A dark day for Denmark - the 20 november 2001

[Winston]

The worries about immigration in Denmark stems from the fact that large groups of immigrants aren't immersed into society, they are marginalised - and they marginalise themselves. A rather large portion come here for the welfare benefits and have no intention of contributing - let alone adapt to the way of life in a modern economy.

I don't know where you got the 3% figure BTW, we have 350,000 people of non-western descent here, which equals 7% of the population.

This population segment of 7% receive close to 40% of the welfare benefits, which may also help explain why Joe Ordinary thinks we should be more aware of whom we let in...

[Bereta_Eder]

hmmm only 350.000?

We have 1,2 million people of non EU descent here and most of them are albanians.

And all that happened in just 5-8 years...


Should I be worried? (BTW it's a bit more than 10% of the population).

And we need EU assistance in guarding the frontiers against illigal aliens because they are coming from everywhere, we are surrounded by much much poorer countries than us and we don't have a common frontier with another EU country.

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW Winston, what do you mean they don't want to contribute?

They work, don't they?
They pay taxes no?

[Roland]

Winston:

"The worries about immigration in Denmark stems from the fact that large groups of immigrants aren't immersed into society, they are marginalised - and they marginalise themselves."

You always have groups that marginalise themselves. As long as they respect the laws, why not ?

"I don't know where you got the 3% figure BTW, we have 350,000 people of non-western descent here, which equals 7% of the population."

3-5 %; I had a mid-90s nr that gave about 4 %; non-nationals is up to 5 % I see (Austria or Germany: 9 %). But if you take Asia (incl Turkey) and Africa together, it's about 2.5 %. With naturalised and illegal ones would be a bit more...

"This population segment of 7% receive close to 40% of the welfare benefits, which may also help explain why Joe Ordinary thinks we should be more aware of whom we let in..."

Better regulation, why not. I just wonder about your welfare laws. And I'd find it more interesting what share of immigrants is on welfare...

[Winston]

Re: The welfare state and the increasing need for reform people feel, which I fell asleep over last night:

Venstre won the election by emphazising some key points which the Social Democratic government were unable to adress:

1) Putting the needs of people before the needs of systems. Too many of the decisions affecting people's lives are made not by themselves but by government-employed caretakers. All too often people feel they're restricted rather than benefit from what is basically an inhumane arrangement when you think about it.

2) Promoting freedom of choice in as many areas as possible where people interact with the welfare state. Allowing for people to choose between different institutions or ways of fulfilling their needs in the areas of e.g. health care, day care, care for the elderly, and education. This will be achieved by letting subsidies be granted on the basis of individuals, not institutions - allowing people to put that subsidy (100% in most cases) to use with the institution of their choice, be it publicly or privately run.

3) Sanitizing the virtual jungle of welfare benefits in this country to make sure that only people who have the need for benefits receive them. As a horrendous example (which won't be changed significantly by this government, but serves as a good example nonetheless) families with kids receive a quarterly cheque from the government to help fulfill their children's needs. Depending on the age of the child, it varies between USD 1,500-2,000 per year per child. This is taxfree which equals a taxable income of USD 4,500-6,000 in benefits per child. Quite a handsome sum if you decide to have a couple of kids - or even a handful...

Here comes the good part: You receive this benefit whether you actually need it or not. Whether you make the minimum wages or 10 million a year. Last year we spent more on this program than we did on defense and justice combined. There are countless other programs which make just as little sense, well-off people getting supported by the government eventhough they could manage perfectly well on their own. Thus inevitably leaving fewer funds for the people who are actually in dire need of additional help.

4) Encouraging people to hold jobs and support themselves instead of receiving welfare. With our system of high welfare rates and extremely high taxation of work income, quite a large group of people would actually make the same or even less if they went from welfare to supporting themselves. This has got to change, through a mix of lifting taxation on low incomes and reforming the current welfare benefits.

The welfare state is a brilliant concept for securing that no people in society are left out. But it has got to change in the way it works because it doesn't even come close to meeting people's expectations the way it is now. A Liberal government will be able to reform it so that it'll actually work the way it was supposed to: As a safety net under the needy, not a system to be milked for benefits by 85% of the population.

[Roland]

ad 1)

The "caretaker" approach seems to be typically scandinavian, at least in the extreme form. Sweden's "home for the people", or so ? I always found it extremely patronizing.

ad 2)

IIRC you have a sort of national health service, rather than an insurance system ?

ad 3)

We have a very similar child benefit system. Can't be arsed to criticise that much though, because for most people, it just works as a tax break... actually, about 20 % of it is construed a s a tax refund....

"well-off people getting supported by the government eventhough they could manage perfectly well on their own."

I think you need to see this in context with the tax rates, ie the balance of total state-related income withdrawal and transfer.

Ad 4)

Is welfare cut or withdrawn when the recipients are able to work and don't try to get a job, or at least qualifications ?

[Winston]

Of course people are free to isolate themselves and not contribute to society. However, Danes feel we're under no obligation to let anymore of these people in (through family reunification and phony asylum applications). The people we're talking about here aren't politcal refugees, they're welfare immigrants. Many Danes feel that we shouldn't support immigrants that won't play a useful rule in society (unless they're persecuted and thereby legitimate refugees).

People who travel halfway round the Globe aren't refugees any longer according to my definition. If they weren't seeking welfare in the West, they'd have stopped the instant they weren't persecuted, i.e. out of their own country. The UN should govern the allocation and support of political refugees to make sure that wealthy countries pay their fair share too.

[Bereta_Eder]

No objection with the attempt to rasionalize your welfare system.

I am very sceptical however in «giving a choice» between private and public INDIVINDUAL health security.

Why would a person chose to put their subsidies in a private health care since it would logically be more expensive than a public one?

