrict the domain of application of one's consequentialism to the political unit (the country, rather than, say, the world as a whole). Then one would presumably say that the right thing for the state to do is the one that will produce the best overall outcome, as judged from an impersonal standpoint which gives equal weight to the interests of everyone within the political unit. Whether or not this will involve spending or not spending whoever's money is not of direct consequence (pardon the pun)--it will all depend on the consequences of spending or not spending.

But perhaps you are using the word "consequentialist" in a more colloquial, non-technical way?

Incidentally, I absolutely agree that "one of the many roles of the state to be generous with 'other people's' money." There is thus a level to what I am saying that can be taken as relating not to welfare in particular, but state mandated transfers via taxation in general; definitely. But this is not so much an argument "against" taxation as an attempted explication of what it amounts to. The background is that talk in terms of asking "the state" to pay for this or that often obscures the fact that we are ultimately talking about spending taxpayers money--as if "the state" (or sometimes "society") is this thing that stands completely apart from us.

As I took pains to emphasize, I am not in principle against state mandated transfers via taxation in toto--in fact, I believe that there are compelling reason for all sorts of such transfers. In any case, I don't think the controversy is in that area but in the question of "be generous and spend that money on what in particular?" Specifically, I want to focus on those areas where the thing that the state is being asked to spend on consists of essentially private goods (even if goods that have positive externalities). After all, a welfare check for a specific individual or family is not the same as street lighting.

I agree with you about the specific conditions in Singapore such that it is actually easier to get people to donate money than to get "the state" to do such and such. (Though if this is the case, then wouldn't it be more effective simply to set up more private charities than to call for state provided welfare? No need to worry about possible future tax increases, no need to bring in state bureaucracy, red tape, etc? Possibilities of a variety of more specifically targeted funds managed by people with strong local knowledge of specific needs, etc.?)

My Machiavellian point is probably more applicable to places such as the US with its strong tradition of special interest lobbies. It may be because of the fact that de facto one-party rule shields the PAP government from having to listen as much to such pleadings, especially when the call for it seems to come mostly from a minority. But--with some reservations--I am actually quite happy with this state of affairs. I am not of the opinion that 'jumping MRT tracks' examples make for good policy deliberations even if they might be great donation motivators.

(Finally, I do think that our leaders have imbibed the lessons from Machiavelli, but that's another story for another day.)

Anyway, I really enjoyed your comments: thanks. (You too Ben, if you are still around.)

You're right... I accidentally swapped 'materially' with 'logically' I have no idea what the heck happened with my brain. :) Long day at class I suppose.

I wasn't sure about the actual term I meant, but what I meant is that I only considered the 'immediate effects' of an action (lobbying the state), not the 'net effects or consequences' (lobbying everyone else) of an action when evaluating it's worth. Consequentialist came to mind for some reason although I wasn't specifically thinking about morality.

Should the 'state' (other people) pay for welfare which is essentially a private good, neglecting externalities? First off, a note: you cannot uncouple externalities with any analysis of policy; neglecting externalities, something all too common in Singapore has brought about some pretty undesirable results. As much as I hate the word 'wholistically', policies do need to be considered that way.

That being said, a welfare check may immediately be a private good (money to their pockets not accessible to me and spent only by them, those bums *ahem*) but consider: are we also indirectly paying for a different good, like human dignity or peace of mind or assuaging your librul (sic) guilt(like buying starbucks coffee, you are actually paying for the atmosphere)? In the grand scheme of things, I can tell you the existence of welfare also tilts the balance of power towards the employee away from the employer; whereas workfare does the opposite.

