@W33k3nd394
Just because that is how the system works doesn’t mean it is correct. A lot of people are about to find out that no matter how much they’ve paid in, they’ll be entitled to very little back, if anything at all. If you think that’s going to make everyone suddenly very left wing and support a Corbynist style government, then I think you are mistaken. I think it will do the opposite. Many Net contributors ( those earning circa 30k and above) will likely vote for lower taxes and dismantling of the benefit system (some might think there is no point in if they didn’t get anything when they needed it).
The reason there is wider support for a welfare state in countries like Germany and Scandinavia is because people who have contributed are eligible for support, when they need it. They have a contributory benefits system in those famously right wing countries. We have a means tested benefits system, so we have just over half the population contributing to support the other (just under) half but those who contribute are eligible for nothing, or a small amount.
We did have a contributory system from after WW2 until 1979, when it became means tested. The architects of the post war welfare state understood the principal that in order for there to be wide spread support for a welfare state then everyone must contribute and everyone must be eligible for support.
Support for the welfare state has decreased since 1979 as means testing has continuously alienated those who are capable of contributing and encouraged them to vote in governments who don’t want a welfare state at all and act to dismantle it.
I personally think we should try and emulate countries like Germany and Scandinavia, which would mean higher taxes (doesn’t necessarily have to all be a raise in income tax as we could look at a land tax for properties over a certain amount or a luxury car tax, for example). Germany and Scandinavia do pay out a higher amount to those who have contributed, for a time limited period, both because it is fair to do so but also because sometimes people are redundant as their skills are becoming obsolete and paying those people enough to cover their bills allows them to time to retrain and re-enter the workforce, becoming contributors again.
The other thing to consider is that those who contribute quite often only need short term support (due to redundancy during a recession or pandemic) as they tend to have built up the qualifications and experience to rejoin the workforce more quickly. In other words, they have no barriers to work, other than a recession / pandemic which are usually short term blips.
There will always be a section of society that requires long term state support but in order to provide this then we need the buy in from those that contribute. In my opinion, the way to get this buy in is to emulate countries like Germany and Scandinavia, if it works there, why can’t it work here? However the answer is to engage those who have worked, paid taxes and saved, not alienate them.
Some might say it’s all by design though. Alienating those that are capable of contributing and encouraging them to vote for parties who will set up individual (personal unemployment and private health, for example) insurance, rather than the collective ones we have had since the 1940s. Think about it, no free at the point of service healthcare, do you think someone on minimum wage can afford to pay for private healthcare because they are suddenly paying less tax? Answer - no because they weren’t paying much tax in the first place.
It could go either way to be fair, perhaps we could end up with a more egalitarian society after all this. I don’t think it will, I think the seeds have been sown (over many years) for us to become, at best like the USA - much more limited state provision than we have now. It could potentially become worse than that, look at the anti immigrant rhetoric and think about how the 1930s ended up.