> Bolsa Familia is not a basic income. It fails to fix the fundamental problem with current welfare: that it is a disincentive to reemployment.
I don't think it's disincentive to reemployment in this case, because being unemployed is not a requirement to receive the money, just being below a certain level of income per family member. Those families can both receive the benefit and work, as the program has the potential to stimulate the local economy and create business opportunities or jobs that didn't existed before.
> This has nothing to do with socialism.
Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of centralized government of all kinds, through the medium of taxation. And governments of all kinds already redistribute wealth in pursuit of social goals, whether they are socialist or not.
> I don't think it's disincentive to reemployment in this case, because being unemployed is not a requirement to receive the money, just being below a certain level of income per family member.
Well, I personally know people that refuse to work because they get the benefit, and even a minimum salary would make them ineligible.
Bolsa Familia is fixing several people into poverty.
Minimum salary won't get you out of poverty either. It means 2-4h in a packed bus, work for someone else, see your kids only when they're sleeping, have no alternative but public health and education, which usually is hellish.
I'm sorry, but for some reason I can't believe you.
The program currently pays per family, tops, R$ 306. Minimum wage is more than double. I don't see why mentally and physically capable people would refuse the opportunity of doubling their income.
Some can make more by taking informal jobs, which they don't have to report. With that, they are locked into a local maximum. And I've heard anecdotes from social workers of people who do prefer taking the "free" money to working. When you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of families, there will always be a few outliers.
There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research...
I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles. A state that uses tax money and reverts back into public services though is more often said to be only a welfare state.
Sounds like, in short, taxation to help the poor is socialism, while taxation to help the rich is not. Which I suppose is true, but not exactly a reason to avoid socialism.
>Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic.
>I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles.
This doesn't follow. If they were abolishing property rights, then yes you might have a point, but this is nothing new. It doesn't erode away any of the problematic power relations in a pre-socialist economy.
It's like equating the following:
>There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research...
with fascism.
It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort.
I'm also curious as to why you don't classify the above corporate welfare as socialism as well.
> You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic.
I'm giving my definition, as someone who knows what goes on inside this country.
The program was put in practice under a left-wing government, whose president was the head of the worker party and went to jail during the right-wing, US-supported, military dictatorship we had in Brazil from 1964 to 1986.
So even though the program looks like "just" welfare, there's a strong socialist doctrine behind it, revolving around redistribution of wealth and the maintenance of the left-wing in power. Mind you, the same party that implemented the program won all four subsequent elections for presidency.
> It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort.
Nothing of the sort? It's pretty close a description of where the US government invests it's tax money, and there are quite a few people who classify it as a fascist government. The fact it's a military power, ran by a two-party system where both sit on the same axis of the political spectrum, with a strong nationalism sentiment and martialist culture are often given as indicators.
I don't think it's disincentive to reemployment in this case, because being unemployed is not a requirement to receive the money, just being below a certain level of income per family member. Those families can both receive the benefit and work, as the program has the potential to stimulate the local economy and create business opportunities or jobs that didn't existed before.
> This has nothing to do with socialism.
Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.