Dutch King: Say Goodbye to Welfare State

reply to post by ManFromEurope

Then people need to be trained or train themselves and certain expectations should be placed on them to produce. I also think an imperfect worker is better than an unemployed person begging for help???? So perhaps we should not be quite so picky about who we employ because it's better than not employing them. An unemployed person is not paying taxes and is not working and they usually aren't exercising either. They're a bomb waiting to go off. And when they go off, someobody will have to help them or let them die. Most people will help someone hurting and that's why we have this welfare state at all. This is why families will help a family member who doesn't work, even if they don't deserve it. Humans have a weakness - they help people who don't deserve to be helped.

Bottom line, we need to get as many people employed as possible. We probably have to lower work performance expectations, but it's better than not doing anything at all.

There're a lot of homeless people and people who're no longer shown on the unemployment lists. These're the kind of people we need to get working.

Work is better than no work, no matter how effective it's. My opinion. We have a expectation bubble placed on workers and also possibly a wage bubble. Maybe we should lower the minimum wage. We have to lower something to get these people working. Once they're working, they'll probably improve over time too - something to consider.

Freeborn
reply to post by hangedman13

 

Of course people are not gonna like the Dutch Kings idea,.....

It's not the 'King's idea'; the Dutch King addresses the nation each year presenting the budget for the coming year in a speech written for him by the Prime Minister.

It's the much the same as here in the UK when once a year the Queen attends the Opening Of Parliament and reads out a speech prepared for her giving details of the Bills that the government intend to introduce to Parliament during that year.

I can understand how those who don't have Constitutional Monarchies like The Netherlands and the UK would be confused by such proceedings but the reality is that our relative monarchs have very, very little influence over the policies of our ruling governments.

--
Oh wow how about that?? I learned something new, well I guess I never really looked into it and history only tells me that Monarchies have,
ABSOLUTE UNRIVALED SUPREME RULE OF ITS PEOPLE AND NATION.
for king and country.....

i would be in favour of this if you/ family have done nothing for a country why should you get the benefits of others hard work /blood sacrifice .

outsiders can/do come to my country and get better housing than me even though i paid in a massive amount of tax in my time .

only the old /weak should get help and others for a certain time i was brought up on if you can walk you can work ethic .

i do not get benefits so why should someone get benefits if they have not paid into the pot

reply to post by jonnywhite


The bubble is in this, people in Europe pay high tax and must join a pensionfund.
One cannot simply say, ohh the welfare state is over while people have been paying for it all their life through taxation.
And they will have to pay even more tax while knowing that everything is being destroyed.
The end of a welfare state? good, but then also give back what they have payed all these years and stop taxation.

You make it sound like people are not working in Europe, that is far from the truth, usualy unemployment is around 4 percent, and the retirement age is 67, well here in the Netherlands.
I don't see a bubble in health care cost, but a unnecessary layer of managers who like to earn a high salary and kick out the workers to reduce costs.
There is a big job carousel between politicians and other high placed people that profit from just about everything by generating jobs with good salaries.
In health care this comes down to less for the patient, less salery for personal that actually do the work, and they even lose their jobs through reorganisations.
Everything has to come more and more from volunteers, doing this work without being payed, noone can live on that.

Funny the biggest welfare recipient complain about other welfare recipients. Last year Shell made over 12 billion in profit not bad for a company that was given to the Royal family based on nothing more than birth. What's worst the deadbeat sitting at home collecting a few bucks or a Royal deadbeat who is making billions when this money should be going to the people.

CB328

a "participation society" is emerging, in which people must take responsibility for their own future and create their own social and financial safety nets

Wow, it sounds like the Republicans' class warfare got appropriated by some royals who were looking for a good line of BS to bankrupt their people.

How in the $%^& can poor people "create their own safety nets"???

You can't take everything away from people in a modern society and have them survive. It's not like they all have farms and can start feeding themselves.
You will have people rioting and killing themselves like what happened in Greece so the rich can have some fun.

Socialism never worked in the first place, doesn't work now and will never work in the future. America is in the same situation, except Netherlands can't print their own currency and force the world to transact in it through military force.

Progressives you need to sit down, you're wrong on this. You can't force people to do anything, there is something wrong when you claim to be moral but use that as an excuse to exert violence on those who do not wish to participate in your "self-proclaimed path to righteousness"

So will the King be looking for a job now or....?

reply to post by Floydshayvious


Does he own the land?

reply to post by eLPresidente


I wonder how you see socialism?

I'm living in the Netherlands and thus in a social state which has been working for years, untill the whole mantra of privatization broke loose in the early 90s and banks were allowed to fuse/grow to be 'to big to fail'.
In short, the line between the state and private sector has been wiped out while the state kept paying money to companies that were privatized and on the other side gives a garantee to the banks.
So state subsidized companies atracts expensive managers, in housing, health care, public transportation, education and energy and they have one goal, growth, the companies must generate profit so the shareholders are happy.
For this they reorganise often and lay off people, cut in services untill the whole house of cards eventually collapses.
The banks have received a free card, the garantee means that their profits are private while their losses are for the taxpayers.

A social state to me is education for every child paid by the collective so no child is left behind, same goes for health care.
If one has no work he will get social benefit, but also has the obligation to sollicitate at least twice a week to get a job again.
Because we have to join a pensionfund and a part of our salary goes to pension, we should not have to be to concerned about later, after all, we have been paying for it for 45 or more years.
It would still work if the state companies were not privatized and did what they are supposed to do, serve the public and not being concerned with making profits and build a layer of expensive managers who think they at least should have half a million a year for what they do.
And the state should not garantee the losses of private companies, if a bank fails, to bad for them, they should not take to much risks.
The banks should be cut into many little banks so they are 'to small to bail' than they will think twice before they make a mess of it and risk the downfall of their business.

reply to post by eLPresidente

Socialism never worked in the first place, doesn't work now and will never work in the future.

