Yes, the principle of European social policy is that you get out what you put in. The principle of UK/US social policy is that you have an entitlement to a small amount of money because you are a citizen (univeralism).
Because you seem to not understand some part of this: in Europe, if you make $100k/year and you lose your job the state will pay you a percentage of your previous income for a fixed period of time (and you then get nothing or put onto a long-term unemployed program). For example, 75% so you will get pro rata $75k/year. In the UK/US, if you lose your job you will get $x/year, regardless of your previous job and what you contributed to the system (i.e. it is redistributive...some people pay a lot into the system and get nothing, people who pay nothing in get the most...insurance doesn't work this way).
The history isn't worth going into but the European welfare state was invented by Conservatives. The US/UK welfare state was invented by Socialists. Practically, what most people think about the European system is almost 100% wrong: the US/UK welfare system is intended to intervene in the market, the European welfare system is not (and the Nordic countries are usually most strident about not interfering in the market, particularly Denmark which has very high rates of job creation/destruction).
Just to be totally clear: what most Americans are being sold by Democrats is a total fiction. There is no alternative to the market. Every country that has had politicians that tried to outsmart the market has failed (the Nordic countries did this in the 80s, they were bankrupt by the early 90s). The US already has the most heavily redistributive social policy anywhere. If it isn't working, that doesn't mean you need to go further.
And yes, that is why I suggested you read about it yourself. This is seminal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Ca... - but social policy is perhaps one of the biggest areas in comparative politics (because the importance of context/history is so evident).
Strange, I know several in Sweden who receive social money from the state and can live a decent life and they haven't worked a single hour in their life. How is that possible if "you only get what you put in"? Unemployment is different of course, but that is capped at a very low level so in most cases it is essentially fixed unless you have a private employment insurance.
Totally agree. Short-ish term unemployment is (beside pensions) the only social program I can think of that pays out depending on what you payed in. Thus I also have a real problem with the sentiment of "you have contribute to get taken care of" in GPs original comment.
Social programs take care of you based on needs, regardless what you payed in. Healthcare (the public program) gives the same service to everyone while having you to pay a % of income. You won't get neither more housing nor child benefit by having payed in more.
Yes, unemployment is a bit of a special case since its goal is to minimize disruption on peoples live in case of sudden job loss. Not just being a basic safety net... those are available to everyone.
Right, and the thing that you have chosen as the "only" example is probably the most important aspect of the Nordic system, relatively, within European social policy.
Yes, I explained that above. Again: in most European countries you will usually get put into a long-term unemployment program. More information: this benefit can and does get removed totally (if you refuse work, it stops), and in most European countries you will be required to essentially perform work in these programs (i.e. retraining). The only way to obtain money without performing work is to be disabled. That is it.
Why I have to tell you this is unclear? Just look on the internet. Too much like hard work, amirite comrade? Also, you are not only reasoning from your sample size of "people I know" but that is limited to one country...at least try to be serious.
I'm from Sweden so that is what I'm aware of, and I have a hard time finding anything aspect with more benefits in the US than in Sweden. For example our unemployment benefits works almost exactly like USA (up to $550 a week in USA but not higher than you earned, up to 20000kr a month in Sweden but not higher than you earned). So I don't see how the American system is special, it seems kinda standard to me.
> The only way to obtain money without performing work is to be disabled. That is it.
Right, but getting a diagnosis from a psychologist that you are depressed or similar and can't work is not very hard. I've also received this kind of aid before I got a job so I know.
Because you seem to not understand some part of this: in Europe, if you make $100k/year and you lose your job the state will pay you a percentage of your previous income for a fixed period of time (and you then get nothing or put onto a long-term unemployed program). For example, 75% so you will get pro rata $75k/year. In the UK/US, if you lose your job you will get $x/year, regardless of your previous job and what you contributed to the system (i.e. it is redistributive...some people pay a lot into the system and get nothing, people who pay nothing in get the most...insurance doesn't work this way).
The history isn't worth going into but the European welfare state was invented by Conservatives. The US/UK welfare state was invented by Socialists. Practically, what most people think about the European system is almost 100% wrong: the US/UK welfare system is intended to intervene in the market, the European welfare system is not (and the Nordic countries are usually most strident about not interfering in the market, particularly Denmark which has very high rates of job creation/destruction).
Just to be totally clear: what most Americans are being sold by Democrats is a total fiction. There is no alternative to the market. Every country that has had politicians that tried to outsmart the market has failed (the Nordic countries did this in the 80s, they were bankrupt by the early 90s). The US already has the most heavily redistributive social policy anywhere. If it isn't working, that doesn't mean you need to go further.
And yes, that is why I suggested you read about it yourself. This is seminal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Ca... - but social policy is perhaps one of the biggest areas in comparative politics (because the importance of context/history is so evident).