As for why lobbying the state is preferable to setting up charities? I myself prefer the charity route, but let's forget that for the sake of argument. Well, for one: economies of scale. If it is handled by the state, as opposed to dozens of 'competing' charities there will be less wastage. If you are going to be specific to Singapore, it's also that the common person has very little spare change for charity after fare hikes, taxes and CPF -- and because of the lack of welfare, paranoia about job security and untouchableness of CPF they aren't exactly a reliable source of welfare (barring certain high publicity incidents, but for private charity to work, cash must come consistently, not in large one-off spurts, especially if charity is small and has trouble with short-term survival). If you are of the cynical type, you'd say Singaporeans are too apathetic when it comes to actively contributing to civil society (I'll just say they're busy, and probably clueless as to the avenues of contribution, and too afraid to fail).

Of course 'jumping MRT tracks' in itself is not exactly a good point of policy deliberation. I was just being morbid :). It is however a symptom of the desperation of a certain segment of society, and some say the complete failure of the few mechanisms in place. But that is only tangentially related to the discussion.

(Finally: PAP for all their talk about pragmatism, are ideologues. If reality does not jive with their world-view they refuse to see it. They are inflexible on certain topics, and legalistic make them ill-suited for Machiavelli-style politicking.)

RSE:

Should the 'state' (other people) pay for welfare which is essentially a private good, neglecting externalities? First off, a note: you cannot uncouple externalities with any analysis of policy; neglecting externalities, something all too common in Singapore has brought about some pretty undesirable results. As much as I hate the word 'wholistically', policies do need to be considered that way.

I agree--which is why, as I said, I am not in principle against state mandated transfers via taxation and would even be willing to grant that they can be compelling reason for all sorts of such transfers. (Though needless to say, those externalities need to be weighed up against the costs of generating them, and I'm sure there will be lots of debates about how much, for whom, but that's just normal democratic politics.)

As for why lobbying the state is preferable to setting up charities? I myself prefer the charity route, but let's forget that for the sake of argument. Well, for one: economies of scale. If it is handled by the state, as opposed to dozens of 'competing' charities there will be less wastage. If you are going to be specific to Singapore, it's also that the common person has very little spare change for charity after fare hikes, taxes and CPF -- and because of the lack of welfare, paranoia about job security and untouchableness of CPF they aren't exactly a reliable source of welfare (barring certain high publicity incidents, but for private charity to work, cash must come consistently, not in large one-off spurts, especially if charity is small and has trouble with short-term survival). If you are of the cynical type, you'd say Singaporeans are too apathetic when it comes to actively contributing to civil society (I'll just say they're busy, and probably clueless as to the avenues of contribution, and too afraid to fail).

We might have to agree to disagree on this one: I am not sold on the economies of scale argument here and tend to put more weight on the importance of diffused local knowledge (and fast response upon that knowledge) that smaller startups possess--which allows resources to reach specific people to meet specific needs on time, sans the massive and necessarily impersonal bureaucracy. But presumably the ideal situation will allow for a range of possibilities from the very small scale and private, to the state run agencies. Since I happen to believe that there is a lot more than ought to be done on the private side, growing the civil society space, so to speak, asking the state to step in might bring about the unintended consequence of taking away the incentives for private individuals to take up the slack. There might not be any way round the need for our private initiatives to literally swim or sink so that those that survive come out stronger...

I'm a little surprised at the rest of the reasoning. It is actually not immediately obvious that "the common person has very little spare change for charity after fare hikes, taxes and CPF". At the end of the day, ours is an extremely small government running on an extremely small budget by world standards (15% of GDP -- compare with the 30-40+% of many developed countries even minus social security transfers). The tax rates are low by any standards. Most people use most of their CPFOA to pay housing loans and as for the CPFSA, we should be saving that much for retirement anyway with or without CPF. Even with the 'small' 30 Billion budget, it works out to 10,000 per person assuming that there are 3 million Singaporeans. Let's say we take a typical family of four: how many "common person" comes from a family of four that pays 40,000/yr/household in taxes, fees, etc., considering that the median household income from work for 2006 is supposed to be 54,000! Yes, it ain't exactly cheap to live in Singapore, but it's not obvious to me at all that this is because of "fare hikes, taxes and CPF" but other factors.