And wouldn't the unavoidable reduction of funds towards the public health care coffers eventually lead to the worsening of public health system standars? (such as infastructure, services etc).

what happens if a private health care scheme doesn't cover critical medical needs and it is too expensive for an individual to have a complete medical care cover by a private fund? Would the state chip in?

ok got to go. Talk to you later. Thanks for the info on your positions (that you now have the chance of implementing )

[Bereta_Eder]

Before I go I repear my question in order to understand what you mean:

BTW Winston, what do you mean they don't want to contribute?

They work, don't they?
They pay taxes no?

[Winston]

Roland, yes we have a national health service, no insurance worth speaking of (supplementary insurance to pay for glasses, dental care etc., which are still heavily subsidized to begin with).

Re. welfare cuts for people who can work but won't: It's a bit of a muddle there because there are such an incredible number of intertwining programs. They'd lose some, especially people under the age of 25.

But my point was that a person on social security taking a job (e.g. after coming to the country and having settled in, learned the language etc., or a single parent returning to work after the kids have come of age) would most likely lose money or break even. They'd lose the social security of course, and most likely additional benefits like housing benefit, heating benefits, increased child support, increased subsidies for day care - you name it, and they'd face the extremely high taxation even on low income. This is detrimental both to society and to the person who could very well be trapped in this dilemma for life.

In my view, it's not a matter of adjusting decimal points only. If you hold a job, you should be making substantially more than if you didn't. You put something in, your standard of living should increase more than just marginally.

[Winston]

paiktis,

Some immigrants work, especially those that have been here for 20+ years. But a lot of the newcomers don't. They move in their own little circles, make no effort to learn the language and thus wouldn't be able to hold a work even if that was their intention, which in many cases it isn't. Society has no interest in encouraging more of those to come here, I'm sure you'll agree.

A pretty large number of especially Turks and Pakistanis are self employed or employees and thus pay taxes. Those aren't the problem, never have been.

[Roland]

"no insurance worth speaking of"

We have a public insurance system, but the services are done by hospitals and doctors of your choice. Is there competition at the service level ?

"They'd lose the social security of course, and most likely additional benefits like housing benefit, heating benefits, increased child support, increased subsidies for day care - you name it, and they'd face the extremely high taxation even on low income."

We don't have the problem to that extent, but it will always show up at some level. Welfare+extra child support vs a parttime job, for example. That's why I think an extra welfare to work incentive is more important than the actual level of welfare.

[Roland]

"A pretty large number of especially Turks and Pakistanis are self employed or employees and thus pay taxes. Those aren't the problem, never have been."

So what are the problem groups ? From my anecdotal experience, eg Iranians are often well-qualified. People from the Philippines work hard. Turks seem to have a weird talent for small shops. Hmm...

[Bas]

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but since the Netherlands have been mentioned a couple of times, I think I should give some facts.

First of all, the dutch coalition isn't really centre-left. On the other hand, it isn't centre-right either: it consists of three parties, the social-democrat PvdA, the liberal VVD, and D'66, a fairly small centrist party. It was originally formed in 1994 (IIRC) as the first coalition for a long time (probably the first coalition ever) without the Christian democrats CDA. They performed well the first period, but this second time friction is arising, so probably another coalition will be formed after the next elections.

On the subject of immigrants, I don't know any overall figures of percentages of foreigners, but it is true that in most of the big cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht) very large portions of the population are of foreign descent. Most of them are from Morocco, Turkey, Surinam, the Dutch Antilles, and various countries in the middle east and Africa (Iran, Afghanistan, Angola, Somalia, etc.). Not everyone is happy with that, though, and certain ethnic groups are often stigmatized. Which is not very surprising, since relatively large fractions of those groups regularly cause trouble (Moroccan youngsters come to mind). What a lot of people don't realize though is that these troublemakers are still a small fraction of the group as a whole. Another thing that's annoying to many people are the large amounts of illegal immigrants (far too much, IMO), the way they are allowed to profit from welfare etc. and the fact that next to nothing is done to get/keep them out of the country, and the unwillingness/inability of many foreigners to speak Dutch.
Still, I think that the people get along better over here than for example in Britain (at least, I can't imagine racial riots over here), but there's certainly IMO increasing friction between the immigrants and the native Dutch.

OK, that was not totally pure fact, but nevertheless, my 2 cents.

[Winston]

paiktis, Roland,

People in this country don't pay for health care today, and they won't have to under the new government either.

What we're proposing is that the government will allocate a standard rate for a specific treatment to each individual in need thereof. People won't be handed the money but it'll be noted that this person is in need of e.g. a hip replacement and that DKK 60,000 is what it would cost to have the surgery performed at a public hospital.

If the patients wants, he can sign up for surgery at a public hospital that he's comfortable with from past experience, that is close to his home etc. - or he'd be able to choose another, privately or publicly run hospital.

Now if he chooses a public one he may well have to deal with a waiting list of 6-9 months, as there's an undercapacity in public health care for certain treatments. This waiting may cause him to lose income (or even his job), increased pain and general deterioration of his health.

If he puts up an additional DKK 10-20,000, he might be able to have his surgery performed the next week at a private hospital and be back in business in no time.

This is the freedom of choice we want to give people. No one will suffer anything from such a system, quite the contrary. In fact, it'll swiftly let off the steam from the overheated public hospitals, thereby allowing the majority of people who'd still frequent them to get better and faster care and treatment.

It's so simple it almost hurts. No different than choosing one doctor over another, which we all have done at some point. You go to see the doctor and you don't bring any money. If you decide you want to have a private specialist look at you, you pay the difference between his fee and the standard rate for a consultation.

But nobody is forcing you to do one thing or another. You actually have a choice. We want to extend that principle into the area of hospital treatment as well (among other things).