Socialism works as long as the government is honest. And it works quite well in several countries not to mention stocks in socialist countries do better than in capitalist countries.

reply to post by xuenchen


"Participation Society" = another euphemism to hide how public money is being syphoned into private hands.

Socialism and the welfare state only really begun after WW2 when working-class heroes returned from the battlefields and found their homes bombed and their families dead or displaced. They set about rebuilding their countries and rightly, demanded a stake and put their hands in their pockets (at source), to pay for it, much to the chagrin of the establishment. It's called the 'social contract' and were it not for corporate and personal greed, it would work well.

The Dutch parliament/monarchy/establishment have shown their hand; it is the hand that steals from the common man to fuel the rapaciousness of the, for want of a better word, beast.

reply to post by teapot

It's called the 'social contract' and were it not for corporate and personal greed, it would work well.

"IF" is the biggest word in the dictionary !

Corporate and personal greed. Hmmm.

And so goes the ways of all nations that have attempted the Idealistic, Philosophical wizardry of Grampaw Karl Marx.

Corporatism has done well on the worldwide scenes from Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism, and all other variations.

It's almost like it was planned or something

Take a real close look at the general international Corporate structures.

See any coincidental similarities ?

It's not easy to beat the most powerful organization principal in the history of the world.

It's been on full throttle for around 100 years now.

reply to post by spartacus699


What a great way to create a slave society. The progressive rich ruin the economy by offering lots of social programs and when they run out of other people's money, they offer to feed you 3 hots and give you a cot in exchange for back breaking menial labor. Sounds like a great plan if you are one of the rich.

reply to post by buster2010


Comparing countries is rather dubious when you have to consider the populations and status of how many immigrants both legal and illegal that join into the welfare system.

It's Cloward and Pivens method to overwhelm the system from within to destroy it. Seems like they have won.

The Dutch royal family (the corrupt bunch of smiling, waving, crowd pleasing bunch of assholes that they are, just like my native UK) founded the Bilderberg Group. Has the penny dropped yet? To judge from many of the replies here, I guess not. Wake the hell up people!

earthling42
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I wonder how you see socialism?

I'm living in the Netherlands and thus in a social state which has been working for years, untill the whole mantra of privatization broke loose in the early 90s and banks were allowed to fuse/grow to be 'to big to fail'.
In short, the line between the state and private sector has been wiped out while the state kept paying money to companies that were privatized and on the other side gives a garantee to the banks.
So state subsidized companies atracts expensive managers, in housing, health care, public transportation, education and energy and they have one goal, growth, the companies must generate profit so the shareholders are happy.
For this they reorganise often and lay off people, cut in services untill the whole house of cards eventually collapses.
The banks have received a free card, the garantee means that their profits are private while their losses are for the taxpayers.

A social state to me is education for every child paid by the collective so no child is left behind, same goes for health care.
If one has no work he will get social benefit, but also has the obligation to sollicitate at least twice a week to get a job again.
Because we have to join a pensionfund and a part of our salary goes to pension, we should not have to be to concerned about later, after all, we have been paying for it for 45 or more years.
It would still work if the state companies were not privatized and did what they are supposed to do, serve the public and not being concerned with making profits and build a layer of expensive managers who think they at least should have half a million a year for what they do.
And the state should not garantee the losses of private companies, if a bank fails, to bad for them, they should not take to much risks.
The banks should be cut into many little banks so they are 'to small to bail' than they will think twice before they make a mess of it and risk the downfall of their business.

It doesn't matter how anybody sees socialism, it is immoral to force anybody to do anything.

If socialists were so compassionate, why wouldn't they call it voluntary socialism? Why would you advocate the use of force to get your way? If socialism was so great, people would come to IT vs using violence to force people IN.

You don't have to convince me to let big banks fail, I advocate a free market and in a free market, the government doesn't get to give "bailouts". Bailouts is what many progressives AND conservatives wanted because it would harm people in the short term due to chaotic nature of stock dumping and human behavior during a crisis. Even though a majority of Americans didn't want to bail out the big banks in 2008, people still cried out for it, in the name of saving the poor and the middle class.

Your fight against big bank bailouts isn't with me, in fact it is with a lot of your socialist friends.

teapot
reply to post by xuenchen

 

It's called the 'social contract' and were it not for corporate and personal greed, it would work well.

I'm sorry teapot, there is no such thing as a social contract, this is b.s. that progressives cooked up to make young people believe they have an obligation to let the state steal their money.

I never signed any contract, did you?



Socialist propaganda....gotta love it.........

reply to post by eLPresidente

Your fight against big bank bailouts isn't with me, in fact it is with a lot of your socialist friends.

Your Conservative buddies are the ones that pushed for the bailout. They even had to go behind closed doors to get it done.

eLPresidente
If socialism was so great, people would come to IT vs using violence to force people IN.

Tell that to the millions trying to immigrate into the EU!



And to all you yanks claiming this is a example of failed EU states.

I will point you too Norway, Sweadon and Denmark................. Hardly examples of failed states mainly cause they minimised there involvemnet with the Euro.

Whats causing the EU problem is not welfare but the 1 currency which was a good idea until the rich countrys started invited destitute countrys like greece into it!

Double post