In any case, all that may be moot. What we need are a generation of old school philanthropists and social entrepreneurs (rather than yet more donation drives).

Prof Huichieh

Noted and appreciate the rationale as well as the large hint of Machiavelli.
However, clear and logical answers would pointedly not be sufficient for the cynics in the local blogosphere as there are very few sceptics.

'other people' under the proposed test, are incapable of denying me taxpayer's money, they don't have any say in where the taxpayer's money go!

The KTM believes that this statement is untrue if we expand the definition for "deny me taxpayers' money". There is another rational individual Z for whom the prospect of dumping his parents on the State is a non-option (which might in some ways contradict the claim of rationality, but for the sake of argument, let's just indulge the KTM). To be more precise, individual Z will undertake to pay for his parents' upkeep + healthcare.

Suppose also that it is possible for individuals to abdicate their responsibility to their parents in a willful way (this means that they can pay, but they dun want to pay -- apparently happens quite often for medical bills).

From the perspective of Z, every tax payers' dollar that goes to the funding of the parents who are willfully abandoned doesn't increase Z's welfare. It would be better for those dollars to be spend on education, public infrastructure and maybe even defence.

While it is true that Z doesn't get to choose exactly where the extra tax payers' dollar will go if not spent on the abandoned aged parents, it is also true that Z is effectively worse off for every tax dollar that is spent on abandoned aged parents (or to be more accurate, Z has a potential of being better off if the funds are spent differently).

Aiyah, what's really happening is that people are lobbying for welfare under the fallacious reasoning that "I don't expect my kids to pay for my upkeep, therefore the State should pay more welfare to me because I contributed to the nation". Then they will claim that they dun want to burden their children with extra taxes and we should divert some money from defence (which may be right), but at the end of the day, when the sums will show that no matter how we try to re-distribute, it's not going to be enough to have State-funded pensions + healthcare and it all boils down to them eyeing the reserves. :-)

ben is right. This is not about persuasion. The KTM actually has no problems with people lobbying for stuff. It's just that when people start saying things like, "it's okay for kids not to maintain their parents, because the State should do it," it just rubs the KTM the wrong way. :-P

I have to go out now but here's one quick point about the reserves: turns out that the government has been using the returns from the reserves since the early 2000s (reversal from the budget surpluses of the 90s). For 2006, something like 2.8 billion came from "Net Investment Income Contribution". (I think they are allowed to use up to 50% of the returns.) If doing so can help keep taxes and fees down, this is a good idea.

Actually my point was more 'it is meaningless to look at policy in terms of private good instead externalities' (which we all agree), than 'welfare has positive externalities', which I left hanging. Arguably, most public goods e.g. 'National Defense' are actually externalities as a result from buying 'private goods' using 'other people's' money such as bullets, post-it notes and rations. Social Welfare(?) (possibly a public good) is a result of buying certain private goods like 'welfare checks'.

Definitely a lot more needs to be done by the private side. The question is why isn't it so? Singapore didn't lack old school philanthropists (the existence of the old Nanyang University was due to this) in the distant past, where did they go? Did they disappear because *something* changed in Singapore (it has to be a local phenomenon because the rest of the world seems to be able to keep them) that actively discouraged them? As much as prefer private action, this phenomenon has puzzled me somewhat. Food for thought. Random answers the dominance of MNCs and GLCs in our economy and er... NS.

Of course, CPF, taxes, hikes and time only effects 'donation drives' (for better or worse, in Singapore this is currently the bulk of how charity is done).

Bonus question (wear your tin foil hat): Most successful (vague definition of success) smaller private charities (of a vague nature) are tied to a bigger different supporting private organization (such as a church, temple or mosque or uh.. Dove). In the absence of a presumably neutral state program, does this make susceptible the domination of private agendas in the administering of a public good (Social welfare)? Example: Proselysation. Many missionaries in the distant past went 'convert or no welfare for you' (fortunately, such a practice has fallen out of favour, I think).

