But social security carries a risk: the risk that some will abuse the system, taking without giving. It's a risk we seem increasingly unwilling to accept. Attitudes are changing. Yet coming down hard on the unemployed also carries a risk. The risk that we penalise those who want to work but cannot in a time of high unemployment, when jobs are scarce in one part of the country and moving is not an option. Some out-of-work people in my congregation hardly have the train fare to get to somewhere else let alone the means of setting up home there.So, we want to bear down on those who won't work, but we know that the more heavily we do, the more we risk penalising those who would work if they could. So what are we to do? John Maynard Keynes said that the test for any new social policy should be that the final outcome must not only be better than what went before, it must be sufficiently better to make up for the pain of transition that some would bear.As we debate changes to welfare, I look for some overarching principle to guide me. My golden rule would be this: that I don't ask others to pay a price I in their shoes would find unbearable.
社保制度存在风险，有些人会滥用该体系，只知收取，不知给予。我们对此的态度在改变，越来越不能容忍这种风险的存在。但如果对失业人群置之不理也存在风险，因为如果局部地区失业率很高，工作难找，而人们又没办法迁居其他地区，这部分失业人口就会因之遭受重创。在我教区的有些失业人口连去其他地方的火车票都买不起。我们不想容忍那些不愿意工作的人，但我们也知道，我们越是对这些人采取严厉措施，就越会损害到那些想工作而无法工作的人。那我们该怎么办？John Maynard Keynes说，测试任何新的社会制度，不能只看最终结果是否比之前的好，还要看这结果能否有效补偿在制度转变过程中受损人群的损失。在我们为社会福利的改变争论时，我寻找能指导我的大方针。我的黄金法则如下：如果我站在对方的角度觉得无法承受，那么我也绝不会要求别人来承受。