KTM:

Lobbying is never about persuasion :). It's always about money. Public persuasion helps in lobbying (in places with some semblance of democracy), why do you think certain parties are trying their darndest to persuade others that 'global warming is false' in the USA? Problem: No one in Singapore is lobbying for anything they are just debating on the internet. Debating is fun.

I do think Kitana is making a far more complex argument than "I don't expect my kids to pay for my upkeep, therefore the State should pay more welfare to me because I contributed to the nation", though. But that's for her to defend, not I.

RSE,

Okay, the KTM stands corrected. :-) People are not lobbying. They are just ranting. ;-P In any case, the KTM wasn't referring to Kitana lah, so there is no need for her to "defend herself". The KTM was actually referring to the comments in the Kitana's blog.

Re: old school philanthropists, we do have a few, though most seem to have a penchant to donate to music conservatories and medical schools. In any case, you may wish to note a distinct difference between Singapore and Hong Kong. In HK, most of the wealth "captured" in recent years are in the hands of a few tycoons and their families, while in Singapore, most of the wealth is in the hands of the GLCs. Turns out that GLCs are not in a position to give away their wealth quite as liberally as wealthy businessmen.

RSE:

What happened to the old school philanthropists? I'm inclined to say that our very efficient government has made it less of an imperative for people to rise to the occasion. There was great motivation to do something when you know for sure that the British Colonial government couldn't or wouldn't care less; but in face of CPF, ERS, and for that matter, "Community Chest", etc., it seems less urgent. And when the needs do arise, the usual opinion (also an effect of efficient government) is again to ask "the state" to "do something"...

I am actually quite comfortable with private charities with private or sectarian agendas as long as there are no barriers of entry for all, and as long as only private money is involved. In other words, if the churches, mosques, temples (or for that matter, Dove) want to use their own money to proselytize and provide some welfare on the side, that's their business. It will only be a problem if they start using public money, and if the non- (or even anti-) church, mosque, temple (or Dove) people are not allowed to do the same. This is just freedom.

A (theoretically) true public good is such that its consumption by one person will not result in a lesser amount available for another person: no matter how much street lighting I consume, I won't reduce the amount available to you. In addition, the good would be such that attempting to exclude someone from enjoying its benefits would actually incur additional cost. Seen this way, a welfare check is definitely a private good. The consumption of a welfare handout by one recipient reduces what is available for another potential recipient, and it is trivial excluding that other person from enjoying the consumption of the same check.

But essentially private goods can have positive externalities. Suppose I, at my own expense, buy a nice cup of coffee and because I was very happy after drinking it, became extremely nice to the people around me... The coffee was consumed as an essentially private good--my drinking that cup of coffee makes it the case that no one else could drink that cup of coffee, and excluding someone else from enjoying that cup of coffee was straightforward. But in this case, there are positive externalities associated with its consumptions.

But just because there are positive externalities does not make that cup of coffee a public good. Nor is the mere presence of positive externalities makes it the case that there is reason to fund its (private) consumption via taxation. (Other wise, we might as well use tax money to fund all those people who become extremely nice to other people after their morning cup of coffee.)

Now the question is: what exactly are the positive externalities of a welfare check, and are they worth the cost--the additional burden that other people bear in additional taxation, the cost of administration, etc.--of providing it? In particular, is it worth the cost for those who are actually bearing the cost?

Earlier you said this:

That being said, a welfare check may immediately be a private good (money to their pockets not accessible to me and spent only by them, those bums *ahem*) but consider: are we also indirectly paying for a different good, like human dignity or peace of mind or assuaging your librul (sic) guilt(like buying starbucks coffee, you are actually paying for the atmosphere)?

One question that arises is this: who is this "we" who is indirectly paying for whatever? Now there are three possibilities here: someone who puts more into the system than he takes out, someone who breaks even, and someone who takes out more from the system than he puts in. Strictly speaking, only the last type can be said to enjoy welfare (that is, benefit from a welfare transfer) and only the first type can be said to be paying for the welfare (i.e., it's a transfer from them to the third type).

If there are people who would like to purchase some peace of mind, assuage their liberal guilt, the good feeling of having contributed to other people's dignity, etc., then by all means they should be allowed to go ahead and pay for these things (insofar as such a purchase is possible--but fairtrade coffee tells me that yes, even such things can be bought and sold). Presumably these are entirely good reasons to contribute to charities, etc.

But if welfare becomes a matter of state policy, then, as you said, other people no longer have a choice. Even those who are not interested in these goods have to pay. Things now slide closer to: I would like to buy some peace of mind, reduce my liberal guilt, enjoy the good feeling of having contributed to other people's dignity using not just my own but other people's money. And if the person making the argument is really from the second or third category, then what he says definitely amounts to that.

It's like going to Starbucks and saying, "I would like to buy myself some some peace of mind, reduce my liberal guilt, enjoy the good feeling of having contributed to other people's dignity by using that other guy's money to purchase some fairtrade coffee to be drank by me/this poor fellow beside me."

Huicheh:

The issue I find with the argument the 'increased govt intervention' as the (as opposed to a) factor lessening private motivation is that govt intervention occurs pretty much elsewhere, but the phenomenon of pathological non-involvement of private citizens in civil affairs is very much a local one. Unless you are making a more nuanced argument of the one of 'extent of government intervention', but then again if you are speaking of welfare strictly, Europe beats us hands-down in extent of welfarist intervention, but not in civil non-involvement. I will not disagree with the above as a factor, though.

I also agree that Singaporeans rely way too much on the government. Every time some newsperson trolls around for opinions for problems and interviews the man on the street, the answer will be a variant of 'the govt must do something more about this', including bush-fires, which were a direct result of the weather. It's a very amusing phenomenon.

And yes, I have no issue with sectarianism in private charity. The tinfoil hat question is: Does the absence of 'neutral' public welfare makes such sectarianism dangerous? I have two different model answers in mind, actually: 1) No. All such sectarianism cancels each other out (assuming that are forms of sectarianism are sufficiently permissible in Singapore) and 2)Yes. Singapore is a small place, hence certain sectarianists would tend to dominate (like as if missionaries were the only form of welfare), putting others at their mercy etc... (especially since Singapore does not have a non-discrimination clause when it comes to private endeavours).

Ah, Huicheh. The welfare check is a private good. I do not dispute this. What I am also saying is that certain other things we spend public money on *are* private goods, e.g. bullets. Street-lighting and roads are but a small subset of things the government currently spends money on. I am also saying that in order to buy certain 'intangible', externality-based public goods (national defense and social welfare) you *do* need to spend public money on private goods. Private goods are a means to an end. Therefore, the answer to the original question on whether we should spend public money on private goods is 'duh' or 'mu', depending on which way you swing. Of course, refusing to spend public money on something by virtue of it being a private good is an arbitrary and potentially dangerous piece of prescriptivism.

The other bit about coffee and stuff was just a separate side-argument for welfare assuming if we do not consider externalities. That being said, certain side goods like human dignity might apply to everybody (and hence are public), but that's a more philosophical argument than policy-ical one.

As for the externalities of a welfare check? Standard answers include a reduction of crime (I don't think this one is a valid one owing to the fact Singapore's circumstances crime-wise isn't yet a problem). Others have argued it would also result in better match for people with their jobs, as they are less desperate to grab any job that comes along and can afford to spend more time looking for jobs. Another one is better working conditions for those at the bottom of the job-scale, because they do have an option to quit (this may be a moot point due to liberal doses of foreign workers, though). Less standard (and non-serious) answers include be less tissue paper sellers annoying you, and less MRT suicides. An in-depth discussion of the virtues of welfare (or lack thereof) in itself would merit a paper in some journal somewhere, complete with awesome graphs and statistics, let alone a blog post or a mere paragraph in a long comment.

KTM:
Not to worry, this is the internet after all. Lots of people say lots of silly things here. You can choose to be amused or rubbed the wrong way ;)

Glad to see that one of my random reasons wasn't entirely random. The other random point of MNCs is money earned by MNCs here go to the MNC, not to private individuals residing here. As for NS, eh... that one I'll leave it up to your imagination to find a plausible reason.

Sorry, work caught up with me; a quick and necessarily unsatisfactory one:

The issue I find with the argument the 'increased govt intervention' as the (as opposed to a) factor lessening private motivation is that govt intervention occurs pretty much elsewhere, but the phenomenon of pathological non-involvement of private citizens in civil affairs is very much a local one.

But I wasn't talking about generic "involvement of private citizens in civil affairs" but more specifically, private charities. Needless to say, this can only be one factor among many (we are talking about messy social phenomena, not theoretical billiard balls in a frictionless void). A lot will depend on the specific sorts of "government involvement". In Singapore's case, I don't think it's just that the government has been generally efficient, but that for the longest time, it has been rather suspicious of and perhaps even hostile to civil society in general...

Of course, refusing to spend public money on something by virtue of it being a private good is an arbitrary and potentially dangerous piece of prescriptivism.

You are right about that. But this suggests to me that what I wanted to say is not best formulated in terms of the private vs. public good distinction. That is, the thing about the welfare check that I wanted to point out, on hindsight, can't be that it is a private good--that's neither here nor there. Rather, we are ultimately talking about a transfer form one group to another (transfer, not exchange): taking money from certain people who put more into the system than they take out, to people form whom the reverse applies. And the point of my post was to suggest that we need to be absolutely clear just is it that we are asking for in asking for welfare, and given that, (b) we should be clear just what are the supposed benefits/positive externalities that are meant to result from such transfers.

The intent of the post wasn't to argue against welfare (as I said before, I am not in principle against the provision of welfare; I'm incline to roughly the position sketched out in F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 133-135) but an attempt to get clear on the "not uncommon line of argument". In this regard, even without invoking any awesome graphs and statistics, it surely has to be the case that if the state provision of welfare is a good thing, it can't be just because it is a good thing for me, my kids or my parents: I do expect public money to be spent (or transfers to be made) ultimately for the public good. If no attempt is even made to bring in that larger backdrop (e.g., the whole issue about positive externalities), the "not uncommon line of argument" seems, unfortunately, rather self-serving.

But I doubt you disagree (given your citation of the standard answer).

I agree completely but I'd give those who can only see the effects on their immediate family, friends and family a break. We've all got bigger fish to fry.

Now, back to work for me too.

I feel the government is right in encouraging people to take care of their parents. One should not rely on the government if he is able to support his parent financially. It's just a nature thing to do... they are your parents after all!

I don't agree that because you pay your taxes (no matter how much), the government should take care of your parents. It's just morally incorrect. And sadly we are seeing a lot of these cases happening nowadays. This is just so wrong.

The rationalistic angle from which this author approaches this question seems rather insensitive to the history of our older generation as well as practical realities -- a common failing of analytical philosophers. For the practical aspect: To speak in the abstract of providing a safety net is to imply that there is none now. But our medical subsidies (among other things) for the elderly is not merely workfare (after all they're not really productive aren't they?). As for the historical aspect: These aren't just normal elderly people who just happen to be living in a rather capitalistic first world country. They are the ones who bore the brunt of the heat on the road towards development. They worked hard believing that a more prosperous life awaited themselves and their progeny. Now some of them sweep our roads and clean our toilets while the younger generation takes off on holidays and indulges in conspicuous consumption, often beyond their means. To say that ,"princely liberality consists in being generous with what belongs to someone else" sounds incredibly callous and cynical to me. If some part of modern day's Singapore's prosperity doesn't belong to them, then who does it belong to?

"The Labourious in their decay should be treated as the parents of the State. -- Demosthenes, (Phill. 4.)